(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Evangelicals and anti-CRT rhetoric: I was perplexed, but now I think I understand. :( [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags']
Date: 2022-07-14
When “Critical Race Theory” was first raised as a bugaboo among right wing circles, I have to admit that I was perplexed. First—I felt left out. Wait! There’s a radical theory about race in America that I hadn’t heard of? Why didn’t I get the memo??? I mean, I’d listened to the 1619 Project podcast and I have to admit I was impressed. The idea that there are people who deeply love this country that doesn’t love them back—that just grabs at the heart. But nowhere did I hear anything really new, at least theory-wise. Every bit of the history lined up with stuff I’d already learned. The innovation was putting it all together. So where was the theory? I just had no clue.
But second—when I was finally brought up to speed (somewhat), I was informed by (white) Evangelical Christians that the major offense was that putting it all together would make (white, Christian, Evangelical) people uncomfortable, even provoking them into feeling… guilt. HORRORS! What worse fate could befall any person??? And that perplexed me. Because as I got to thinking about it, Evangelical Christians should, in fact, embrace CRT! It fits so well into their theology!
Now that you are perplexed about me and my sanity, let me explain that theology. You may or may not agree with it—most likely you don’t—but bear with me.
Evangelical Christians really like them some Original Sin. This is not strictly biblical in the sense that no verse ever really talks about “original sin,” but this is the theory that the original humans messed up not just themselves but every human after them—the “origin” of “sin.” Basically the flaws of humanity are baked in; one can’t just “be good enough” to overcome those flaws. Even the drive to “be good enough” is flawed. For those of you keeping score, this is the argument for why a savior is needed. A divine rescue is needed, an atonement. There are several theories of how that atonement worked in the Christ, but the result is the same. Rather than humans self-saving (I guess this would be the ultimate selfie!), some are rescued by the gift from this savior. And how is that gift accessed? Through processes different to each group of Christians but which include elements of repentance, confession, baptism, forgiveness of sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Okay. Enough of this. That’s basic Christian theology since Augustine. We could go down a lot of rabbit holes, but let’s not. Instead, let’s look at one last question: If I’m inherently flawed, how do I get to repentance, etc., in the first place?
Evangelical Christians say you get to repentance through the conviction of sin. Basically this is a judicial thing. If you want mercy from the judge (and the Evangelical savior is often cast as a judge), then you need to show that you know you messed up and are willing--even though unable—to make up for it. Good intent is not enough. Ritual apology is not enough. You have to be genuinely struck down in sorrow at your mistakes. Now to be clear, the rest of the elements are, in fact, rituals whether church people call them that or not. And a lot of church people do, indeed, just go through the motions or (more charitably) forget the experience of guilt that brought them to that point. A few get so taken up with the emotional thrill of the whole experience that they will try to go through it again and again and again. Let’s leave aside hypocrisy and thrill seeking for just a moment though. What I am saying is that at its best, Evangelical Christianity does offer a path for relief of guilt that the church does not impose but may point out and reveal. Now, at their worst, Evangelical Christians do use this theology to impose guilt and judgment—sex, gambling, dancing, music, liquor, swearing, Sabbath violations all spring to mind! But there are also Evangelical Christians at their best who reveal exploitation and abuse for the express purpose of bringing about repentance. And the tool they have is the conviction of sin.
Have I lost you? Okay, here’s the “tldr” version: Evangelical theology says that A) Human systems are f***ed up from the start, and B) The way to step out of this begins with experiencing guilt over your participation in the f***ed up system. (I know, I know, they would never use that language. But it got your attention, didn’t it?) And in a nutshell, this is why the usual descriptions about Critical Race Theory should be embraced by Evangelical Christians.
CRT is pretty straightforward in saying that racial discrimination and hostility and violence are baked into the systems that make up life in these United States. It is presented as a variety of “original sin” which rears its head even as the nation tries (seldom enough) to do better. And it explains a lot: Jefferson writes wonderfully about fighting tyranny but refuses to see the tyranny at his doorstep and in his bed. Lincoln drafts a proclamation, but wants to send freed slaves to Liberia.
Guilt should be a feature, not a bug, of CRT. Justice Roberts is incorrect: the solution to racial discrimination is not simply to stop discrimination. It is to repent of it. And that requires… you guessed it… conviction of sin. And that is just never going to be comfortable. Nevertheless, anything to squirm out of that conviction simply keeps the system of violence in place.
So, dear friend, that is why I have been perplexed about the response of Evangelical Christians to Critical Race Theory. The overlap between the theory and the theology is profound. CRT should fit into the Evangelical mindset like a (black?) hand in a (white?) glove. The Evangelical project is grounded in dealing with guilt. You would think that the experience of guilt shouldn’t upset Evangelical Christians at all. You would think they’d say, “Guilt? Pain? We’ve seen these before! Never fear, we have ways to deal with this!” (They say it about so many other sources of guilt and pain.)
So why not say this about guilt and racial prejudice?
Ah. Now I understand. I left something out of the theology of so many Evangelical Christians.
They believe that racism and its attendant hostility and violence—these are not a sin.
The line is actually very clear. If a speaker or a politician or a pundit is “anti-woke,” if they want the 1619 Project banned, if they want math textbooks removed from school because of “CRT,” if they want actual Critical Race Theory professors sanctioned, there is one and only one reason. They think racism is not a sin. If parents show up at a school board and want their young ‘uns to feel guilty over sex but freak out when their children feel guilt about the history of redlining, then there is one and only one reason. They believe that racism is not a sin. Gov. de Santis and Gov. Abbott and a host of other politicians are being very, very, extremely clear: They think that being (or even suspecting) that one is LGBTQ+ is shameful and that these people should experience guilt in every corner of their miserable lives, but that one is exempt from guilt over racial hatred because they believe that racism is not and never has been ever a sin.
What this means, friends, is that we have a hard task in front of us. I am not an Evangelical Christian; I just know the theology. You may not be one either. But the task in front of us, while daunting, is nevertheless clear. We have to use their thinking. We have to borrow their language. Their flawed nature is built into the very systems in which they operate. They cannot break themselves free. Now, I am a Christian, and so I am comfortable with messianic and salvific language. You may not be. That’s okay, we still have a task together. These people have a need and they do not wish to see it, but the need is still there. We have to break into their language and thought and reveal the flaw. They need to be convicted of sin. We can’t afford to tread lightly. If there is guilt and discomfort, good! There are ways to deal with that! Admitting that there is a problem is a first step towards healing.
Part of the reason Martin Luther King, Jr., was effective was because he could use that language well. We can do the same. The promissory note is still out there.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/7/14/2110393/-Evangelicals-and-anti-CRT-rhetoric-I-was-perplexed-but-now-I-think-I-understand
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
