George Truett said:

---

A good article on CRT and connections to Marxism.

Could you win a quiz show by defining 'Critical Race Theory'? Baptist News Global

Some salient points:

Critical Race Theory is an academic concept that seeks to identify the roots of racism that have influenced society and continue to bear fruit today. It's not a religion or a doctrine but rather is a construct for evaluating ourselves and our society. Thus, it has been used as a tool to help uncover forms of systemic racism that often are overlooked by the majority population.

For a more formal lay reader definition, turn to Wikipedia, which describes CRT as "a theoretical framework in the social sciences that examines society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law and power in the United States of America."

Critical Race Theory is only the latest in a long line of issues and ideas that have been dismissed by cultural conservatives as "Marxism." Historically, some conservative traditionalists have drawn a line from Marxism to feminism, multiculturalism, civil rights, LGBTQ rights, Black Lives Matter and other progressive social issues. At its worst, these accusations carry an antisemitic tone, blaming a small group of Jewish academics as the source of such liberalism.

Jacob Woolf, a Jewish student and political activist at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, published an article on Medium last year noting the use of "Marxism" as an all-purpose label for things modern conservatives disdain globally.

"There is a spectre haunting conservatism, the spectre of Marxism," he wrote. "It permeates across the forums and blogospheres of conservatives and libertarians, endlessly invoked and casually tossed out in barbed allegations. A newfound interest in Marxism seems has infected not just a gaggle of ordinary conservatives but many of their leading and most influential figureheads."

Writing in the Guardian newspaper in 2015, columnist Jason Wilson concurred. Appealing to "cultural Marxism," he wrote, "allows those smarting from a loss of privilege to be offered the shroud of victimhood, by pointing to a shadowy, omnipresent, quasi-foreign elite who are attempting to destroy all that is good in the world. It offers an explanation for the decline of families, small towns, patriarchal authority, and unchallenged white power: a vast, century-long left-wing conspiracy."

"Cultural Marxism" even has its own entry on Wikipedia, where it is described as a "far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory."

One of the most extensive treatments of this question was published this summer on the Christianity Today website, via "The Exchange," a blog forum curated by Ed Stetzer, who holds the Billy Graham Distinguished Chair of Church, Mission and Evangelism at Wheaton College and serves as executive director of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton.

Stetzer noted that since his Twitter feed "is filled with people calling one another Marxists, I thought it might be good to hear from a scholar who knows a bit more about it." That scholar is Kelly Hamren, assistant professor of English at Liberty University. Her doctoral dissertation focused on 20th-century Russian poetry, with an emphasis on Marxist-Leninist ideology in the Soviet Union.

At Stetzer's invitation, Hamren wrote a first-person post titled "Social Justice, Critical Race Theory, Marxism, and Biblical Ethics."

"In my field, Marxism is one of the most commonly studied and most influential perspectives, and Critical Race Theory is also a significant force and gaining momentum," she wrote. "As a result, I've studied these theories extensively."

To be clear, she is no fan of Marxism: "My studies have convinced me that the sufferings and deaths of millions are not only correlated with but largely caused by the Marxist-Leninist agenda, and I am therefore deeply opposed to Marxism as a framework."

Hamren sees Critical Race Theory as "deeply informed by Marxism" and therefore admits she "will not agree with all of its tenets." However, she added, "Marx was not wrong about absolutely everything. Very few thinkers are (probably because they are all made in God's image) wrong about everything."

She identifies two statements from Marx's teaching that she finds resonate with Christian ideals: (1) Power does exist, and people do sometimes use it to oppress others; and (2) Oppressed people do suffer, and their suffering is often unjust.

"Reading the Old Testament will make these truths abundantly clear," she suggested. "Because I believe people are made in God's image (Genesis 1); the God whom I worship warned his followers repeatedly not to oppress the poor, widows, foreigners, ; and Jesus reached out to those whom society despised , I can argue with confidence that my faith is wholly consistent with working to mitigate oppression in the society in which I live. By doing so, I am not embracing an alternate gospel but merely living in a way consistent with the gospel I have embraced since I was a child."

Even though some Christians have criticized an emphasis on "social justice" as only a tenant of liberalism, Hamren said that's not necessarily so. "What some are referring to as 'social justice' these days making sure our laws and institutions don't make it easier for the powerful to oppress marginalized groups often refers to good, old-fashioned biblical justice."

She added: "If the term 'social justice' is sometimes co-opted by Marxists, rejecting the concept outright robs Christians of the chance to become part of the conversation regarding its definition and application. It is a fluid concept right now, and using the term in a way that validates biblical principles of justice can help shape the way in which the cultural conversation develops."

Further, Hamren does not see an inherent conflict between conservative biblical theology and the problem of systemic racism.

"If people are born in sin and people build a society, that society will be structured in ways that reinforce whatever sins dominate the hearts of those who build it," she reasoned. "Therefore, even if many people's hearts change a few generations later, those structures might still perpetuate the problems associated with that society's 'original sins.'"

This is why, she added, "it is possible to recognize that many individual police officers might not be racist and still believe that changes in police departments need to take place to discourage injustice."

To affirm such a possibility from a biblical understanding of original sin differs from Marxism, Hamren asserted.
"Marxism posits that socio-economic forces create the problem, not that they perpetuate the problem. A true Marxist does not believe that individuals have essential selves apart from the historical contexts in which they develop."

Christians who believe that sins, such as racism, originate in the human heart should see the need for an even deeper solution than Marxism proposes, she added. "The fact that we will never be able to eradicate sin (this side of the resurrection) does not mean we should sit back and allow it free reign."


I agree with Hamren that Marx wasn't wrong about everything and that the idea of systemic racism is consistent with biblical teachings.

---

a much better strawman than others argued here. No, CRT is not an integral part of Marxism. Yes, CRT is built on marxist dialectics, marxist philosophies on collective guilt and systemic oppression. Even the CRT ideologues themselves cite Marxist philosophy as a foundation for their theory.

Do you really believe that Marx has something to teach Christ? or Paul?

it's like saying "yeah, Satan was a pretty bad guy, but he had a few good ideas. So let's refine them and Make Chrisitianity Great Again."

that is the genesis of the "cultural Marxism" objection.....post-Modernists solved their Marxism problem by defining Marxist economics as the cause, so punt the collectivist economics and proceed with collectivist philosophies. The premise of that solution was that marxist philosophy was right. But was it really? Didn't the economic policies flow from the philosophy? Isn't Marx wrong to describe all of human history as a story of oppression? Does a human being really awaken each morning with a yearn to be part of a collective? or does a human awaken with a yearn to solve problems that face every individual - hunger, shelter, etc....(Maslov's Heirarchy of Needs) and cooperation flows from there, punctuated by that cooperation being usurped by tyrants.?

Marx looked out his window and saw oppression, the rich stealing from the poor.
Smith looked out his window and saw cooperation, people in markets serving each other thru free enterprise.

which one is MORE right?

whiterock said:

---

George Truett said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

George Truett said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

The thing is: I don't care what Christian theologians think, and I don't read their writings. I don't care what academics trying to construct a framework that they label CRT think, so I don't know what exactly their ideological structures are (definitions actually seem to be part of the problem here, as it sounds like there's not a definition of CRT that everybody agrees on).

On the issue of societal justice, I start with my reading and understanding of the Bible and go from there. That's the example of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement; his understanding of Paul's letter to Philemon influenced his involvement in the anti-slavery movement.

There is always a risk that we will make biblical interpretations fit our political inclinations. I try not to do that, but reality checks are always necessary.

Bottom line: Grand political theories don't much interest me, but I stand by what the Bible says about justice.

---

I agree, Bubba. We have sixty-six books of Scripture to help us hear God's will.

My main concern is that we should take our duty seriously as individuals, and treat every individual person as someone made in the image of God.

Treating people as groups makes it too easy to discount individuals or treat them as objects.

---

Talking about individual responsibility is good but incomplete. The scriptures speak of corporate sin. Sometimes we commit sins as members of a social group that we wouldn't commit as an individual.

Furthermore, changing individual behavior doesn't change the law and it may not change culture.

---

Absolutely wrong, the Bible is not about collectivism much less social guilt.

You need a better Bible Study group.

---

The Bible talks a lot of social guilt. Read the prophets! Read Amos 2:6-7. God calls out the sins of Israel. Not just individual Israelites. Of the nation. In Isaiah 34:1ff, the prophet speaks of God's judgment against the nations. Not just individuals in those nations. Entire countries. Jeremiah 10:25; Micah 5:15, and lots of other passages use the same language.

In fact, the focus on individual sin and responsibility is a later development in the Old Testament.

---

exactly. And that is an important distinction which argues against the collectivist examples that you and Bubba have offered in support of CRT as a valid dialectic for theology. Christianity is far more accurately described as a personal relationship with Jesus Chris to facilitate a personal "closer walk with Thee," not a collective association with other Christians to work collective problems. That latter endeavor is politics.

---

Just to clarify here, I'm not offering anything in support of CRT because I can't seem to find a clear definition that people agree on about what CRT even is. I'm not on board with anything I can't define.

Systemic racism was/is a real thing in this country, but it seems that most here are arguing that CRT involves more than simply an acknowledgment of systemic racism.

The idea of justice as a community responsibility in the Bible is a bit of a side issue. It could be used to make an argument on behalf of CRT, but that's not what I'm doing here. I am simply trying to say that the biblical idea is there in the Old Testament -- that is, the scriptures from which Jesus taught.

I very much disagree that Christianity is primarily about a personal relationship with Jesus. That is what it has been reduced to in this country, and I'm not suggesting that an individual walk is not a significant part of it. But that is NOT how early Christians understood and practiced their faith. They lived it collectively and in communities. The first Christians (before the term Christian was even used) in Jerusalem went so far as to share their possessions. While that was not apparently the practice of Paul's congregations in the Gentile world, they nevertheless understood their relationship with Christ as part of a community. Paul writes about this all the time in his letters, and in at least 3 of them he uses the metaphor of interconnected parts of the body to describe how inseparable these believers are from each other because, as he preached, Christ is at work through all of them and Christ is indivisible.

Were there social/political dimensions to this early practice? Sure. Over and over, Paul insists that Christians live in a community where a different reality prevails than in the larger world they inhabit. Within the body, he says, the worldly distinctions between male/female, Jew/Greek, slave/free do not and cannot apply. This does not mean that Paul is trying to overthrow the Roman political order. But it is clear that to me that he is saying that being a Christian is about much more than just an individual walk with Christ; and it's natural that Paul, a rabbinically trained Jew, would bring a very Jewish understanding of what it means to be a religious community to his churches.

Though Paul makes clear that Christians should obey the (pagan) civil authorities and that he is not trying to overthrow the Empire (he thought Jesus was coming back at any minute to accomplish that and usher in a new age), the Romans suspected that Christians were subverting the Roman order with this insistence that all were equal within the Christian community, regardless of their status in the outside world. We learn in Acts that Paul is accused of being one of those people "who is turning the world upside down." We also learn that the Emperor Claudius expels all the Jews from Rome, and a Roman historian says he did this because they were agitating "on account of "Chrestus," which scholars generally think is a reference to Jesus (at that time, Romans thought of Christianity as a group within Judaism, not as a separate religion). In Acts, Luke goes to great pains to convince his readers that Christians are not a threat to Rome -- he has to do this because many really did see Christianity as a threat. And indeed it was -- not an overt political one, but one that slowly and steadily was undermining the pecking order of power in the Empire with its teaching that all Christians were part of a beloved community with equal status within the body.

Gradually, Christians would come to understand the political implications of this teaching. For example,
in 18th century England Christians relied on Paul's letters to influence the political system to end the slave trade. American Christians in the 19th century did the same thing. The chief difference between Christians in that era and those in Paul's day was that they had power directly to influence the political system that the early Christians did not. And they viewed that influence as something God gave them to use rather than bury in the sand. They also viewed it as their responsibility to be involved in the work of upbuilding the kingdom of God. (The Puritans, by the way, would not at all have understood what you were saying about Christianity primarily involving an individual relationship with Jesus; to them, that was only part of it, but first and foremost they understood themselves as a religious community -- that's why they came to America in the first place, so they could be free to be the community they intended.)

Just like the abolitionists to whom they often like to compare themselves, Christians who are involved in pro-life politics today view it as their responsibility as a community to change the law, not just to change individual minds, because they believe there is a community responsibility for protecting unborn life. You don't hear them saying that they would never approve of abortion but that it's really an individual decision so they won''t attempt to use politics to change what others do. It's about societal justice to them. And so I don't see how it's possible to uphold people whose convictions lead them into involvement in pro-life politics in the name of what is right while at the same time castigating others who use the societal justice mantle to argue for policies you don't like. You or I may not agree with their conclusions about what policy is right, but I cannot argue that applying the idea of societal justice to politics is wrong for one side but not for the other.

CRT at its very core is racist.

Using the Government, political power, intimidation, looting, burning, etc is wrong on every level if the goal is to achieve a level playing field for all.

Your well written post confirms that NONE of the tactics are to be used in spreading the gospel, so it is up-to the community of believes and their respective churches to develop the "community of believers" you describe.

Any use of Government to achieve the Christian community you described or working with non-believers who do not share a common faith is wrong on every level. I do not see any mention of Christ or God in the CRT documents.

Your own words in your post discredit the use of CRT to achieve a Community of Believers who share a common belief in Christianity and know Christ as their personal Savior.

4yrletterbear said:

---

CRT at its very core is racist.

Using the Government, political power, intimidation, looting, burning, etc is wrong on every level if the goal is to achieve a level playing field for all.

Your well written post confirms that NONE of the tactics are to be used in spreading the gospel, so it is up-to the community of believes and their respective churches to develop the "community of believers" you describe.

Any use of Government to achieve the Christian community you described or working with non-believers who do not share a common faith is wrong on every level. I do not see any mention of Christ or God in the CRT documents.

Your own words in your post discredit the use of CRT to achieve a Community of Believers who share a common belief in Christianity and know Christ as their personal Savior.

---

Again, not arguing on behalf of CRT. I don't even have a clear sense of what people mean by that term.

And to clarify: From your post it sounds like you are opposed to Christians relying on their beliefs to influence the political system to stop abortions and secure pro-life laws. Is that right?

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

I haven't yet read the whole article, but I've read enough to know that the author addresses the question you raise - that is, the inadequacy of mere statistics. I would urge you to read the article if you have not done so.

---

Yet ignored is the fact that the narcotics industry disproportionately impacted the black community especially related to violent crime and drug abuse even before law enforcement ramped its efforts up. It was a result of the negative impact on the black community that led to harsher enforcement.

---

Source?

---

For what? That violent drug related crimes impacted/impact the black community more than the white community? If so, do I really need to source that for you?

---

For the claim that a disproportionate effect of the narcotics industry on the black community preceded harsh enforcement and was the reason for it.

---

You could start with the Harlem heroin wars of the 70's and work your way through the Cocaine drug wars in South Florida, LA and Chicago in the late 70's and early 80's. The most serious law changes and focus came in the late 80's and early 90's as the geopolitical interests turned to Colombia and Panama.

---

The focus on minority populations started much earlier than that. Even the escalation beginning in the 1970s had to do with what we now know was a racial agenda on Nixon's part.

---

Issues are separate from the impact of drugs on law enforcement. You seem to want to ignore the massive black economy that involved organized crime from all sorts of ethnicities beyond black that faced the wrath of the same overreach. In fact, it was the FBI's expansion of power to fight the mafia that was the cornerstone for the expansion of drug enforcement laws.

Agree with a lot of this. However, the way you phrase "personal relationship" not being the primary focus of early Christians may be true as phrased, but I don't think it tells much of the story. "Personal salvation" clearly was a major focus, as was evangelism. Community and the body of Christ no doubt were huge areas of focus also, but more in the general love and individual selflessness sense. There is very little in the Bible about the community/church body focus involving political debate or public policy of any kind. We can also debate whether modern day Christianity focuses too much on the individual. I think that is not the case. Without going too much on a tangent, every study shows, for example, that American Christians (1) do more for the poor and needy, (2) spend more time and money on charitable causes, and (3) are more involved in communities, etc. If it was all about "personal relationship." I don't these things would be true. "Mega churches" have become quite the target even among Christians, but the mega churches I've attended and know about in different parts of the country do more for the poor and needy at home and abroad than any organizations I know of and changed a whole lot of lives for the better in the process. But, regardless, the early Christians sure focused a lot on how Christian individuals should act.

You don't even have to go back to the early church to see the social aspect of Christianity. The Puritans who founded this country were intensely communitarian in many ways. Of course religion is about personal holiness, but our extreme individualism is a characteristic of our own times (partly as a reaction against Marxism) rather than a teaching of Christianity itself.

bubbadog said:

---

4yrletterbear said:

---

CRT at its very core is racist.

Using the Government, political power, intimidation, looting, burning, etc is wrong on every level if the goal is to achieve a level playing field for all.

Your well written post confirms that NONE of the tactics are to be used in spreading the gospel, so it is up-to the community of believes and their respective churches to develop the "community of believers" you describe.

Any use of Government to achieve the Christian community you described or working with non-believers who do not share a common faith is wrong on every level. I do not see any mention of Christ or God in the CRT documents.

Your own words in your post discredit the use of CRT to achieve a Community of Believers who share a common belief in Christianity and know Christ as their personal Savior.

---

Again, not arguing on behalf of CRT. I don't even have a clear sense of what people mean by that term.

And to clarify: From your post it sounds like you are opposed to Christians relying on their beliefs to influence the political system to stop abortions and secure pro-life laws. Is that right?

---

When people hear the term 'systemic racism', they think it means white people are going out of their way to oppress minorities on purpose.

My generation thinks old white men are to blame for the world's problems.

Are you aware of this massive growing worldview and hatred for whites, mostly perpetuated by whites themselves?

"My main concern is that we should take our duty seriously as individuals, and treat every individual person as someone made in the image of God."
I do not experience you in this way.

Waco1947 said:

---

"My main concern is that we should take our duty seriously as individuals, and treat every individual person as someone made in the image of God."
I do not experience you in this way.

---

That is because I believe in the God of the Bible, and judging from your posts you believe in a god of political expediency, made in your image.

You are like Caiaphas, and so I treat you as Christ treated Caiaphas. A man made in the image of God, but who turned against God.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"My main concern is that we should take our duty seriously as individuals, and treat every individual person as someone made in the image of God."
I do not experience you in this way.

---

That is because I believe in the God of the Bible, and judging from your posts you believe in a god of political expediency, made in your image.

You are like Caiaphas, and so I treat you as Christ treated Caiaphas. A man made in the image of God, but who turned against God.

---

Oh. So you don't believe your own stated belief that "every individual..is made in the image of God?

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

4yrletterbear said:

---

CRT at its very core is racist.

Using the Government, political power, intimidation, looting, burning, etc is wrong on every level if the goal is to achieve a level playing field for all.

Your well written post confirms that NONE of the tactics are to be used in spreading the gospel, so it is up-to the community of believes and their respective churches to develop the "community of believers" you describe.

Any use of Government to achieve the Christian community you described or working with non-believers who do not share a common faith is wrong on every level. I do not see any mention of Christ or God in the CRT documents.

Your own words in your post discredit the use of CRT to achieve a Community of Believers who share a common belief in Christianity and know Christ as their personal Savior.

---

Again, not arguing on behalf of CRT. I don't even have a clear sense of what people mean by that term.

And to clarify: From your post it sounds like you are opposed to Christians relying on their beliefs to influence the political system to stop abortions and secure pro-life laws. Is that right?

---

When people hear the term 'systemic racism', they think it means white people are going out of their way to oppress minorities on purpose.

My generation thinks old white men are to blame for the world's problems.

Are you aware of this massive growing worldview and hatred for whites, mostly perpetuated by whites themselves?

---

As someone who is white and of that older generation, I am well aware of what SOME in your generation think. I have experienced it personally. The misunderstanding of systemic racism (for want of a better term) among younger people can be injurious, just as it is injurious when people on the other side try to claim that systemic racism isn't real, or that past racism doesn't have damaging effects that continue today.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"My main concern is that we should take our duty seriously as individuals, and treat every individual person as someone made in the image of God."
I do not experience you in this way.

---

That is because I believe in the God of the Bible, and judging from your posts you believe in a god of political expediency, made in your image.

You are like Caiaphas, and so I treat you as Christ treated Caiaphas. A man made in the image of God, but who turned against God.

---

Oh. So you don't believe your own stated belief that "every individual..is made in the image of God?

---

Of course I do. But we also have Free Will, which all use to some degree to commit sin, and some, like you, willfully embrace in a war against God.

Caiaphas pretended to serve God, but worked against him. So did Herod, so do you. I love you as a man made to be like God, but rebuke you for your evil, and sincerely hope you will repent of your evil and turn back to God, like Zaccheus.did.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"My main concern is that we should take our duty seriously as individuals, and treat every individual person as someone made in the image of God."
I do not experience you in this way.

---

That is because I believe in the God of the Bible, and judging from your posts you believe in a god of political expediency, made in your image.

You are like Caiaphas, and so I treat you as Christ treated Caiaphas. A man made in the image of God, but who turned against God.

---

there is a growing body of work which goes beyond what you suggest ("a god of political expediency") and lays out the many ways that Social Justice has become a religion in and of itself for non-believers, and a gnostic exercise for Christians of progressive political inclination. Link is one of many and has references to other works.

https://blog.acton.org/archives/106456-social-justice-as-a-postmodern-religion.html

sombear said:

---

Agree with a lot of this. However, the way you phrase "personal relationship" not being the primary focus of early Christians may be true as phrased, but I don't think it tells much of the story. "Personal salvation" clearly was a major focus, as was evangelism. Community and the body of Christ no doubt were huge areas of focus also, but more in the general love and individual selflessness sense. There is very little in the Bible about the community/church body focus involving political debate or public policy of any kind. We can also debate whether modern day Christianity focuses too much on the individual. I think that is not the case. Without going too much on a tangent, every study shows, for example, that American Christians (1) do more for the poor and needy, (2) spend more time and money on charitable causes, and (3) are more involved in communities, etc. If it was all about "personal relationship." I don't these things would be true. "Mega churches" have become quite the target even among Christians, but the mega churches I've attended and know about in different parts of the country do more for the poor and needy at home and abroad than any organizations I know of and changed a whole lot of lives for the better in the process. But, regardless, the early Christians sure focused a lot on how Christian individuals should act.

---

There's just no way to undermine the fundamentally personal nature of Christianity. There is only one path to salvation, and no amount of collective action will get you there. It takes a personal commitment, for a personal relationship. Communal aspects are in support of that, not the essence of it. The communal aspects referred to in the OT are understandable in historical and sociological context and it is error to believe that they are the model for salvation, or even practice of faith. Indeed, portions of the NT chapters teach Christians NOT to remain inwardly communal, to go forth & multiply, etc.....

As Oldbear alludes, what we are seeing with the rise of the woke church is Christians of more collectivist political inclinations reinterpreting scripture to fit those political inclinations. Such is a very common human failing, so pointing out theirs is not to gloss over our own. We only make a big deal of it now because progressivism is not content to remain communal within itself; it seeks to force others to comply with it's own sensibilities. Ergo the rub.

can I have an awomen for that?

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Agree with a lot of this. However, the way you phrase "personal relationship" not being the primary focus of early Christians may be true as phrased, but I don't think it tells much of the story. "Personal salvation" clearly was a major focus, as was evangelism. Community and the body of Christ no doubt were huge areas of focus also, but more in the general love and individual selflessness sense. There is very little in the Bible about the community/church body focus involving political debate or public policy of any kind. We can also debate whether modern day Christianity focuses too much on the individual. I think that is not the case. Without going too much on a tangent, every study shows, for example, that American Christians (1) do more for the poor and needy, (2) spend more time and money on charitable causes, and (3) are more involved in communities, etc. If it was all about "personal relationship." I don't these things would be true. "Mega churches" have become quite the target even among Christians, but the mega churches I've attended and know about in different parts of the country do more for the poor and needy at home and abroad than any organizations I know of and changed a whole lot of lives for the better in the process. But, regardless, the early Christians sure focused a lot on how Christian individuals should act.

---

There's just no way to undermine the fundamentally personal nature of Christianity. There is only one path to salvation, and no amount of collective action will get you there. It takes a personal commitment, for a personal relationship. Communal aspects are in support of that, not the essence of it. The communal aspects referred to in the OT are understandable in historical and sociological context and it is error to believe that they are the model for salvation, or even practice of faith. Indeed, portions of the NT chapters teach Christians NOT to remain inwardly communal, to go forth & multiply, etc.....

As Oldbear alludes, what we are seeing with the rise of the woke church is Christians of more collectivist political inclinations reinterpreting scripture to fit those political inclinations. Such is a very common human failing, so pointing out theirs is not to gloss over our own. We only make a big deal of it now because progressivism is not content to remain communal within itself; it seeks to force others to comply with it's own sensibilities. Ergo the rub.

can I have an awomen for that?

---

we progressives have no interest No interest in "forcing forcing others to comply with (progressives sensibilities."

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Agree with a lot of this. However, the way you phrase "personal relationship" not being the primary focus of early Christians may be true as phrased, but I don't think it tells much of the story. "Personal salvation" clearly was a major focus, as was evangelism. Community and the body of Christ no doubt were huge areas of focus also, but more in the general love and individual selflessness sense. There is very little in the Bible about the community/church body focus involving political debate or public policy of any kind. We can also debate whether modern day Christianity focuses too much on the individual. I think that is not the case. Without going too much on a tangent, every study shows, for example, that American Christians (1) do more for the poor and needy, (2) spend more time and money on charitable causes, and (3) are more involved in communities, etc. If it was all about "personal relationship." I don't these things would be true. "Mega churches" have become quite the target even among Christians, but the mega churches I've attended and know about in different parts of the country do more for the poor and needy at home and abroad than any organizations I know of and changed a whole lot of lives for the better in the process. But, regardless, the early Christians sure focused a lot on how Christian individuals should act.

---

There's just no way to undermine the fundamentally personal nature of Christianity. There is only one path to salvation, and no amount of collective action will get you there. It takes a personal commitment, for a personal relationship. Communal aspects are in support of that, not the essence of it. The communal aspects referred to in the OT are understandable in historical and sociological context and it is error to believe that they are the model for salvation, or even practice of faith. Indeed, portions of the NT chapters teach Christians NOT to remain inwardly communal, to go forth & multiply, etc.....

As Oldbear alludes, what we are seeing with the rise of the woke church is Christians of more collectivist political inclinations reinterpreting scripture to fit those political inclinations. Such is a very common human failing, so pointing out theirs is not to gloss over our own. We only make a big deal of it now because progressivism is not content to remain communal within itself; it seeks to force others to comply with it's own sensibilities. Ergo the rub.

can I have an awomen for that?

---

we progressives have no interest No interest in "forcing forcing others to comply with (progressives sensibilities."

---

You rrrrreeeeaaaallllyyyy believe that?

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Agree with a lot of this. However, the way you phrase "personal relationship" not being the primary focus of early Christians may be true as phrased, but I don't think it tells much of the story. "Personal salvation" clearly was a major focus, as was evangelism. Community and the body of Christ no doubt were huge areas of focus also, but more in the general love and individual selflessness sense. There is very little in the Bible about the community/church body focus involving political debate or public policy of any kind. We can also debate whether modern day Christianity focuses too much on the individual. I think that is not the case. Without going too much on a tangent, every study shows, for example, that American Christians (1) do more for the poor and needy, (2) spend more time and money on charitable causes, and (3) are more involved in communities, etc. If it was all about "personal relationship." I don't these things would be true. "Mega churches" have become quite the target even among Christians, but the mega churches I've attended and know about in different parts of the country do more for the poor and needy at home and abroad than any organizations I know of and changed a whole lot of lives for the better in the process. But, regardless, the early Christians sure focused a lot on how Christian individuals should act.

---

There's just no way to undermine the fundamentally personal nature of Christianity. There is only one path to salvation, and no amount of collective action will get you there. It takes a personal commitment, for a personal relationship. Communal aspects are in support of that, not the essence of it. The communal aspects referred to in the OT are understandable in historical and sociological context and it is error to believe that they are the model for salvation, or even practice of faith. Indeed, portions of the NT chapters teach Christians NOT to remain inwardly communal, to go forth & multiply, etc.....

As Oldbear alludes, what we are seeing with the rise of the woke church is Christians of more collectivist political inclinations reinterpreting scripture to fit those political inclinations. Such is a very common human failing, so pointing out theirs is not to gloss over our own. We only make a big deal of it now because progressivism is not content to remain communal within itself; it seeks to force others to comply with it's own sensibilities. Ergo the rub.

can I have an awomen for that?

---

we progressives have no interest No interest in "forcing forcing others to comply with (progressives sensibilities."

---

If progressive liberalism was honest it would admit that forcing people to do things they don't want to do and "change" is a cornerstone of its world platform.

Basically, it comes down to DeKalb's ballots versus the military ballots left to count.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Agree with a lot of this. However, the way you phrase "personal relationship" not being the primary focus of early Christians may be true as phrased, but I don't think it tells much of the story. "Personal salvation" clearly was a major focus, as was evangelism. Community and the body of Christ no doubt were huge areas of focus also, but more in the general love and individual selflessness sense. There is very little in the Bible about the community/church body focus involving political debate or public policy of any kind. We can also debate whether modern day Christianity focuses too much on the individual. I think that is not the case. Without going too much on a tangent, every study shows, for example, that American Christians (1) do more for the poor and needy, (2) spend more time and money on charitable causes, and (3) are more involved in communities, etc. If it was all about "personal relationship." I don't these things would be true. "Mega churches" have become quite the target even among Christians, but the mega churches I've attended and know about in different parts of the country do more for the poor and needy at home and abroad than any organizations I know of and changed a whole lot of lives for the better in the process. But, regardless, the early Christians sure focused a lot on how Christian individuals should act.

---

There's just no way to undermine the fundamentally personal nature of Christianity. There is only one path to salvation, and no amount of collective action will get you there. It takes a personal commitment, for a personal relationship. Communal aspects are in support of that, not the essence of it. The communal aspects referred to in the OT are understandable in historical and sociological context and it is error to believe that they are the model for salvation, or even practice of faith. Indeed, portions of the NT chapters teach Christians NOT to remain inwardly communal, to go forth & multiply, etc.....

As Oldbear alludes, what we are seeing with the rise of the woke church is Christians of more collectivist political inclinations reinterpreting scripture to fit those political inclinations. Such is a very common human failing, so pointing out theirs is not to gloss over our own. We only make a big deal of it now because progressivism is not content to remain communal within itself; it seeks to force others to comply with it's own sensibilities. Ergo the rub.

can I have an awomen for that?

---

we progressives have no interest No interest in "forcing forcing others to comply with (progressives sensibilities."

---

You rrrrreeeeaaaallllyyyy believe that?

---

yeah, he does. He's adopted a worldview so ordered by race that those who disagree with him on any of the particulars are white supremacists. He would never ship those people off to the gulag for re-education, but they do not have the right to abuse their first amendment rights to promote First Principles or American Exceptionalism, or enter the public cyber square to engage in debate in defense of capitalism, or use their 2nd Amendment rights to defend property they saved money to buy, or hold a job until they find redemption by saying the words. All of those things are incredibly violent ideas which do great harm. Diversity demands we stop all that.

It's an incredibly tolerant world he lives in. Don't you see it?

The left is all about acquiring power at the end of a gun after all the hard work is finished. Nations don't become world powers by central planning and government ownership of the means of production. Even China had to outsource its economic growth to capitalism. It's the freedom of capitalism that creates power.

It's only once that power is in place that the left tries to worm their greedy kiesters into the seats of power. No one calls for leftist women and leftist minorities on the boards of new manufacturing companies that have no better than a 50/50 shot at surviving. But wait until they are successful powerhouses and every parasitic race/sex hustler out there is shrieking for a seat at the table with the men who built it.

The same goes for governments. There are no Sheryl Sandbergs trying to 'lean into' revolutionary battle fields where they are likely to die. There are no Jessie Jacksons or Ibram Kendis demanding a seat at the gallows when the revolution they didn't participate in fails. No, we have to wait until there's success and power for parasites from failed states like Somalia or New York to demand they get to control the finished product.

The left are evil. They are interested only in power - primarily the power to control the lives of individual people like the petty tyrants they are.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Agree with a lot of this. However, the way you phrase "personal relationship" not being the primary focus of early Christians may be true as phrased, but I don't think it tells much of the story. "Personal salvation" clearly was a major focus, as was evangelism. Community and the body of Christ no doubt were huge areas of focus also, but more in the general love and individual selflessness sense. There is very little in the Bible about the community/church body focus involving political debate or public policy of any kind. We can also debate whether modern day Christianity focuses too much on the individual. I think that is not the case. Without going too much on a tangent, every study shows, for example, that American Christians (1) do more for the poor and needy, (2) spend more time and money on charitable causes, and (3) are more involved in communities, etc. If it was all about "personal relationship." I don't these things would be true. "Mega churches" have become quite the target even among Christians, but the mega churches I've attended and know about in different parts of the country do more for the poor and needy at home and abroad than any organizations I know of and changed a whole lot of lives for the better in the process. But, regardless, the early Christians sure focused a lot on how Christian individuals should act.

---

There's just no way to undermine the fundamentally personal nature of Christianity. There is only one path to salvation, and no amount of collective action will get you there. It takes a personal commitment, for a personal relationship. Communal aspects are in support of that, not the essence of it. The communal aspects referred to in the OT are understandable in historical and sociological context and it is error to believe that they are the model for salvation, or even practice of faith. Indeed, portions of the NT chapters teach Christians NOT to remain inwardly communal, to go forth & multiply, etc.....

As Oldbear alludes, what we are seeing with the rise of the woke church is Christians of more collectivist political inclinations reinterpreting scripture to fit those political inclinations. Such is a very common human failing, so pointing out theirs is not to gloss over our own. We only make a big deal of it now because progressivism is not content to remain communal within itself; it seeks to force others to comply with it's own sensibilities. Ergo the rub.

can I have an awomen for that?

---

we progressives have no interest No interest in "forcing forcing others to comply with (progressives sensibilities."

---

You rrrrreeeeaaaallllyyyy believe that?

---

Yes

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Agree with a lot of this. However, the way you phrase "personal relationship" not being the primary focus of early Christians may be true as phrased, but I don't think it tells much of the story. "Personal salvation" clearly was a major focus, as was evangelism. Community and the body of Christ no doubt were huge areas of focus also, but more in the general love and individual selflessness sense. There is very little in the Bible about the community/church body focus involving political debate or public policy of any kind. We can also debate whether modern day Christianity focuses too much on the individual. I think that is not the case. Without going too much on a tangent, every study shows, for example, that American Christians (1) do more for the poor and needy, (2) spend more time and money on charitable causes, and (3) are more involved in communities, etc. If it was all about "personal relationship." I don't these things would be true. "Mega churches" have become quite the target even among Christians, but the mega churches I've attended and know about in different parts of the country do more for the poor and needy at home and abroad than any organizations I know of and changed a whole lot of lives for the better in the process. But, regardless, the early Christians sure focused a lot on how Christian individuals should act.

---

There's just no way to undermine the fundamentally personal nature of Christianity. There is only one path to salvation, and no amount of collective action will get you there. It takes a personal commitment, for a personal relationship. Communal aspects are in support of that, not the essence of it. The communal aspects referred to in the OT are understandable in historical and sociological context and it is error to believe that they are the model for salvation, or even practice of faith. Indeed, portions of the NT chapters teach Christians NOT to remain inwardly communal, to go forth & multiply, etc.....

As Oldbear alludes, what we are seeing with the rise of the woke church is Christians of more collectivist political inclinations reinterpreting scripture to fit those political inclinations. Such is a very common human failing, so pointing out theirs is not to gloss over our own. We only make a big deal of it now because progressivism is not content to remain communal within itself; it seeks to force others to comply with it's own sensibilities. Ergo the rub.

can I have an awomen for that?

---

we progressives have no interest No interest in "forcing forcing others to comply with (progressives sensibilities."

---

You rrrrreeeeaaaallllyyyy believe that?

---

Yes

---

So I can opt out of paying taxes for universal healthcare?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Agree with a lot of this. However, the way you phrase "personal relationship" not being the primary focus of early Christians may be true as phrased, but I don't think it tells much of the story. "Personal salvation" clearly was a major focus, as was evangelism. Community and the body of Christ no doubt were huge areas of focus also, but more in the general love and individual selflessness sense. There is very little in the Bible about the community/church body focus involving political debate or public policy of any kind. We can also debate whether modern day Christianity focuses too much on the individual. I think that is not the case. Without going too much on a tangent, every study shows, for example, that American Christians (1) do more for the poor and needy, (2) spend more time and money on charitable causes, and (3) are more involved in communities, etc. If it was all about "personal relationship." I don't these things would be true. "Mega churches" have become quite the target even among Christians, but the mega churches I've attended and know about in different parts of the country do more for the poor and needy at home and abroad than any organizations I know of and changed a whole lot of lives for the better in the process. But, regardless, the early Christians sure focused a lot on how Christian individuals should act.

---

There's just no way to undermine the fundamentally personal nature of Christianity. There is only one path to salvation, and no amount of collective action will get you there. It takes a personal commitment, for a personal relationship. Communal aspects are in support of that, not the essence of it. The communal aspects referred to in the OT are understandable in historical and sociological context and it is error to believe that they are the model for salvation, or even practice of faith. Indeed, portions of the NT chapters teach Christians NOT to remain inwardly communal, to go forth & multiply, etc.....

As Oldbear alludes, what we are seeing with the rise of the woke church is Christians of more collectivist political inclinations reinterpreting scripture to fit those political inclinations. Such is a very common human failing, so pointing out theirs is not to gloss over our own. We only make a big deal of it now because progressivism is not content to remain communal within itself; it seeks to force others to comply with it's own sensibilities. Ergo the rub.

can I have an awomen for that?

---

we progressives have no interest No interest in "forcing forcing others to comply with (progressives sensibilities."

---

You rrrrreeeeaaaallllyyyy believe that?

---

Yes

---

So I can opt out of paying taxes for universal healthcare?

---

So I can still call myself a son/husband/father?