What I think is really fascinating in the current CRT vs White Christian Nationalism culture war is, what I find to be, a crystal clear example of the Horseshoe Theory in real time. I try to listen to a lot of people on both sides of this current conversation and find that I can take many of the loudest voices and simply switch out the terms (CRT or WCN) and they are immediately making the other side's point. They are saying the exact same things. It's a pretty wild exercise. Typically, the loudest voices (or most magnified by our society) in the arena are closest to the extremes and, in turn, closest to each other.
Additionally, everyone's personal bias leads them to quickly dismiss the lies and danger on their side of battle line and accentuate the danger on the other side. So fickle we are.
I can empathize with this perspective. It seems that extreme voices sometimes represent extremism better than whatever perspective (liberal, conservative, etc) they claim to represent. I would be careful about equivocating, though. Just because some number of members on each side of an aisle argue in bad faith, doesn’t mean that those who argue in good faith are equally right.
To put it another way, racism toward minorities still exists today, and the fact that there are people who will agree with that who are “extreme” does not mean it’s untrue; nor does it mean that those who say “racism doesn’t exist today” in a moderate tone are more correct than those who say it loudly and argumentatively.
I appreciate your thoughts here, and largely agree. That said, I think your point about equivalence isn't quite representative of what I am communicating here. I think anyone discussing these topics in good faith will not say "racism doesn't exist today." In my review, what I find to be far more central to the conversation is; 1. how one defines the problem ("racism, systemic racism"), 2. the current extent, effects, and complexity of the problem, and 3. what are the best solutions in the here and now. This is a far more complex and nuanced discussion, and in my review includes significantly more equivalence than the example you provided.
I appreciate Esau McCaully's words when he says;
“Christians of good will can disagree on the relative impacts of injustice and racism in particular elements of society, and the best way to battle it. The work of the believing community then is to discern the nature of the problem and figuring out the best ways to make our societies more just and fair.”
I think a lot of us (on all sides of this discussion) are trying to do just this, discern the nature of the problem and the best path forward. This has a good and rich historical precedent (i.e. the sharp divide between W.E.B. Dubois and Booker T. Washington as one example). But in the midst of the challenging, complex, and dirty task, many end up getting frustrated and resort to calling each other marxist-CRT'ers or white Christian nationalists. I personally won't take part in that ad hominem childs play.
Now, I believe Jemar is doing his work in good faith, I really do. I see and hear his passion and desire to see wrongs righted. That comes directly from a justice-oriented heart, which Christians, who worship a God of justice, should ultimately have. I see and hear it in him. That said, we should be keenly aware that "the heart is deceitful above all else" and so quick to turn even our best of intentions into idolatry. Through reading and listening to much of his work, I do see him personally falling into much of the same traps he speaks so adamantly against. He openly admits that political ideology and activism is a deeply significant, if not central and foundational, piece of his work. In my review, Jemar seems so convinced of his own political position and righteousness, that he is unwilling to even take others, discussing in good faith, seriously and extend charity. If one is to question or critique his politically progressive stances, or draw attention to their concerns with our modern-day CRT/Anti-racism movement, he treats it as injustice and a direct attack on his own personal identity. Anyone who even questions his approach is immediately deemed sinful, pursuing injustice, and on the wrong side of what he calls “this generation’s Civil Rights moment.” I think this is a very detrimental stance to take in a conversation which requires humility and uncomfortable charity from all sides.
This short book recommendation above is an example of this point.
In this article, along with many others Jemar has authored, he talks about how democracy is “perilously close”, on a precipice, and hanging by a thread, and it is up to us to save it. Christianity is under dangerous attack exclusively from the political right, CRT is nothing more than a conservative boogeyman, and we must right the ship by adopting politically progressive orthopraxy. This doesn't sound all that much different to me from those claiming that CRT is a danger to our democracy and Christianity, WCN is a liberal boogeyman, and one must only be conservative and anti-CRT to save democracy and Christianity. Both arguments hold slivers of truth, but are easily manipulated by the enemy to encourage tribalism and division within the Church.
Short of it is this. Christians are called to “test the spirits” and be shrewd and discerning. Sin is "crouches at our doors" and "prowls about like a hungry lion."
Is white Christian nationalism a danger that should be guarded against? Absolutely yes, no question! Does the modern-day CRT/Anti-racism movement incorporate unbiblical ideology that should be guarded against? Absolutely yes, no question! Can my fellow Christians agree with both of these statements, or does a side have to be taken? In fact, in a recent article Jemar explicitly states, "we are living in times that call us to take sides, either the side of justice or injustice." He then quoted Joshua 24 ("choose this day whom you will serve") to encourage Christians to side with a particular political movement, and adopt his form of political activism. If that doesn't get some alarm bells ringing, we're in big trouble.
I think it is wrong for conservative Christians to claim that one can only be a true Christian if following conservative political ideology. I think it is equally wrong for progressive Christians to claim that one can only be interested in fighting injustice and loving their neighbor if they fall in line with current progressive political ideology.
This is all I am pleading with my brothers and sisters to recognize. There is room in the Body for the politically conservative and progressive, for the two-time Trump supporter and BLM marcher. If one simply dismisses this statement a poor example of “both-sidesism”, I fear we have missed the foundations of Gospel message, and are idolizing ideology, instead of worshipping the One who saves each one of us by grace alone! And that is a truly deadly place to start from.
"Even some Christians, abandoning the virtue of charity, choose to believe everything the other side does is meant to harm, deceive, or control them. Civil dialogue and political compromise are left to the naïve. But in this time of great division and belligerence, the church must choose the opposite reaction. We must be peacemakers, especially when it comes to race and politics...
In the tensest times, they’ll watch their words, acknowledge their opponent’s human dignity, and guard their hearts from tribalism. They’ll address today’s bleak situation with tenacity and moral imagination, rather than cynicism."
Hi David, thanks for responding. I appreciate your heart. I agree with more than 95% of what you wrote, and in the interest of Christian unity I’m gonna pass on the opportunity to argue about the rest. I think we’d get along!
As for me, I sympathize with a lot of what Jemar goes through and writes about. I see more value in encouraging him as he seeks to follow the path God has set before him than in emphasizing any mistakes he’s making along the way. Your thoughts about centering our collective mission around Christ are valuable and needed, too. Have a good one!
I agree. I sympathize with much of his concerns as well, and am sure he has likely been treated very poorly by a large number of fellow Christians. He has expressed this to me directly. This truly saddens me. Your encouragement likely goes a long way. I am sure he likely feels "attacked" by some of my thoughts and words. I get that, but that is not my intention. Real and substantive dialogue is not a task for the faint of heart, particularly in the virtual world.
I also know that sin is utterly serious and deadly, and if we observe it growing in a brother or sister and say nothing, or even worse, encourage it to take root, that is the opposite of love in a Christian context.
In what I would consider Thomas Sowell's dry rendition of Ephesians 4:15, he says;
"When you want to help someone, tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, tell them what they want to hear."
What I think is really fascinating in the current CRT vs White Christian Nationalism culture war is, what I find to be, a crystal clear example of the Horseshoe Theory in real time. I try to listen to a lot of people on both sides of this current conversation and find that I can take many of the loudest voices and simply switch out the terms (CRT or WCN) and they are immediately making the other side's point. They are saying the exact same things. It's a pretty wild exercise. Typically, the loudest voices (or most magnified by our society) in the arena are closest to the extremes and, in turn, closest to each other.
Additionally, everyone's personal bias leads them to quickly dismiss the lies and danger on their side of battle line and accentuate the danger on the other side. So fickle we are.
Once I saw it, I cannot unsee it.
I can empathize with this perspective. It seems that extreme voices sometimes represent extremism better than whatever perspective (liberal, conservative, etc) they claim to represent. I would be careful about equivocating, though. Just because some number of members on each side of an aisle argue in bad faith, doesn’t mean that those who argue in good faith are equally right.
To put it another way, racism toward minorities still exists today, and the fact that there are people who will agree with that who are “extreme” does not mean it’s untrue; nor does it mean that those who say “racism doesn’t exist today” in a moderate tone are more correct than those who say it loudly and argumentatively.
Michael,
I appreciate your thoughts here, and largely agree. That said, I think your point about equivalence isn't quite representative of what I am communicating here. I think anyone discussing these topics in good faith will not say "racism doesn't exist today." In my review, what I find to be far more central to the conversation is; 1. how one defines the problem ("racism, systemic racism"), 2. the current extent, effects, and complexity of the problem, and 3. what are the best solutions in the here and now. This is a far more complex and nuanced discussion, and in my review includes significantly more equivalence than the example you provided.
I appreciate Esau McCaully's words when he says;
“Christians of good will can disagree on the relative impacts of injustice and racism in particular elements of society, and the best way to battle it. The work of the believing community then is to discern the nature of the problem and figuring out the best ways to make our societies more just and fair.”
I think a lot of us (on all sides of this discussion) are trying to do just this, discern the nature of the problem and the best path forward. This has a good and rich historical precedent (i.e. the sharp divide between W.E.B. Dubois and Booker T. Washington as one example). But in the midst of the challenging, complex, and dirty task, many end up getting frustrated and resort to calling each other marxist-CRT'ers or white Christian nationalists. I personally won't take part in that ad hominem childs play.
Now, I believe Jemar is doing his work in good faith, I really do. I see and hear his passion and desire to see wrongs righted. That comes directly from a justice-oriented heart, which Christians, who worship a God of justice, should ultimately have. I see and hear it in him. That said, we should be keenly aware that "the heart is deceitful above all else" and so quick to turn even our best of intentions into idolatry. Through reading and listening to much of his work, I do see him personally falling into much of the same traps he speaks so adamantly against. He openly admits that political ideology and activism is a deeply significant, if not central and foundational, piece of his work. In my review, Jemar seems so convinced of his own political position and righteousness, that he is unwilling to even take others, discussing in good faith, seriously and extend charity. If one is to question or critique his politically progressive stances, or draw attention to their concerns with our modern-day CRT/Anti-racism movement, he treats it as injustice and a direct attack on his own personal identity. Anyone who even questions his approach is immediately deemed sinful, pursuing injustice, and on the wrong side of what he calls “this generation’s Civil Rights moment.” I think this is a very detrimental stance to take in a conversation which requires humility and uncomfortable charity from all sides.
This short book recommendation above is an example of this point.
In this article, along with many others Jemar has authored, he talks about how democracy is “perilously close”, on a precipice, and hanging by a thread, and it is up to us to save it. Christianity is under dangerous attack exclusively from the political right, CRT is nothing more than a conservative boogeyman, and we must right the ship by adopting politically progressive orthopraxy. This doesn't sound all that much different to me from those claiming that CRT is a danger to our democracy and Christianity, WCN is a liberal boogeyman, and one must only be conservative and anti-CRT to save democracy and Christianity. Both arguments hold slivers of truth, but are easily manipulated by the enemy to encourage tribalism and division within the Church.
Short of it is this. Christians are called to “test the spirits” and be shrewd and discerning. Sin is "crouches at our doors" and "prowls about like a hungry lion."
Is white Christian nationalism a danger that should be guarded against? Absolutely yes, no question! Does the modern-day CRT/Anti-racism movement incorporate unbiblical ideology that should be guarded against? Absolutely yes, no question! Can my fellow Christians agree with both of these statements, or does a side have to be taken? In fact, in a recent article Jemar explicitly states, "we are living in times that call us to take sides, either the side of justice or injustice." He then quoted Joshua 24 ("choose this day whom you will serve") to encourage Christians to side with a particular political movement, and adopt his form of political activism. If that doesn't get some alarm bells ringing, we're in big trouble.
I think it is wrong for conservative Christians to claim that one can only be a true Christian if following conservative political ideology. I think it is equally wrong for progressive Christians to claim that one can only be interested in fighting injustice and loving their neighbor if they fall in line with current progressive political ideology.
This is all I am pleading with my brothers and sisters to recognize. There is room in the Body for the politically conservative and progressive, for the two-time Trump supporter and BLM marcher. If one simply dismisses this statement a poor example of “both-sidesism”, I fear we have missed the foundations of Gospel message, and are idolizing ideology, instead of worshipping the One who saves each one of us by grace alone! And that is a truly deadly place to start from.
"Even some Christians, abandoning the virtue of charity, choose to believe everything the other side does is meant to harm, deceive, or control them. Civil dialogue and political compromise are left to the naïve. But in this time of great division and belligerence, the church must choose the opposite reaction. We must be peacemakers, especially when it comes to race and politics...
In the tensest times, they’ll watch their words, acknowledge their opponent’s human dignity, and guard their hearts from tribalism. They’ll address today’s bleak situation with tenacity and moral imagination, rather than cynicism."
- Justin Giboney
Hi David, thanks for responding. I appreciate your heart. I agree with more than 95% of what you wrote, and in the interest of Christian unity I’m gonna pass on the opportunity to argue about the rest. I think we’d get along!
As for me, I sympathize with a lot of what Jemar goes through and writes about. I see more value in encouraging him as he seeks to follow the path God has set before him than in emphasizing any mistakes he’s making along the way. Your thoughts about centering our collective mission around Christ are valuable and needed, too. Have a good one!
I agree. I sympathize with much of his concerns as well, and am sure he has likely been treated very poorly by a large number of fellow Christians. He has expressed this to me directly. This truly saddens me. Your encouragement likely goes a long way. I am sure he likely feels "attacked" by some of my thoughts and words. I get that, but that is not my intention. Real and substantive dialogue is not a task for the faint of heart, particularly in the virtual world.
I also know that sin is utterly serious and deadly, and if we observe it growing in a brother or sister and say nothing, or even worse, encourage it to take root, that is the opposite of love in a Christian context.
In what I would consider Thomas Sowell's dry rendition of Ephesians 4:15, he says;
"When you want to help someone, tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, tell them what they want to hear."