The answer to that question seems relatively simple and obvious to me. However, since people don’t seem to see it, I am going to try to explain it without getting myself caught in the blaze of controversy.
What is CRT?
The heart of the debate over CRT should be the definition of CRT. The problem with the debate is there are many definitions of CRT. I will list two of the edge definitions, but there are a million shades between.
Some proponents define CRT as method of studying the outcome of racially biased laws and cultural trends that have had and continue to have a disparate impact on ethnic groups. That is what proponents like Delgado set out to expose. It’s simply the attempt to ask the question, “How have laws intentionally or unintentionally led to poorer outcomes for ethnic minorities?” or “How has race (or ethnicity) impacted social outcomes and why?” Let’s call this “CRT A”.
To others, CRT is the process of explaining why contemporary American Whites are uniquely responsible for current ethnic disparities and ought to continually repent of their privilege that explains the majority of their positive outcomes. To be White is to be tainted. One must repent of being White. Capitalism is White. Western Culture is White. Being White is bad, therefore we must adopt Socialism, reject classical literature, and continually repent of being born White or supporting Whiteness (even if we aren’t actually ethnically Caucasian). This is a caricature of many versions of CRT, but the internet will reveal enough cases of people who say they are advocating CRT proclaiming these things that we need not exclude them from the discussion. Let’s call this “CRT Z”.
One need not agree with either of these definitions to accept that there are people who describe their position as CRT that hold to them. In other words, neither of these may be “true CRT,” but there are proponents of “CRT” that argue these positions.
Recognizing the Difference
It doesn’t take a genius to see that there is a world of different between the first definition and the second. It also does not take much discernment to accept that the first approach may frame a legitimate (even if not correct) mode of inquiry, while the second is another form of racism.
There is, in short, terminological confusion.
Sometimes this confusion is used by the intelligentsia in a Motte and Bailey approach, where they throw out some controversial racial analysis or critique of that analysis and retreat to the safer ground of their polar definition when challenged. Sometimes, I think, people discussing CRT have read so narrowly (not to say they haven’t read extensively) that they legitimately haven’t encountered another perspective or one that represents the harmful extremes. Or, in other cases, they have granted too much grace to “their side” of the debate that they don’t see the encroachment into the unreasonable.
At the very least, as we think about the issue, we should recognize that definitions are the key. CRT is not monolithic, so we should seek to understand before we argue.
Why Not Just Reject the Term?
After the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention affirmed Resolution 2, On the Sufficiency of Scripture for Race and Racial Reconciliation, there has been an outcry in some subsections of the SBC that the statement does not include a clear rejection of “CRT.”
The statement itself is sound, biblical, and resonates with the various statements on race and racial reconciliation that the SBC has adopted in the past. For those that care to read it, it quickly becomes clear that “CRT Z” and many variants on that side of the spectrum are out of bounds based on that description.
The complaint among some is that “CRT A” is not as clearly anathematized by the statement. Therefore, when individuals ask questions like, “How has race (or ethnicity) been used unjustly in society or resulted in unjust outcomes?”, it is not clearly out of bounds. Of course, it is also not clear that someone asking such a basic question about race (or ethnicity) is necessarily reliant upon the tenets of CRT.
“That Sounds Like CRT”
And that is exactly the reason why it was good to issue Resolution 2 without an explicit rejection of CRT.
In some corners of the internet, it has become increasingly common to argue that any analysis of society, data, or theology that includes a consideration of race or ethnicity is a form of CRT. This is, whether intentional or not, an error that conflates the problems of “CRT Z” with any discussion of race or ethnicity, or its lingering effects.
In opposition to these discussions, some have absolutized statements like Paul’s Galatians 3:28 (There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus), arguing that it means that there should be absolutely no consideration of differences created by or resulting from race or ethnicity. However, Paul wasn’t arguing that those categories did not exist (otherwise why did he differentiate the circumcised from the uncircumcised in Col 4), but that they should not impact unity in the body of Christ.
It would be funny if it were not so painful, but some of those most vocal about using Gal 3:28 to outlaw any discussion of racial (or ethnic) differences are also the most careful to differentiate the roles of men and women in the church. To be logically consistent, if Galatians 3:28 means that we can never talk about racial disparities in the church, then those that hold that position should not recognize a different function in the church between men and women. In other words, they should be willing to accept female pastors. Most often they do not. That would reflect a consistent, though incorrect, application of Gal 3:28.
Because there are longstanding social impacts due to race—one need only look at the existence of distinct African-American denominations (which were largely formed in response to overt racism in predominately white denominations)––some critics paint any theological or social analysis that recognizes the actual differences related to race (or ethnicity) as a form of CRT, whether or not the accused has any knowledge of or intent to use CRT.
The existence of real and obvious racial (or ethnic) differences means that there are times that examining those differences is necessary and warranted.
The Bigger Problem
The bigger problem with the CRT debate, and a reason why we should not try to anathemize “CRT” wholesale, is that the some of the loudest voices against “CRT” are also the ones who argue that any analysis that includes racial (or ethnic) differences are using “CRT,” whether any form of actual CRT is actually in play. Often, it seems that these accusations are made more on political grounds (i.e., someone supports a different economic or social policy) than on the basis of careful understanding of the ideas under discussion.
Let me simplify: The logic of some of the loudest anti-“CRT” argumentation goes like this:
1. CRT is a form of analysis that considers racial (or ethnic) disparities.
2. Scholar or pastor X has cited analysis or made a declaration that takes into account racial (or ethnic) disparities.
3. Therefore, scholar or pastor X advocates for CRT.
Anyone who has taken basic logic will recognize the problems with this line of reasoning.
Unless ALL discussions that take into account racial (or ethnic) disparities are CRT, then the logic doesn’t follow. And even that logic is based on the assumption that all versions of CRT are irredeemably bad (or at best unhelpful) and inconsistent with the gospel. Some argue that “CRT A” and some similar versions are relatively benign and may actually help illuminate the current situation, but that is a different discussion for a different day. However, it shouldn’t be impossible for us to imagine that an individual may recognize that “CRT Z” is bad, while still being able to glean something of value from “CRT A” even if, in the end, the individual rejects the policy proposals of those who use “CRT A.”
It’s also possible to ask questions similar to those who use and advocate for “CRT A” and yet not be dependent upon their ideas. Simply because one things sounds similar to another does not mean those things are the same.
Sometimes arguments about who is “using CRT” play out in these obvious terms, but often it is more subtle. And yet, many of the attempts to combat “CRT” among inerrantist evangelicals amounts to:
a. That individual used language or addressed a concept that could be associated with CRT.
b. Therefore, that individual advocates for CRT.
c. CRT is bad.
d. Therefore, that individual must be ridiculed and abused publicly and, if possible, fired.
If we’re being honest, we’ll recognize this pattern. It isn’t universal, but it is fairly common. And, if we’re being serious about being thoughtful, we’ll recognize why it isn’t helpful.
We should also recognize statements that absolutize rejections of “CRT” are a tool for vocal groups within our communities to prevent discussion about important issues, because once the accusation is made that someone is advocating “CRT,” whether true or not, then the person will be forced to defend themselves or risk losing their job. There is an element of McCarthyism to the whole situation.
Conclusion
I set out to answer the question, “Why doesn’t everyone within the SBC simply reject CRT openly?”
There is no question that more discussion is needed, but I think I’ve begun to explain why absolute statements on CRT are unhelpful, especially when “CRT” means radically different things to different people and that, for some people, simply raising questions about race lead to accusations of “CRT.” The kind of pseudo-thoughtful analysis that has replaced honest engagement with ideas, especially around concepts like “social justice” and “CRT,” is not helpful.
Significantly when some voices assume CRT is at the root of any discussion of race (or ethnicity) that arrives at different conclusions than those of another group, we have a problem. Additionally, if the simple recognition that one’s cultural background shapes one’s understanding of a context is a version of CRT, then it is an unhelpful label.
Since the label “CRT” is so ambiguous, it is better to identify the aspects of “CRT” that are objectionable and explain why they are inconsistent with Scripture. Then we can all examine the statements of scholars and pastors in comparison to those tenets and argue against objectionable content rather than making accusations of things that “sound like” or “are not sufficiently opposed to” whatever “CRT” is in the mind of this or that cultural commentator. Based on the statement of those on the SBC resolution committee, this sort of action—to make clear what is inconsistent with biblical orthodoxy—is exactly what was being attempted with Resolution 2.
Will this scratch the itch of the culture warrior? No, but usually they live for the denunciation and the battle rather than the truth. But for those that are being honest and careful in their pursuit of truth, statements like Resolution 2 are a step forward in identifying the guardrails for civil discussion.
Reading your Bible is a battle. There’s a reason why Paul lists Scripture as the sword of the Spirit in his discussion of the armor of God (Eph. 6:17). More even than that, Scripture reveals God’s character and is, thus, central to worshiping well (Psalm 119). That’s why reading the Bible is a battle.