LOL at the uptick in followers.

Fair Warning: I believe that Cultural American Patriotic Churchianity (CAPC for short - aka White Evangelicalism/Christian Nationalism) has caused more damage to the body of Christ and the credibility of the church than CRT ever has or will.

It's been a systemic problem since the founding of the country (indeed, before the founding of the country) and has contributed to the church being complicit in chattel slavery, Jim Crow, cointelpro, redlining and a host of other things the Bible condemns as sin.
The conflation of Christianity with Americanism since the founding of the country has left too many actual believers confusing love of country and culture with biblical Christianity (thus, in their minds, to fight against conservative political culture is also to fight against
what they think is biblical Christianity). It's part of what makes it okay to minimize the sins of men like Dabney while extolling his ability as a theologian in other areas, or minimizing it as him being 'a man of his time'. It also allows you to have an atheist speak at your
Christian conference while condemning your brother who holds different political views than you, but professes the same faith you do.

On the other side of the issue, the phrase 'black lives matter' is true because of the Imago Dei. Debate your momma about it if you disagree.
The organization Black Lives Matter™ is simply using black people to push forward an agenda that has very little to do with black lives, black communities and actual justice. Not the first time white liberals (the black women who started the organization are just tools...) have
used black faces to push an agenda that has little to do with actually helping black people while claiming that it does. CRT itself isn't a worldview, but ends up functioning like one if you try to frame EVERYTHING through it. Some of the things it points out are true.
But it offers no solutions other than oppressor and oppressed switching places. I have no interest in seeing white folks in the US get treated the same way black folks have been treated for centuries in the US. That retribution may 'feel good', but it will be judged and
condemned by God. And if you call yourself a Christian, this should have no place in your heart. Period. Do not be conformed to secular thinking on this (secular conservative or secular liberal). The pro-blackity-black person who hates 'white people' and 'white culture'
will be right next to the kinist, confederate flag waving, white pride, black person hating individual in the Lake of Fire because BOTH have failed to love their neighbor as themselves (1 John 3:4-10, Lev. 19:18). Too many Christians on both 'sides' have allowed
themselves to be carried away into a 'side' defined by secular discussions when the 'side' they should be defining their stance by scripture instead of culture or politics. The defining Christian ethic on these issues start with love and compassion (Eph. 4:32) and flow from
there to serve others. As @imcurtkennedy has rightly pointed out, NOTHING in scripture says that it's your responsibility to judge the validity of someone's lived experience first before you treat them as a brother or sister (or a neighbor) or tell them the 'real reason' for
what they have experienced in life. That's Americanism (both right and left) but it isn't of God or found in the scriptures. If your first allegiance is Christ, be more Christian than American or Black.

Let the smoke, pushback and unfollows come.

*watches numbers drop*

More from Society

Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause


I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.

I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views

I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.

I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.

You May Also Like