Big Words

Ooo! New word! "Hamartiology." "What's that?" I hear you eagerly ask (because I'm writing this and I can write it that way). Hamartiology is the theology of the doctrine of sin. Well, we should specify; it is the doctrine of sin in the Christian faith. It includes a definition of sin, where sin comes from, how it affects us, and the final outcome. It describes the degrees of sin ("Are all sins equal to God?") and covers the concept of the "sin nature." It includes the judgment for sin ("Is there really a Hell, or do they just cease to exist?"). A lot of important points. So it caught my eye when I read about the Southern Baptist Convention of 2019 embracing Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality (CRT/I) as acceptable analytical tools for hamartiology.

Critical Theory is an assessment from social sciences and humanities to reveal and challenge power structures. It has its origins in Marxism in the early 20th century. One aspect of Critical Theory is Critical Race Theory (CRT). The goal of CRT is to analyze language, history, etc. to discover oppression in order to cause people to revolt. It didn't really become a "thing" until the 1980's with a new engine of postmodernism (where words and reality are all relative) as a function of race issues (because, as we can understand, "race issues" are typically synonymous with "oppression"). CRT was aiming at overthrowing (See? Revolt.) white supremacy. Ergo, "Critical Race Theory" refers only to racism expressed by white people to people of color. The premise is that white people as a group are racists ... period. CRT has spawned terms like "microaggression" and "wokeness" and embraces innovation like "storytelling" where you "name your own reality." CRT is premised on the idea that race is not a biological reality, but a social construct created by white people to maintain their power base. (Interestingly, I think the concept of "racism" in this sense is a construct, given that we are all of the "human race," just not a "white" construct. We know this because every "race" is typically prejudiced against the other "races.") CRT is also the basic source of "Intersectionality" (which is why it is "CRT/I" -- closely linked).

Intersectionality is the idea that you can look at your life, determine various lines of discrimination and/or oppression, and define your identity by it. For instance, a woman has gender discrimination. A black person has racial discrimination. So a black woman would have two lines of discrimination. Poor people experience oppression, so the poor black woman has three lines of intersectionality. A poor black lesbian ... well, you see how this works. Lots of factors: occupation, education, ethnicity, income, family, sexual orientation, gender, age, race, religion ... the list goes on and on. Intersectionality applies only to minority classes. For instance, oppression on the basis of being a Christian is invalid since it isn't a minority, but on the basis of being a Muslim is valid. No one is allowed to count "oppression for being white" as oppression or discrimination. In fact, intersectionality is almost exclusively applied to women, so most guys are right out. The idea is to find all the lines of oppression (primarily for women) and see how they connect to all the lines of oppression for other people (primarily women) to build an identity basis to allow united oppressed people to overthrow their oppressors together.

Now, feed all that back into "Southern Baptist Convention" and analyzing sin. How does "All white people are racists" (not supported by Scripture) assist in analyzing sin? How does "You are defined by the ways you are oppressed" (not supported by Scripture) aid us in analyzing sin? Or, here, let me try asking this another way. If sin is defined by God, how does a man-made philosophical construct aid in getting what God is concerned about in terms of sin? CRT/I argues that "All white people (especially men) are inherently evil" and "All non-whites are victims of whites." How does that help us get closer to understanding the nature of sin? Generally speaking, what does CRT/I give us on the topic of sin that Scripture does not? What authority does this human construct of CRT/I have that Scripture does not? Then there is the problem that CRT/I has no mechanism for redemption. That is, once white, always white; once male, always male. Ergo, if you are white and/or male, you will always be evil. We're sorry that the blood of Christ doesn't cover that. It is true that, biblically, white people are inherently evil, but not on the basis of being white. It's on the basis of being people. And no one gets a pass. It's true that discrimination on the basis of race or gender is evil (Gen 1:26-27; Deut 10:17; Gal 3:28 etc.), but that includes discrimination against "people in power" (read "whites" and "males" to the CRT/I crowd). Oppression and discrimination are wrong, but they aren't (by far) the only sins. If God's intention is to bring people to Him -- to save people -- how does this race/gender oriented approach to oppression/discrimination help accomplish this? If a philosophical position built by humans is used to analyze a biblical concept like sin in opposition to Scripture, how can this be a good thing? Exactly what part can the worldview of CRT/I have in the opposing worldview of biblical Christianity? What does it say about a denomination that chooses to leave off Scripture as the sole authoritative source on matters of faith and practice? It can't be a good thing.