Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Horrible Idea: On “On Critical Race Theory”

Horrible Idea: On “On Critical Race Theory”

Last updated on: April 18, 2021 at 5:36 pm by John Mark N. Reynolds

Horrible Idea: On “On Critical Race Theory” 2021-04-18T17:36:20-04:00 John Mark N. Reynolds

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

There is a horrible idea regarding “critical race theory.” This bad idea has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of critical race theory. What is that bad, no good, very terrible idea?

We should not criticize an idea nobody holds. We should not spike the football in a baseball game.

Our description of “critical race theory”should be what the person holding “critical race theory” affirms or believes. If not, then our criticism is attacking something, but not “critical race theory” as held by critical race theorists.

How could that happen?

On Schools of Thought and Verbal Confusion

“I greatly admire this about your religion,” he said and proceeded to outline what he thought I believed. Sadly for our apparent agreement, when I told him I was “Orthodox,” he assumed (given his background) that I meant an Orthodox Jewish person. I meant “Orthodox Christian” or “Eastern Orthodox” or “Greek Orthodox of Antioch.” For a moment I was confused and if this mutual confusion had continued, then the conversation would have been utterly pointless.

More serious: I once was in a faculty meeting where a philosopher was discussing a “post-modern” idea carefully and with nuance. The artists in the room were (briefly) confused as the use of “post-modern” in art in totally different than in philosophy. For a few minutes the conversation was becoming heated as both people felt misunderstood until, good scholars that they were, they had a laugh and clarified their use of terms. This was a near thing.

Imagine “owning the conservatives” only to find no serious conservatives affirms what you claimed. Someone is owned, but self-owning is too easy a win to celebrate.

One reason I wrote When Athens Met Jerusalem is that I kept meeting people from all sorts of political and theological backgrounds who attributed certain ideas to Plato that Plato almost surely did not hold himself. There were schools of thought (say Neo-Platonism) that held those ideas, but not Plato. This meant that there were forms of Platonism held by a goodly number of scholars that were not subject to the criticisms being made about “Platonism.” A writer, particularly if relying on secondary sources, might discard all forms of Platonism when she need not do so.

This is serious: thoughtful Christians like CS Lewis or JRR Tolkien were Platonists and this misunderstanding has caused many Christians to reject good things they had to say.

A complicated set of ideas may define terms in special ways. This is not “jargon” in the bad sense, but specialized vocabulary to give clarity to people discussing an idea. This is like a medical doctor developing acronyms or terms to provide for specific information. You have to get inside a big set of ideas to see how terms are used in that community. If the community cannot understand your criticism, you may be using the vocabulary badly!

On Complicated Schools of Thought and Affirming Criticizing Ideas

When asked to speak as a philosopher in apologetics, I often was asked about “post-modernism.” I advised we not focus on the complicated set of ideas called “post-modernism,” because the post-modernists I read often could not agree on a definition of “post-modernism” themselves. To the extent they did agree, they seemed to advance a mixed set of ideas. Some were interesting and might help see texts in new ways. Some of those ideas, from particular thinkers, were not good.

I had no problem arguing against bad ideas, but I wanted to make sure that I understood the idea as the proponent understood it. It is easy to win an argument against an idea nobody actually holds, because it is obviously stupid. This does not seem valuable, even if it sells books by ginning up fear. Ideas within Soviet style Marxism regarding religion were very bad ideas that were killing people during much of my career. Arguing against those seemed more useful. When Soviet style tyranny fell, I was happy and did not feel an immediate need to find a new intellectual foil.

We retained the temptations of the world, the flesh, and devils. The perennial desires to materialism, self-indulgence, and idolatry give an apologist unending work in himself. This may not be exciting, but has the merit of being recognizable. If someone says: “Greed is good.”

No.

Easy enough to argue forcefully against ideas people held, people I knew, without giving them a label that did not fit. This might sound picky, but getting other people’s deeply held beliefs wrong is uncharitable. Christians are right to be offended when critics argue against a parody or gross oversimplification of our views. This does not mean never “drawing lines” or making counter-arguments (even strong ones).

Instead, we should draw lines that define a position that matters: one that someone holds.

A problem at the moment is that many critics of “critical race theory” are not criticizing ideas people who affirm critical race theory hold. This is a very low bar that critics should be able to get over! Don’t examine Orthodoxy, or post-modernism, Platonism, or critical race theory, in a way that misses the point of those you are trying to persuade!

When I say, “I am a Platonist,” and a critic says, “You must hate the body,” then the criticism does not land. Christian Platonism (think CS Lewis) affirms the goodness of the body. Maybe I should not be a Platonist in the way I am (my Thomist or nominalist friends say “Amen”), but at least attack my actual views!

Similarly, when my social media feed contains Christians who affirm “critical race theory” and do not affirm what is claimed they believe, then critics have missed the mark. There are ideas or methodologies that seem (at first glance) to be very bad to me, I would have to examine them closely, but I do not need the label “critical race theory” to describe those individual ideas as bad. I begin with what a person believes, try to understand it charitably, and only if I must advance a criticism.

For example, one need not be a “critical race theorist” to think systematic racism exists. That is a not a telltale of some new bad idea. How do we know? Everyone agrees that Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Movement worked hard to institutionalize the racism of the period. Some secular scientists and some religious figures of the time agreed that “white supremacy” was true and they built protections for white power. Dismantling such structures was easy at first, the obvious parts, but are harder later as one gets to more subtle legal biases. One can be a traditional conservative or a traditional liberal or many other political positions and affirm these facts.

We can, and should, think about how best to go about this godly work. What is the best way? Are some ways harmful?

These are all discussions that we must have without creating parodies of other views than our own. What good is that?

Three Signs of a Good Faith Criticism or On “On Critical Race Theory”

Again: I am not suggesting that criticizing ideas is wrong or that we must always be mealy mouthed.

Here is an example of a forceful take: intentional or lazy misrepresentation of someone’s ideas is a horrible idea. It is uncharitable and stupid!

Disagreeing is not hard. Find what someone thinks and summarize. Ask if they agree with the summary. Take account of their clarifications. If you still disagree, then make a sound and persuasive argument against that position.

Here are three signs of a good faith criticism:

You have fairly described the view. (People agree that you disagree with what they believe!)
You never confuse an “end” with a “means.” (People may have a goal that is good, but a means to get there that is bad. Keep them apart.)
You begin with primary literature of the movement and never focus only on critics especially when those critics do not use primary literature.

Ask the person whose idea you think might be bad what you should read. Read those works. Dialog with the literature and those who understand that literature. If you then disagree, especially if the idea seems very bad, then have at it!

This is not quick. This implies that not every person will be able to opine, write, or be an expert on all big ideas! We have to build academic communities.

Not doing so is a horrible idea.

Apologetics

Culture

Philosophy

Previous Post

April 12, 2021

Get Sheep or Goats and Live in a City

Next Post

April 14, 2021 So Cold, So Calm, So Holy a Night (RMS Titanic Day)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Apologetics Art Culture Education On Books On Education Philosophy Politics Pop Culture Spiritual Reflections Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 July 2025 June 2025 September 2024 July 2024 June 2024 December 2023 June 2023 September 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which Psalm prophesies the coming of the Messiah being rejected?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Psalm 1 Psalm 51 Psalm 137 Psalm 118

Books by This Author John Mark Reynolds

See All Titles »