Critical Theory and Christianity, A Critique
In his article, “IS CRITICAL RACE THEORY ‘UNCHRISTIAN’ PART 1,” Dr. Matt Mullins, Assistant Professor of English and History of Ideas/Associate Dean for Academic Advising Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, makes some interesting claims. Below is his opening paragraph.
“There has lately been some buzz in the evangelical world about Critical Race Theory (CRT). It tends to appear alongside terms such as Marxist, neo-Marxist, postmodernist, liberal, and social justice warrior (SJW) as a label for people and organizations accused of exchanging the gospel of Jesus Christ for a commitment to solving social problems, usually various forms of discrimination. The difference between CRT and these other epithets is that most Christians, like most people in general, have probably never heard of it at all, much less know anything about it.”
I totally agree with these statements. I somewhat agree with his next paragraph, and certainly whole-heartedly agree with the first sentence:
“CRT is just that, a theory. We all have theories about why the world is the way it is. Sometimes these theories are personal beliefs, other times they are larger systems of belief to which many people adhere. Oftentimes, we hold to different belief systems at once. For instance, you might be a Christian and a capitalist or a socialist with a deep commitment to democracy. CRT is a complex system of beliefs that emerged in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s to call attention to and redress the subtler forms of racism that replaced the overt racism made largely unacceptable by the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s.”
I think it’s important to note that you can certainly adhere to different belief systems, as Mullins states, as long as they are not diametrically opposed.
Next he examines why CRT emerged as an intellectual argument after the Civil Rights Movement.
“New and more insidious forms of racism (mass incarceration, ‘broken-windows’ policing, tearing down social safety nets) were taking the place of the blatant forms that had become socially unsavory. These subtler forms of racism were often the result of legislative and judicial action carried out under the banner of colorblindness, but which disproportionately affected people of color. CRT emerged in the worlds of political activism and academic legal studies in response to this idea of colorblindness to offer an alternative theory of race.”
Let’s dive into that a little. Dr. Mullins refers to “mass incarceration, ‘broken-windows’ policing, and tearing down social safety nets” as “more insidious forms of racism.”
If you want to know my thoughts about mass incarceration, mainly that it is a very real problem that disproportionately affects black people, but was the unintentional consequence of bi-partisan laws with cross-racial support in hopes that it would stem the rising tide of violent crime that accompanied drugs flooding urban neighborhoods you can check that out here. I’ll have to do another post on the “tearing down of social safety nets” as that would take too long right now.
But I will address “Broken Windows Policing,” which I studied in college. His article seems to infer that this was designed to insidiously target minorities. This PBS article takes a look at the good and bad of this practice and I appreciate their emphasis on exploring perceived needs of communities. Below, I’ve quoted the explanation of its origin:
“Although it was first practiced in New York City, the idea of Broken Windows originated across the river in Newark, during a study by criminologist George Kelling. He found that introducing foot patrols in the city improved the relationship between police and black residents, and reduced their fear of crime. Together with colleague James Wilson, he wrote an influential 1982 article in The Atlantic, where the pair used the analogy that a broken window, left unattended, would signal that no one cared and ultimately lead to more disorder and even crime.
Kelling has since said that the theory has often been misapplied. He said that he envisioned Broken Windows as a tactic in a broader effort in community policing. Officers should use their discretion to enforce public order laws much as police do during traffic stops, he said. So an officer might issue a warning to someone drinking in public, or talk to kids skateboarding in a park about finding another place to play. Summons and arrests are only one tool, he said.”
“Broken Windows Policing” was an attempt to improve the relationship between police and black residents and reduce their fear of crime. It gave birth to the community policing efforts we have today. It was certainly not an attempt to enforce covert white supremacy. Whether it failed in its mission and morphed into something that ended up causing adverse effects on minorities is certainly an important issue to study. But to look back in hindsight and decide that it was an “insidious form of racism” is quite another thing.
Mullins says that, “These subtler forms of racism were often the result of legislative and judicial action carried out under the banner of colorblindness, but which disproportionately affected people of color.”
Phrasing this as “the banner of colorblindness” seems to indicate that this was just a cover for racism instead of allowing for the fact that people may have actually been trying to apply justice in the way that it was meant to be applied: equally.
“Colorblindness” was an idea that almost everyone who championed racial reconciliation supported in the 80s and 90s, when I grew up. As I understood it back then, it was simply the adherence to the ideal that we judge each other by “the content of our character” rather than by the color of our skin. I never understood it as a way to act as if everyone had the same culture or that injustices had never happened. I believe that this has been a modern re-defining of the term by people who want to frame our entire history in the oppressor/oppressed framework of critical theory. Colorblindness appealed to almost everyone of every color when these efforts were made. It was part of pop culture, which can be seen in the popular En Vogue song, “Free Your Mind.” The entire song is a reflection of beliefs about the fight for racial equality at the time.
In Mullins’ “Part 2” of this discussion, he attempts to give a history of CRT, but makes sure he represents it “on its own terms.” This is an interesting point, because the only way for him to come to the conclusions he has about its origin is to ignore its actual origins in favor of the narrative some of its adherents have created. We don’t afford this kind of academic blindness to any other theory out there.
Mullins makes the assertion that, “Critical Race Theory was not born out of a university department. It did not emerge from a political party, think tank, or policy center. It was a natural reaction to the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.” But again, is this true? Let’s look at Derrick Bell, who Mullins names here:
“Perhaps the most influential early figure in CRT was Derrick Bell, who taught at Harvard, the University of Oregon, Stanford University, and New York University.”
Bell is a fascinating character and I certainly hope to learn more about him than I already have. I actually agree with him on many points, like his views on vouchers and tenure:
“Professor Bell was well known for his kindness to students. Media often missed the fact that even conservative white male students liked him personally, because he encouraged and invited them to challenge his views and gave them space to do so in his classes. Some even became his Teaching Assistants. Professor Bell once surprised his students in a Constitutional Law Seminar by speaking in favor of a conservative white Christian male's argument for school vouchers, going so far as to criticize the tenure system which he said made professors too eager to embrace and support the status quo.”
Unlike Mullins, who seems to think that CRT sprang organically out of the Civil Rights Movement without connection to any prior political philosophy, that was not the view of Bell and others of his time. They were simply applying an older theory, Critical Theory (also known at Marxist Critique) to the arena of race. CRT simply applied the oppressor/oppressed framework of Marxism to race instead of limiting it to economic classes.
Bell and other legal scholars began using the phrase "critical race theory" (CRT) in the 1970s as a takeoff on "critical legal theory", a branch of legal scholarship that challenges the validity of concepts such as rationality, objective truth, and judicial neutrality. Critical legal theory was itself a takeoff on critical theory, a philosophical framework with roots in Marxist thought.
If you understand this to be the origin of CRT, it makes perfect sense as to why an exasperated Patrisse Cullors felt the need to clarify that Black Lives Matter does, in fact, have a philosophy, that of Marxism. Evangelical efforts to downplay legitimate criticism of CRT’s ties to Marxism are baffling to me. Critical Race Theory is just one subset of Critical Theory, or Marxist Critique. What is the purpose of Marxist Critique?
Adherents to Critical Theory are often accused of having no end goal, of critiquing institutions without presenting answers. I think, though, that people who have made these assertions have missed the very obvious forest for the trees. The end goal of people who adhere to Marxist Critiques such as Critical Race Theory, is Marxism. Patrisse Cullors seems to understand this perfectly, as do many activists who are calling for things like “burning down the system.” What system do you think they mean, and what do you think they want to replace it with? They make it very plain in their own literature that they are anti-capitalists and are trained Marxists. This isn’t rocket science.
I agree with Mullins that it is very important for us, as Christians, to study Critical Race Theory. There are kernels of truth in every philosophy, and much to be learned in CRT research, but the danger comes when we blindly accept the teachings of CRT without “critiquing” the theory itself.
Why do people who study CRT tend to take this non-academic approach to this theory in particular? Perhaps because CRT itself “challenges the validity of concepts such as rationality [and] objective truth.” It teaches that any rational argument against it springs from inherent racism, and that people who are part of the majority culture have so many biases that they shouldn’t actually think about it at all, but must instead blindly follow the logic of people of color, but not all people of color, only those who agree with Critical Race Theory. If that isn’t a clear case of Marxist propaganda, I’m not sure what is.
Mullins is right when he asserts that people can hold to more than one philosophy at once, but one cannot hold to conflicting philosophies. He uses the example of holding to Christianity and Capitalism. These are are not mutually exclusive and those who hold to Christian values bring the moral framework necessary for capitalism to work as it is supposed to. But you cannot hold to both Marxism and Capitalism. They are opposites. I would also posit that you cannot hold to both Marxism and Christianity, since Marxism specifically rejects religion. Therefore, if Critical Race Theory is a subset of Marxist Critique that has the end goal of Marxism, embracing it as a valid lens with which to view the world is indeed “Un-Christian.”
