A constructive response to CRT: The case of SBC

By Paul Swamidass, Op-ed Contributor Thursday, February 11, 2021

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is in the news frequently. However, two months ago, everyone I asked the question, “What is Critical Race Theory” (including a minority pastor, college professors, and college-educated folks), all pleaded ignorance about it.

The meaning of CRT appears to be a mystery to Americans. The mystery of what CRT is may be a source of CRT-induced divisiveness within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Let us first consider what CRT is before addressing CRT-induced divisiveness within SBC.

What is CRT?

Get Our Latest News for FREE

Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.

Subscribe

First, it is a theory or hypothesis. In university courses, we teach numerous theories and hypotheses; some theories are not as weighty as scientific theories. Like most theories and hypotheses, CRT also predicts outcomes. CRT predicts negative legal and economic outcomes for blacks in America due to what CRT calls “systemic racism.” The predicted outcome may be called, “inequality.” According to the website Criticalrace.org, CRT version of systemic racism is defined as follows:

Systemic racism, in the eyes of critical race theorists, stems from the dominance of race in American life. Critical race theorists and anti-racist advocates argue that, because race is a predominant part of American life, racism itself has become internalized into the American conscious. It is because of this, they argue, that there have been significantly different legal and economic outcomes between different racial groups.

Second, CRT asserts the following (Office of Equity and Inclusion, Portland Community College), which form the core of CRT.  Please note that “assertions,” by definition, are not scientific, and may or may not be true; here are three of the assertions of CRT:

1. CRT asserts that racism is a permanent component of American life.
2. CRT challenges the claims of neutrality, objectivity, colorblindness, and meritocracy in society.
3. CRT is a framework that is committed to a social justice agenda to eliminate all forms of subordination of people.

Those who accept CRT, accept the following, and those, who reject CRT, reject the following:

1. Systemic racism causes negative outcomes for blacks in America, and
2. All the assertions of CRT are true.

Limitation of CRT: Limited to racial identity only

The office of Equity and Inclusion (EI) at Portland Community College recognizes 29 Group Identities of people; racial identify is just one of the 29 group identities. Further, Delgado and Stefancic, in their book CRT: An Introduction, say, “Everyone has potentially conflicting, overlapping identities, loyalties, and allegiances.” For example, just like any other person, I am defined by multiple identities such as, Asian Indian, retired, educator, parent, Christian, male, etc. No one is or can be completely defined by race alone.

Could any theory/hypothesis such as CRT based on just one out of multiple identities of a person accurately predict important outcomes in the person’s life? The jury is out.

How should Christians respond to CRT?

Given the above summary of CRT, Christian individuals and organizations may choose to respond to CRT in all three possible ways as follows:

1. If CRT is true, I/we will make every effort NOT to contribute to negative outcomes for black Americans as predicted by CRT.
2. I/we will make every effort to enable black Americans realize their full potential. As a college professor. I have done my share of educating black Americans at the undergraduate and graduate levels.
3. I/we will make every effort to make known the hope of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ to black Americans.

Education: The universal equalizer

CRT says race causes systemic racism and inequality for blacks in America. There is only one preeminent antidote for inequality. It is called literacy/education.

UNESCO, founded in 1945, with the singular purpose of bringing literacy and education to developing nations, has the experience of educating millions of people in the last 75 years. UNESCO, given its vast experience, prescribes and enables the education of poor distressed communities for the reasons below:

“Literacy is a human right, a tool of personal empowerment and a means for social and human development. Educational opportunities depend on literacy. Literacy is at the heart of basic education for all and essential for eradicating poverty, reducing child mortality, curbing population growth, achieving gender equality and ensuring sustainable development, peace, and democracy."  UNESCO, 2010. 

With decades of experience, UNESCO says, education accomplishes empowerment, human development, eradication of poverty, gender equality, and racial equality. Therefore, using UNESCO’s experience, a tangible response to CRT would be to make EFFECTIVE education available to black Americans, regardless of where they live. As a college professor, I had the privilege of educating black-American undergraduate and graduate students for over three decades.

We can cite examples of those who overcame the adverse predictions of CRT through education: Former President Barack Obama, former Secretary of HUD Dr. Ben Carson, current US Secretary of Defense Gen. Lloyd Austin III, and the list goes on. They are evidence that the adverse predictions of CRT can be overcome through education and effort.

CRT episode offers an opportunity for SBC

As a member of an SBC church for nearly 30 years, I am more than casually interested in the divisiveness plaguing the SBC over CRT.  The SBC adopted CRT in 2019, and a year later, the SBC has been advised to drop it by the heads of all its seminaries. The result is division within the convention; some predominantly black churches are leaving the convention or considering it. Is there a way out?

American inner-city schools have a very high percentage of dropouts and their graduates cannot perform at grade level (for more, read the three related op-eds I wrote here, here and here).  If mission-minded organizations such as SBC want to help poor black Americans, one option would be to make superior education accessible to minorities through church-schools in inner cities, where illiteracy and poverty are multi-generational among black Americans.

In my earlier op-ed, I made the case for pilot testing a mission-oriented, tuition-less church-school for 100 students in an inner city to attract parents and children seeking better education in a caring and loving mission school. We can learn much from such a pilot school about its effectiveness and whether we need more such mission schools to reach inner-city children and their parents with education and the Gospel.

Remember, for hundreds of years church-schools served as tools used to eradicate illiteracy and poverty in mission fields in remote continents. Church-schools offering quality education could be an attractive alternative for inner-city families if offered with low or no tuition.  By doing so, church-schools would earn the opportunity to teach the Bible as well, and convey the Gospel to students and their parents in our inner cities.

Educating inner-city poor children through church-schools could be a constructive, Biblical, mission-minded ministry of SBC.  Such schools would be more than what CRT proponents could ask for.