CRT & Reparations

The call for reparations surfaces from time to time. Although I have strong feelings on this issue, I think I will follow the lead of Neil Shenvi and not weigh in directly on this at the moment, as least not in this short piece. As Critical Race Theory is replacing the word of God as the way to understand and interpret life, Gregory Thompson and Duke Kwon's book, Reparations, was released a few months ago. In April, Kevin DeYoung posted, "Reparations: A Critical Theological Review" Needless to say, Thompson, and Kwon were not happy and posted, "Sanctifying the Status Quo: A Response to Reverend Kevin DeYoung" I appreciate Neil Shenvi's thoughts in "DeYoung, Thompson, and Kwon: Seeing the Danger" and kindness in his delivery. He cites the core issue which bothered me, and I am glad he weighed in first. I fear I would not have been as kindly disposed:

"It also concerns me that Thompson and Kwon criticize DeYoung for being inappropriately focused on theology. In contrast, they argue that “historical, sociological, and economic realities” –rather than theology– “serve as the primary justification for reparations.'” This claim is, in itself, quite startling, since orthodoxy (right belief) must logically precede orthopraxy (right action). Before we can act rightly on our beliefs, we must have the right beliefs. Consequently, it is exceptionally dangerous to wave away theological objections on the grounds that our practices have some other, non-theological justification. Imagine dismissing the question of whether it is theologically appropriate to worship idols on the grounds that we have good sociological reasons to worship idols!

However, the most troubling element of Thompson and Kwon’s piece is their claim that DeYoung’s errors are a consequence of his “centering white theology.” Rather than answer his questions or demonstrate his theological mistakes, they focus on the ways in which DeYoung’s review “redeploys prejudicial methodology with deep historical roots in white supremacy.” I will simply quote Thompson and Kwon at some length from various parts of their article.

Reading and studying the word of God in its historical-grammatical context must start with fundamental questions. Who was writing? To whom were they writing? When were they writing? Why were they writing? What were they saying? How would those to whom it was intended have understood it? Once we understand the text we can ask if and how it may apply to us. Why do Thompson and Kwon seem to key in on DeYoung's whiteness instead of his theological concerns? After all, the title and theme of his post was, "Reparations: A Critical Theological Review”

https://mailchi.mp/4245d44c4d3e/the-soteriology-of-anime?e=169825fd77