Blog

1 Aug, 2025

Blog

The Roots are Bad

Learning to think like Jesus, means retraining your mind to think true thoughts about God.

“Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to My voice.” Jesus

“What is truth?” Pilate

As we’ve seen in previous blogs, it’s problematic for Christians to declare that their ultimate aim in life is to become like Jesus. What makes this even more problematic is that nobody seems to agree about what exactly that means.

One christians blogger we’ve discovered says that becoming like Jesus means living like the historic Jesus of the four gospels. Last week we explored the writings of a christian blogger named Scott, who neglected to make any mention to the historic Jesus and based his whole “Wanna Be Like Jesus” blog on one verse from Romans. This week we’ll explore the second part of Scott’s blog entitled “How Do I Start Thinking Like Jesus?”

A Little Background

I just finished reading a book entitled “Deceived” about a “devious polygamous cult” in Ogden Utah. In the past year I’ve watched several Hulu series, one called Under the Banner of Heaven, and the other called “Escaping Polygamy”. It didn’t surprise me that, yet another polygamous cult had sprung up in Utah. What makes Utah such a fertile environment for destructive polygamous cults? It occurred to me that perhaps the roots of Mormonism are what causes these polygamous cults to keep springing up like weeds.

Although modern day LDS faithful have tried very hard to sanitize and whitewash the history of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, both were polygamists. Joseph Smith, who is still revered as The True Prophet, is believed to have had 49 wives, some of them while they were still married to their legal husband. Brigham Young, who has a university named after him, had 56 wives. The fact is, that modern day LDS faithful still revere Smith and Young as godly prophets. As a result, it’s not all that surprising when polygamous cults spring up like bind weed in Utah. The roots of Mormonism are bad. I repeated that phrase to myself all morning. The roots are bad… the roots are bad.

However, this is not a blog about Mormonism. Enough has already been written about the LDS and FLDS communities. This is a blog about mainstream christianity and how its roots might also be bad.

I sat down to work on this week’s blog with the “roots are bad” thought in my head. In our previous blog we were exploring the writings of a christian blogger named Scott on a website called “prepared to answer.org”. As I started reading part 2 of his blog about becoming like Jesus, I read these words.

“I have a chronic dandelion problem in my yard. I pull them up, I spray them and run them over with the lawn mower again and again and again, and yet they keep coming back. But that’s for one very simple reason: I haven’t pulled up the roots.  It’s the same problem with our old sinful life. We can try “weeding out” the thoughts, desires, and actions that appear on the surface in our day-to-day living, but if we don’t get at the root, those same patterns of sin will reappear over and over again.”

Roots? This seems more than coincidental. This could get interesting.

Scott continues,

“Getting at the root   So where do we look for that root of sin that needs to be torn up? We find it in Romans 1:18-32. Right in the middle of his brilliant analysis of mankind’s sinful estate, Paul traces the root of sin to a decisive moment where humanity embraced an exchange of ideas:”

(For the record: I’m not so enamored with Paul’s “brilliant analysis” of mankind. But that’s a topic for another blog.)

The “root of sin” that Scott is just about to reference is the infamous “original sin” of Adam and Eve. According to christian dogma, all humans have bad roots. It’s inescapable. We’ve inherited our sinful nature from the first two humans. Simply being born comes with the curse of Adam and Eve’s sin. Every church mission statement I have ever read, mentions original sin in its list of beliefs.  Let’s see if Scott has anything new to add to this topic. Remember, his blog is supposed to be about learning to “think like Jesus”. Let’s see how he makes that jump from original sin to thinking like Jesus.

Scott continues,

“They exchanged the truth about God for [the] lie and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen”. (Romans 1:25)

“Paul is talking about all of us, but he specifically has in mind that moment in the garden of Eden where the first man and woman embraced Satan’s lie that eating the fruit would make them “like God”.

First off, who are “they”? Even by reading the verses surrounding verse 25, it is not quite clear who “they” are. Paul never specifically says, but in verse 18 he mentions some unspecified “ungodly and unrighteous men”. Scott, however, confidently concludes that “they” is referring to Adam and Eve. In addition, he says that Paul was specifically referring to that moment in the mythical garden of Eden when Adam and Eve supposedly ate the fruit of knowledge. A careful reading of Romans 1:25 (which Scott obviously didn’t do) reveals that there is no mention (not even a hint) of the Garden of Eden, nor of Adam and Eve. How Scott got from some unspecified ungodly men to a “specific” reference about Adam and Eve is anyone’s guess and speaks more to Scott’s creativity than his biblical scholarship.

What’s more, the phrase from verse 25, “they… worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator” absolutely could not have been referring to the mythical Adam and Eve. So how, and more importantly, why, did Scott make that jump? Obviously, he knew where he wanted his blog to go, so he simply made the verse say what he wanted it to say, whether it did or not. Unfortunately, this kind of deceptive misrepresentation of scripture is not uncommon among christian writers.

For the sake of argument, if Paul actually was referring to Adam and Eve in verse 25, then he still must have had them in mind in verse 26-27 as well, where (if you follow Scott’s reasoning) he “specifically” claims that Eve “exchanged” Adam for Adamah, and Adam began his infamous relationship with Steve.

Second, how is it even remotely possible that Scott knows what Paul “specifically” had in mind when he wrote his letter to the christian church in Roman? (A church, by the way, which he neither founded, nor even visited.) Let me guess, the Holy Spirit (a major player in Scott’s blogs) told Scott what Paul was thinking in the mid-first century.

It’s obvious that Scott, is creating a false narrative when he says that Paul was talking about “all of us” and that he specifically had the garden of Eden in mind.

What is Truth?

Later in his blog Scott writes that “ultimately all true knowledge has God as its starting point”. So, if his goal as a christian teacher is to impart “true knowledge”, why does his blog contain so many blatant and disingenuous misrepresentations? Where’s the truth in that? Perhaps, his theological roots are bad.

Scott continues,

“By eating it (the forbidden fruit), Adam and Eve demonstrated their desire and willingness to replace God’s Law (i.e. the Creator’s rule over his creation) with their own law (i.e. the creation’s rule of itself). Paul’s logic could not be clearer. Once the lie took root, humanity became incapable of knowing or desiring or doing the will of God precisely because we had willfully abandoned the starting point for every true thought.”

According to Scott, it’s not the system that has bad roots, it’s the entire human race, which has rejected the “will of God” to rule over them. Nothing is wrong with christianity (of course), it’s the decedents of Adam and Eve who claimed the right to control their own destiny. As a result, the entire human race has become incapable of knowing “every true thought”. Oh my! One might suppose that someone as enlightened as Scott would have a solution to this dire human dilemma, and indeed he does.

The Solution

“Something changes, however, when a person places their faith in Jesus Christ. God through his Holy Spirit enlightens their darkened mind so that they can see the truth about God in Christ. To put it simply… sinners are made to see the truth about “the lie” and the lie about “the truth”. In short, they’re made able to know the truth about God and “the truth sets them free”.

There you have it. Once someone joins the Jesus Club, the Holy Spirit will “enlighten” them so they can finally see the truth, which will then set them free. Let’s take a deeper dive into that thought.

The Truth About the Lie

One thing about Scott’s reasoning gives me cause for concern. Once someone joins the Jesus club and they receive the Holy Spirit, why doesn’t the Holy Spirit “enlighten their darkened minds” and open their eyes to see the “truth about the lie” of original sin”? It’s perplexing.

The Lie: (All of these come directly from church mission statements.) Adam and Eve sinned, and their sin then spread like a virus to all humans and consequently the entire human race experienced spiritual death. Therefore, every human is born with a sinful and depraved nature and are separated from God. Mankind is sinful, lost and deserves eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire.

The truth: The story about the original sin of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden is completely fictitious, made up, and never actually happened. (Which, by the way, is also true of almost everything written in the book of Genesis.) Sin does not “spread like a virus” from generation to generation and just being born does not automatically produce a depraved nature. What a silly and dangerous lie to teach children. (See end note 1)

The Lie About the Truth

The Lie: (From the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy) Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in (a literal six day) creation or about the events of world history (such the Flood and the Tower of Babel.) The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

The Truth: The inconvenient truth is that the Bible is neither inerrant, infallible, nor “verbally” God-given. Christians, who believe and defend that particular lie do so because questioning inerrancy can have serious social consequences to “both the individual and the church.” Believing the lie of inerrancy has more to do with group affiliation and acceptance than it does with the Holy Spirit. (See end note 2)

From where I stand

When I joined the Jesus club in my late teens, I was taught to accept these (and many other lies). It was required. Since I had a strong desired to be a good christian and accepted by my christian circle, I believed what I was told to believe. I didn’t know any better. What I personally discovered, years later, after letting go of christianity, is that the concept of original sin is a cruel deception. When I realized that truth, I was truly set free.

Now, back to Scott. Remember that his blog is supposed to be about living like Jesus. After a 660-word intro reminding his readers about our “sinful roots”, Scott abruptly, and clumsily segues to his original topic. His next sentence after “the truth sets them free” is this.

“Learning to think like Jesus, then, means willingly cooperating with the Holy Spirit to retrain your mind to think true thoughts about God, …(which) is not as easy as it sounds. That’s why Prepared to Answer exists: to teach you how to think like Jesus by presenting the truth about God revealed in the Bible clearly and in a way that makes sense.”

Looks like we are going to have to read part three of Scott’s series to actually find out how to “think like Jesus”. One could only hope that in the finale to his series he will finally be able to present the truth and not more misrepresentations, and that it will make more sense than the first two.

From where I stand, it’s clear that Scott’s theological roots are bad, resulting in a certain degree of deceptive proof-texting. (See end note 3). The die is cast, and I have little doubt it will change in part three. We shall see!

Coming next: Part 3 of Scott’s blog on how to Think Like Jesus.

Endnotes:

  1. Think about it. How could we possibly know what took place in the Garden of Eden? How do we know that there even was a Garden of Eden? If you unquestionably take for granted that the story of Adam and Eve is historically accurate, (like I did for years) then you have based your religion on stories that are simply meant to be moral lessons and metaphors. Confronting this idea (that there was no historical Adam and Eve) was the beginning point of renown atheist Dan Barker’s journey from evangelical preacher to atheism. That can happen when you seek the real truth.
  2. Don’t take my word for it. If you’re questioning what you’re being told by your religious leaders, do your homework. A good place to start is with renown New Testament scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman. Pick one of his books and read it.
  3. Proof texting. It is the practice of using isolated passages from a text, often the Bible, to support a specific point or argument without considering the original context or broader meaning of the text. It involves taking a verse or quote out of its original context and using it to support a predetermined conclusion, potentially distorting the original intent of the text. Over the three years I have been reading and critiquing christian writers, I have concluded that proof-texting is the rule rather than the exception.

 

From Where I Stand

Aug. 1, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

20 Jul, 2025

Blog

Becoming like Jesus?

What does it mean to think like Jesus thinks?

“Jesus wants to make us like himself before he takes us to heaven. What God cares about most is that whatever you do, you do in a Christlike manner.” Pastor Rick Warren

“We fail to live like Jesus because we haven’t learned to think the way he thinks.”

“Some people say they love Jesus, but their Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible. He is an imaginary Jesus that they invented in their own minds” (and for their own purpose.) Abounding Joy

What does it all mean?

It’s problematic enough that Christians modernize the historical Jesus, (see previous blog) but it gets even worse when christian dogma declares that the ultimate goal of any christian is to become like Jesus. What makes this even more problematic is that nobody seems to agree exactly what that means.

One christians blogger I discovered says that becoming like Jesus means living like the historic Jesus, as found in the four gospels. Taken literally, this blogger says that christians should strive to be unmarried celibate peasants, who are anti-family, hang out with criminals and sinners, and make religious people angry. (Like that’s ever going to be spoken from the pulpit.) Hey, wait a minute, I haven’t spoken to some of my family members for years, I hang out with sinners and none of my religious friends from my “church days” still speak to me. Does that make me more like Jesus?

Other christian websites teach that “becoming like Jesus” has nothing to do with the historic Jesus of the Gospels. (Not quite sure how that’s even possible.) How can a person instruct others “to be more like Jesus”, without once referencing anything Jesus said or did in his lifetime? As improbable as that might seem, I’ve discovered multiple christian websites that do exactly that.

One such website is called “prepared to answer.org”. Its author, a guy named Scott, says his mission is “to teach a new generation of Christians to think like Jesus.” However, he never references the Gospels as his guide for what it means to think like Jesus. In fact, his entire argument comes from only two verses, (one from Romans 12 and the other from Isaiah.) There is not one single specific reference to the historical Jesus. So, how can Scott instruct his readers to think like Jesus if he completely ignores any reference to a historical Jesus? Let’s find out.

His three-part, 2,700-word blog does not attempt to answer the question of WHAT it means to be like Jesus, but rather he addresses HOW to become like Jesus. Which begs the question, if you don’t know WHAT you’re striving for, HOW will you know if you’ve actually accomplished that goal.

The first part of his three-part series is entitled, How to Live Like Jesus. Scott starts by asking a question.

“Do you want to live like Jesus?

What christian would say NO to that question? He then explains the HOW of living like Jesus.

Scott: “And the key (to being like Jesus) isn’t with some hidden formula, secret knowledge, or mystical experience only available to the “truly spiritual”.  All that’s required is…

Wait for it!

Wait for it!

Wait for it.

 …listening to and trusting what God plainly tells you.”

This is where other evangelical websites would tell us that the way to know what God “plainly tells us”, can be found in his infallible and inerrant Bible, but that’s not what Scott does. Scott doesn’t go into detail about HOW to know what God plainly tells you and he fails to back up his statement with scripture. This is where Scott’s blog starts to really go off the rails and becomes a bit concerning. Anyone who has studied the anatomy of cults knows that this is how cults begin. Somebody claims that God has plainly told them something. It usually becomes clear that their revelation from God is plainly telling them to do exactly what they want to do anyway. But Scott’s not done yet.

The HOW of living like Jesus

“Even Jesus didn’t live like Jesus just by (sic) just trying really hard. Rather, he lived in perfect obedience to God because his mind was perfectly aligned with the mind and will of the Father. If that was true for Jesus, then it must be true for us.”

There you have it, the key to living like Jesus is to perfectly align your mind with the mind of the God of the entire universe. How likely is that, really?

Jesus didn’t have to try really hard to live like Jesus. Brilliant, Scott, just brilliant! I was curious what level of theological education it would take for Scott claim that Jesus didn’t have to try hard to live like Jesus, so I scoured the “Prepared to Answer” website to find Scott’s bio and credentials but could not find anything. A statement like that makes me wonder if he has any theological training and even more, any common sense.

What I did find, however, was their statement of purpose, which says,

“Prepared to Answer was established in response to the alarming rate of attrition among younger Christians who are departing from their faith commitments to Jesus Christ due in large part to our culture’s successful creation of a false dichotomy between ‘secular’ and ‘sacred’ spheres of life.”

From Where I Stand

After reading Scott’s blog, I’d have to say that the alarming rate of attrition of young christians who are departing from the faith is not so much due to “our culture” creating a false dichotomy. It seems more likely that this mass exodus from christianity is due in large part to the kind of nonsense that christian leaders like Scott ask their readers to accept. Just look at some of the other nonsense ideas he proposes.

  • “I think the reason many Christians aren’t living transformed lives is because they’re pursuing God’s heart while ignoring His mind.”
  • “We fail to live like Jesus because we haven’t learned to think the way he thinks.” (present tense)
  • You see, living like Jesus means approving of what God approves of; wanting what God wants; and calling good what God calls good, acceptable what he calls acceptable, and perfect what he calls perfect.
  • But we can do none of those things until we learn to think like Jesus.

Maybe younger christians are ignorant enough, and gullible enough to swallow Scott’s sticky sweet pablum. The ironic part of Scott’s blog is that he is asking his readers to engage their minds in order to live like Jesus and expand their relationship with their God, while at the same time he provides nothing more than overused christian clichés, lacking any substance or original thought. Scott ends his blog by encouraging his readers “to accept God’s call to consciously, intentionally, diligently, and faithfully retrain themselves to think like Jesus.”

From where I stand, it’s clear that rather than trying to think like Jesus, Scott’s readers would be much better off if they simply learned how to think for themselves. Unfortunately, most christians feel more comfortable when someone else is telling them what to think. Until they learn to question what they are being asked to believe, christian websites like “prepare to answer.org” will continue to crank out overused christian clichés (as we shall see in future blogs). And the saddest part is that no one really benefits from these kinds christian clichés and in the end, no one will be better off for it.

End note: It would appear that the only verse Scott quotes to support his point (Romans 12:2) is a double-edged sword. The verse says, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen in their book about spiritual abuse, note that the verse can also apply to performance-based churches that require their members to conform to the rules and regulations of the church, leading to a form of spiritual abuse. Once again, members of performance-based churches would be better off learning to think for themselves.

 

 

From Where I Stand

July 20, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

22 Jun, 2025

Blog

Becoming like Jesus

What exactly does that mean?

Jesus was an unmarried peasant who didn’t put his family first.

Most of his friends were criminals or engaging in sinful lifestyles.

He spent most of his time with drunks, gluttons, fornicators, and thieves.

Nearly everything Jesus said and did, made religious people mad. 

(Theology in the Raw)

Once in a while, (but not very often) I’ll come across a christian website that actually makes some sense. While doing research for a series of blogs about what christians mean when they say they want to be more like Jesus, I discovered one such site. It’s called Theology in the Raw. In a 2020 blog titled “What Does it Mean to Become More Like Jesus?” the site’s author, Chris Sprinkle writes this,

“I’m one of those guys who has an extra sensitive Christian cliché antenna. Some call it a BS meter.

Hemingway called it a “crap detector”.

“It picks up on all kinds of chatter through the church airwaves and demands a concrete explanation. So, when I hear Christians say they want to ‘become more like Jesus,’ my meter goes nuts.”

On this point Sprinkle and I agree.

He rightly asks, “What does it mean to “become more like Jesus? What does it look like?”

This is exactly what I have been searching for while researching this topic. What exactly do christians envision when they strive to become “more Christlike”? And how will they know when or if they’ve actually achieved it? Even though Sprinkle’s writings show more logic than most of the christian blogs I’ve read, it’s obvious that he is a christian and he still says thing that cause my crap detector to go off.

Ground rules:

Given the amount of time (decades) that transpired between when Jesus lived and when the gospels were written, I don’t believe they accurately report everything Jesus said and did in his lifetime. However, most christians do believe. Anything that is written by modern day christians, about the life of Jesus must come exclusively from the four gospels. This will be our measuring stick of validity of what Sprinkle and other christians write about becoming more like Jesus. With that criterion in mind, let’s see how Sprinkle’s comments stack up.

Hate your family:

“My suspicion, though, is that if we look closely at Jesus without our modern moralistic filter, fewer people would want to become more like Jesus. Jesus was an unmarried peasant who didn’t put his family first.”

The Gospels do teach that Jesus was anti-family. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was quoted as saying “For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers, and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.”

Wow! Let that one sink in.

So, is this what it means to become more like Jesus? Are real disciples of Jesus required to disown their own family? That would be quite shocking and rather cult-like for most christians. Perhaps this is why Sprinkle’s says that “fewer people would want to become more like Jesus.”

Hang out with criminals.

Sprinkle: Most of his friends were criminals or engaging in sinful lifestyles.

Criminals? Really? This made my crap detector go off. To say that most of Jesus’ friends were criminals is not supported in the Gospels. It is reported in Matthew that he dined with Tax Collectors. One christian website says this about why tax collectors were so universally hated. “Tax collectors in the Bible were Jews who were working for the hated Romans. These individuals were seen as turncoats, traitors to their own countrymen. Rather than fighting the Roman oppressors, the publicans were helping them—and enriching themselves at the expense of their fellow Jews.”

Does that make them criminals? Is Sprinkle really saying that in order to be more like Jesus, christians should have more friends that are criminals who have sinful lifestyles? Try saying that from the pulpit.

Avoid religious people.

Sprinkle: “Jesus had hardly any friends who would be considered religious.”

I like where he’s going with this statement. He obviously understands that many christians believe that in order to be more like Jesus they must spend more time in the company of other religious people. Some (maybe all) of my former church friends have defriended me because I no longer believe as they do. I suspect that most of them have very few, (if any) non-christian or apostate friends. The gospels do teach that Jesus was at odds with the religious leaders of his day. “Alas, alas, for you Lawyers and Pharisees, hypocrites that you are…” Without a doubt the thought of hanging out with non-religious people would certainly take most christians way out of their comfort zone and would prove to be quite upsetting.

But it’s his next statement that sets off my crap detector.

Sprinkle: Jesus spent most of his time with drunks, gluttons, fornicators, and thieves.

Wait, what? Jesus spent most of his time with drunks, gluttons, fornicators, and thieves? Beside Jesus occasionally hanging out with tax collectors this statement by Sprinkle cannot be verified from the Gospels. It’s actually a quite comical thing to say. One can almost imagine that in the sermon on the mount Jesus was heard to say, “Blessed are the drunks, gluttons, fornicators, and thieves, for they shall be called friends of Jesus.” I seriously doubt the validity of Sprinkle’s statement.

Sprinkle: “He was so close to “sinners” that the religious leaders thought he was one.”

This statement can be verified in the Gospels. In Mark it’s recorded that “when the scribes and the Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to his disciples, ‘Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?’” However, his next statement also set off my crap detector.

Strive to make religious people angry.

Sprinkle: “Nearly everything Jesus said and did, made religious people mad.”

I see where Sprinkle is going with this, but can he really say that he knows everything Jesus supposedly said and did? Of course not. The gospels indeed tell us that he was at odds with the religious leaders of his day, but we certainly don’t know “everything” Jesus said and did. This statement by Sprinkle can also be disqualified.

Give all your wealth to the poor.

Sprinkle: “One of Jesus’s favorite topics had to do with money. And this got people really riled up.”

It’s recorded in Luke that Jesus told his disciples that anyone who did not renounce all that he has cannot be his disciple. He also told a wealthy wannabe follower to “sell all that he had and distribute it to the poor”, and only then could he have treasure in heaven and become worthy to follow him. Easy thing for Jesus to say. As far are we know, he had no wealth to distribute to the poor. Any modern day christian who actually did such a thing would be considered a socialist, something the religious right openly detests.

Sprinkle: “In Matthew 25, one of the most terrifying passages in the Bible, Jesus describes judgment day in detail and His criterion for who’s in and who’s out has to do with whether you and I have served the poor and needy in this life. Part of what it means to become more like (the biblical) Jesus is becoming excessively generous with our material wealth and having the scent of poverty on our hands and feet.”

This is something that I have said quite often in my blogs. Evangelical christian soldiers like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Dr. Elizabeth Youmans on their pious crusades to vanquish the evil liberals in the world, fail to ever mention the ramifications of Matthew 25.

Love your neighbor.

Sprinkle: “Jesus also talked a lot about love. Take a quick look at the early Church and you’ll see that enemy-love would become the hallmark of Christianity long after Jesus’s resurrection. When people thought of Christians, they recognized them as the people who, like Jesus, love their enemies.“

Sprinkle’s suggestion that the reader “take a look at the early church”, violates our earlier stated criterion. Remember, any reference about becoming like Jesus has to come exclusively from the Gospels. Not only what he said, but also what he did. The writer of Matthew did indeed report that Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, taught his followers to love their enemies. ““You have heard it said, you shall love your neighbors and hate your enemy. For if you love only those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax gathers, and the gentiles do the same?”

Let’s look more closely to the first part of that. “You have heard it said, you shall love your neighbors and hate your enemy”. In the margin of my bible this verse in Matthew refers to a verse in Leviticus 19 which says, “You shall not hate your fellow-countryman in your heart. You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall; love your neighbor as yourself.”

It’s obvious that their “neighbor” was also Jewish. I am unaware of any Jewish law in the Old Testament commanding Jews to love gentiles. Not sure Jesus ever taught that either.

So, Jesus reportedly said, “love your enemy”, but is this an instance of “Do what I say, and not what I do?” What we really need to ask is, “Did Jesus have any enemies?” The answer to that question is an unequivocal YES. The religious leaders of his day, the Lawyers and Pharisees, were those with whom Jesus had his most significant opposition. So, how did Jesus act toward his enemies? Concerning the Lawyers and Pharisees, we know how he reacted. In the words from the musical Godspell Jesus says to them, “You snakes, you viper brood, you cannot escape being devil’s food”. (Matthew 18)

Sprinkle: Jesus’s hard-hitting, enemy-loving, harlot-embracing, wild-eyed way of life is captured in his famed call to come die with him. “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me”. As Deitrich Bonhoeffer used to say, “When Jesus calls a man, he bids him to come and die.”

And with this final statement, Sprinkle gives us his coup de grâce. If you want to be like Jesus, you should prepare do die, (preferably at age 33). Now it becomes clear why he believes that fewer christians “would want to become more like Jesus”. By striving to be like the historical, first-century, Jewish Jesus, rather than an imaginary 21st century American Jesus, christians would be forced to face the reality of what it really means to become more like Jesus… and wisely choose not to.

Summary:

How to become more like Jesus according to Theology in the Raw.

  • Become an unmarried wandering peasant.
  • Be anti-family.
  • Hang out with criminals.
  • Spend most of your time with drunks, gluttons, fornicators, and thieves.
  • Avoid hanging out with religious people.
  • Strive to make religious people angry.
  • Sell all your possessions and give all you have to the poor.
  • Become excessively generous with your material wealth. (Although Jesus had no material wealth to share.)
  • Have the scent of poverty on your hands and feet. (Whatever that means.)
  • Love your enemies. (Did Jesus?)
  • Abstain from lust and adultery.
  • Practice celibacy.
  • Never get married.
  • Never gaze at a woman.
  • Get ready to die.

Coming next:

We’ll examine several christian websites, each giving us “10 ways to be more like Jesus”. Funny thing is, we end up with over 80 ways to be more like Jesus. We’ll put all 80 ways to the same “crap detector” criteria that we applied to Sprinkle. I’d be willing to bet that even his christian cliché antenna would be going nuts, because mine sure was.

 

 

From Where I Stand

June 22, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

13 May, 2025

Blog

An Imaginary Jesus

Will the real Jesus please stand up?

“Some people say they love Jesus, but their Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible. He is an imaginary Jesus that they invented in their own minds. Their imaginary Jesus may not condemn sin the way the real Jesus condemns sin.” Abounding Joy

Jesus was inescapably and ineluctably a Jew living in first-century Palestine… and when we try to make him into a twenty-first-century American we distort everything he was and everything he stood for. He was not like us, and if we make him like us, we transform the historical Jesus into a creature that we have invented for ourselves and for our own purposes.”   Dr. Bart Ehrman

 The former quote comes from a blogger named Steve on a christian website called Abounding Joy. I have multiple issues with Steve’s quote. First, it seems quite arrogant for him to believe that he is privy to the “real” Jesus, while anyone who doesn’t see things his way, has an imaginary Jesus. And second, his use of the verb “condemns” is in the present tense. It should read, “Their imaginary Jesus may not condemn sin the way the historical Jesus condemned sin during his three-year ministry.” Steve’s quote comes from a blog entitled Prepare to be Bullied. In his blog he prepares his readers for the inevitable persecution they will face if they speak up about what his Jesus would condemn in today’s society. Fortunately for us, Steve tells us exactly what his Jesus would condemn, which, as we will see, is not what the historical Jesus condemned.

The Gospel according to Steve

Here is a list of some the things Steve’s Jesus condemns.

  • Alternative gender identity
  • Any sexual activity other than between a man and his wife.
  • Abortion and euthanasia.
  • Freedom (not quite sure what he meant by this.)
  • The Black Lives Matter Movement. (I am not making this up.) (1)

Steve claims that his Jesus is the Jesus of the bible, but it would appear that he has done exactly what Dr. Ehrman warned against. He has turned the historical Jesus of the gospels into a 21st century evangelical who conveniently opposes the same current social issues that Steve does. I would challenge Steve to produce evidence from the Gospels where the “1st century Jesus of the bible” addressed any of the issues he says Jesus condemns. Where does Jesus condemn gender identity? Or homosexuality? Or race relations? Or Freedom? Of course, in his blog Steve fails to provide any such documentation. I’ve read the Gospels many times and have yet to discover where the historical Jesus addressed any of Steve’s issues. Perhaps Steve’s bible has the following verses that my imaginary bible does not.

  • Blessed are the heterosexuals for they shall inherit the earth.
  • Blessed are monogamists for only they shall be satisfied.
  • Love only those who are like you, and you will be called sons of your Father.
  • Judge others who are not like you. Be not concerned that others will judge you, for only you know the real Jesus.

It’s problematic!

Plan A

Discerning what the 1st century Jesus did or did not actually say is quite problematic, because we know very little about the “historical Jesus.” The best way for us to know anything for certain about the real Jesus, would be for us to read his writings from his own pen. As you probably already know, the historical Jesus did not write anything which could be pass on to his followers.

Plan B

Lacking Jesus’s own writings, the next best thing would be for us to gather information from those who knew him and spent time with him during his three active years of teaching. Unfortunately, we don’t have that either. None of the accounts we have of the life of Jesus were written by actual eyewitness. In addition, what was written about Jesus (including what he supposedly said) was not written until decades after his death.

Plan C

The earliest writings we have about Jesus come from the apostle Paul, who admittedly never met Jesus in person, although he supposedly had a vision. Paul’s writings about Jesus failed to mention numerous details of what might be thought of as the real Jesus. In addition, the four canonized gospels were written between three and six decades later by people who also had never met Jesus and were simply piecing together bits and pieces of Jesus’s life from oral history.

The Jesus of the Bible?

Granted, there are many people who consider the entire narrative of Jesus as imaginary. This blog is not about proving or disproving that Jesus actually existed. (2) Steve has claimed that he represents the Jesus of the bible. So, for the sake of this argument, let’s assume here that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are our best historical records of what Jesus might have said publicly. By adhering strictly to the Gospels, and what the Gospel writers tell us about what Jesus actually condemned, perhaps we will be able to see if Steve’s Jesus is the Jesus of the bible.

What did Jesus condemn?

A christian website called “ibelieve” addressed this very issue.

“During his ministry Jesus called out some sins more than others. Here are 10 sins Jesus spoke about more fervently in the Gospels.”

Selfishness

  • “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20)

Pride

  • “. . .For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”  (Matthew 23)

Unbelief

  • “A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” (Matthew 16)

Hypocrisy

  • “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.” (Matthew 23)

Greed

  • “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” (Matthew 6). “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again, I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19)

Unforgiveness

  • “For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. (Matthew 6)

Hatred

  • “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.” (Matthew 5)

Disobedience

  • “If you love me, keep my commands.” (John 14)
  • “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22)

Judging Others

  • “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.  “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7)

Impurity

  • “What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them. Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts and deeds. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.” (Matthew 15)

From where I stand.

It’s important to note here that according to ibelieve  Jesus’s condemnation was aimed primarily at the religious leaders of his time. The Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes held positions of significant religious authority and were the ones with whom Jesus had his greatest conflict. Also, the Sanhedrin, (the Jewish ruling council), opposed Jesus, often plotting against him and contributing to his eventual arrest and trial.

This truth has significant ramification for 21st century evangelicals, who have become the religious leaders of our time and thus subject to the condemnation of the historical Jesus. Although Steve claims to speak for the Jesus of the Bible, he clearly does not! His ideas of what Jesus condemned are quite different than those offered by ibelieve. 

Dr. Ehrman in his book Did Jesus Exist? quite eloquently speaks about this attempt by 21st century evangelicals to modernize the historical Jesus to fit their social agenda.  He writes,

“(Jesus) had nothing to do with going to church on Sunday. He knew nothing of social security, food stamps, welfare, American exceptionalism, unemployment numbers, or immigration. He had no views on tax reform, health care (apart from wanting to heal leprosy), or the welfare state. So far as we know, he expressed no opinion on the ethical issues that plague us today: abortion and reproductive rights, gay marriage, euthanasia, or bombing Iraq. His world was not ours; his concerns were not ours, and—most striking of all—his beliefs were not ours.”

With that in mind, let’s change Steve’s quote to make it more accurate.

Steve says he loves Jesus, but as we have discovered, his Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible. His is an imaginary 21st century Jesus that Steve has invented in his own mind and for his own purposes.

 

End note:

(1) Some readers might doubt that a christian would actually make such a statement, so here is the actual quote from Steve’s blog. I commented on this in a previous blog.

So, what’s the problem with “Black Lives Matter?”

  • It’s a non-Christian movement that uses words like “racism,” “poor,” “oppression,” etc. to teach values that are strongly opposed by God.

(2) Dr. Bart Ehrman in his book, Did Jesus Exist? argues that there is convincing evidence that Jesus did indeed exist. Dr. Ehrman bases his conclusion on existing evidence rather than blind faith. It’s a compelling read that earned him the vitriolic ire of Mythicists. You might want to read it for yourself.

Coming next:

It’s problematic enough that Christians try to modernize the historical Jesus, but it gets even worse when christian dogma declares that the ultimate goal of any christian is to become like Jesus. We’ll dive into that quagmire to see exactly what christians believe it means to become like Jesus. Do they strive to become like Steve’s imaginary 21st century Jesus, or is their aim to become like the 1st century Jewish Jesus? It’s murky… at best.

 

From Where I Stand

May 13, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

27 Apr, 2025

Blog

Critical Theory vs Christianity

Persecuted Persons of Privilege – The Saga Continues

To disagree with me is an attack on who I am.

Each of us must take personal responsibility for our own sins.

 

Continued from the previous blog.

As a quick review, I have several issues with the author (Steve) of website named Abounding Joy and his concerns with Critical Theory and BLM.

  1. Steve transfers the discussion of Critical Theory from the social sciences arena (where it belongs) to the spiritual or supernatural realm (where it does not). That might be okay during bible studies he might attend, but by comparing Christianity with Critical Theory he has completely nullified any meaningful and reliable comparison between the two.
  2. Being supernatural by nature, his “christian views” are based on unverifiable beliefs that must be taken entirely on faith. On the other hand, most his made-up critical theory views have a historical basis and are verifiable. So, unlike the christian POV which are unchangeable, Critical Theory tenets can be acted on and changed.
  3. Steve is not exactly playing fair. Just as he did with secular humanism, Steve more times than not, completely misrepresents what Critical Theory stands for.
  4. He plays the Persecuted Persons of Privilege card. Notice how many times he says that Critical Theory calls him the oppressor and wants to overthrow him.
  5. He is mistakenly painting christianity as noble and without blame.

Steve’s blog continues…

How would Christians answer these questions and how would critical theorists answer them?

How can I tell if I’m a racist?

  • Christian view: Do I love people regardless of skin color, culture, background, etc.? Am I partial on the basis of superficial differences like skin color?

(Two true statements, but this is not how evangelicals have historically viewed racism. Antebellum Pastor James H. Thornwell in 1861 wrote, “(W)e are profoundly persuaded that the African race in the midst of us can never be elevated in the scale of being. As long as that race, in its comparative degradation, coexists, side by side, with the white, bondage is its normal condition.” For a century and a half after emancipation, “skin color” was not considered just a “superficial difference”. Jim Crow laws were passed based solely on “colored” skin. This evangelical stance on racism wouldn’t change until the 1990s. More about that later.)

  • Critical theory view: If you are a member of the oppressing group, you are a racist by definition, regardless of your behavior.

(As we mentioned before, Steve is a white, evangelical, heterosexual, male living in The South. I wish we knew more about his “behavior” during the civil rights movement. That would tell us a lot about him.)

What is oppression?

  • Christian view: Oppression occurs when people with power and money take advantage of others who are powerless to stop them.

(Historically a true statement. But why does Steve consider this an exclusively christian view?)

  • Critical theory view: Oppression occurs automatically and unconsciously whenever two groups of people interact, simply by the fact that one is part of an oppressing group.

What should Christians do who have personally experienced the pain of racism?

(Does he mean “non-white” christians who have personally experienced the pain of racism?)

  • Christian view: Reject critical theory. Accept God’s Word. Expose the sin of racism. (How?) Find Christians of various races who will support you and pray for you. Confess that all of us have sinned.

(You cannot confess someone else’s sin. It’s not clear if Steve is confessing his past sins of racism.)

  • Critical theory view: Work harder to overthrow the oppressors. (Which Steve seems to feel includes him.)

Is it OK to advance my goals by using violence?

  • Christian view: The Bible allows for some violence in self-defense or to defend others.

(The violence we read about in Numbers 31 is not exactly in self-defense. The violence described in the conquest of the Holy Land is more like genocide. See my past blog.)

  • Critical theory view: Violence against people who disagree with me is justified if it helps overthrow the oppressor group.

(Violence is also used by the oppressor group to keep the oppressed group in line. Remember those concerned citizens who “defended” their white christian nation by wearing hoods and terrorizing black communities?)

Is it possible for systemic racism to exist?

  • Christian view: Examples would be slavery, Jim Crow laws, abortion, Nazi Germany.

(It’s important to note that historically white evangelicals supported slavery and Jim Crow laws until recently. Not exactly sure how abortion proves systemic racism, but he certainly snuck that in to his argument, didn’t he? Nazi Germany?)

  • Critical theory view: It is constant. It is inevitable when two groups interact.

(By the way, contrary to what Steve believes, systemic racism did not disappear with the civil rights movement.)

Whom should I resist?

  • Christian view: Satan and his demons. (unverifiable)
  • Critical theory view: People who have power

(So, according to Steve, it’s better to resist an evil supernatural entity that we can’t see or even prove actually exists, than to focus on real evil people, with real power who are misusing their power to abuse those with less or no social power. The CRT view should read, “Resist people who are abusing their power and doing harm to marginalized groups.”)

How should I react to those who disagree with me?

  • Christian view: Love them. Stay humble.  Graciously try to help them see truth about Jesus.

(Why does Steve consider this an exclusively christian view? I just had to chuckle about the phrase “graciously try to help them see truth about Jesus.” What he’s implying is that christians are the passive, loving and humble ones who are being persecuted. Leave off the ‘about Jesus’ part and that also is a true statement. It should read, “Graciously try to help white christians see the truth that they have inadvertently supported and promoted racism for centuries.”)

  • Critical theory view: Reject them. To disagree with me is an attack on who I am. (PPPC)

(Notice what Steve did there. He is trying to turn the tables. This statement, “Reject them, because to disagree with me is an attack on who I am,” is actually something that christians might say when someone, like me, questions their belief in the existence of God or the validity of their bible. To disagree with christianity is considered an attack, perpetrated by “Satan and his demons”, on christians everywhere. Try telling an evangelical that the bible is not the inerrant, infallible word of God and see what happens.)

What happens when so-called “oppressors” are successfully overthrown?

  • Christian view: Authoritarian dictatorship. A few seize power in the name of the people.

(This is indeed a typical Marxist view. It’s curious that Steve writes this when historically it has been the Christian Right that has been trying to seize power and make America an authoritarian dictatorship based on theocracy.)

  • Critical theory view: Supposedly, freedom and liberation. In truth, people who worked for the revolution are disillusioned as a new repressive elite emerges to claim power “on behalf of the people.”

(Steve is not exactly playing fair here when says what the critical theory view is. He interjects his own made-up evaluation of their views. To be more accurate to what Marx would say it should read something more like this.)

  • Critical theory view: Freedom and liberation. The system would no longer favor a small group of people over the majority. Society could finally find a solution to this inequality. Workers would take control of their own labor and have access to a fair share of the profits of their work.

(However, the pressing question of current social critics of Marxism is whether a utopian society without inequity could actually exist.)

What should I think of identity politics?

(Let’s start by defining “identity politics”, as politics based on a particular identity, such as ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, denomination, gender, sexual orientation, social background, caste, age, disability, intelligence, and social class.)

  • Christian view: It’s bad because instead of seeing individuals as created in the image of God and equal at the foot of the cross, (unverifiable) it sees them as members of either oppressed or oppressive groups. It tends to create divisions among us instead of uniting us as one people.

(True statement, but why does Steve consider this an exclusively christian view? It should also be noted that christianity also creates divisions among us. Christians don’t want to be “united as one people” with non-believers like me or even with other christians who might hold different, more progressive beliefs.)

  • Critical theory view: It is good because it clearly separates the oppressed from their oppressors.

(Now this one has a glaring hypocrisy imbedded deeply in it. Look how he is painting christians as the ones who are accepting of everyone and for that they are being persecuted.)

Who is responsible for my personal behavior?

  • Christian view: I am

(True statement. Why is this considered an exclusively christian view?)

  • Critical theory view: The oppressor class (PPPC)

(He’s trying to paint Critical Theorists, i.e. BLM, as not taking responsibility for their own actions.)

What is racism?

  • Christian view: The sin of showing partiality on the basis of skin color, cultural identity, etc.

(I have been reading a book by Pulitzer Prize winning author Frances Fitzgerald, entitled The Evangelicals: The Struggle to Shape America. According to Fitzgerald, this idea that racism is a sin is a rather new tenant for white evangelicalism. See end note 1.)

  • Critical theory view: What all white people are guilty of because of their part in the fact that white people as a group are oppressors. People of minority groups cannot be racist.

(Boy, does Steve play the PPP card here. Steve is mistakenly implying that “all white people” are guilty of oppression simply because they are white, and not based on their beliefs and actions. In addition, where did he come up with the idea that people of minority groups cannot be racist?)

What is the place of reason and logic and investigation?

  • Christian view: God is a God of truth. (unverifiable) He created us (unverifiable) with the ability to reason and investigate to discover Him and Truth.

(What if our ability to reason and investigate leads us to a different conclusion about God?)

  • Critical theory view: Reason, logic, and investigation are tools of the oppressing group, and are not useful or permitted. To disagree with the oppressed group, for whatever reason, is to oppress them.

(This is also true of christians. To disagree with christians is to oppress them, as Steve has so clearly shown us.)

Is it possible for someone in the oppressed group to be suffering the consequences of his or her own irresponsible behavior?

  • Christian view: Yes. Each of us must take personal responsibility for our own sins, regardless of our circumstances. (Change the word “sin” to “wrongdoings” and it is a true statement.)
  • Critical theory view: No. Actions of the oppressive group cause the legitimate reaction of the oppressed, including violence and theft.

(Wait, what? Theft? Where did that come from? Is he actually saying that oppressed groups never take responsibility for their own actions, blame everything on the oppressor, and then resort to stealing? That seems like a rather raciest thing to say.)

Why is critical theory so appealing to Christians?

  • Christian view: CRT uses words that appeal to Christians. Even though words are redefined, Christians recognize the problem of genuine racism, the problem of genuine oppression, the problem of the misuse of power, the problem of the poor, the problem of bigotry, the problem of guilt.

(Unlike Steve’s implacable belief that he is without blame, many (white) christians have come to recognize their contributions to the problems of genuine racism, genuine oppression, the misuse of power, the plight of the poor, and the reality of bigotry. and the problem of guilt.” As we can clearly see, Steve is not one of them.)

  • Critical theory view: Christians who accept critical theory are simply finally recognizing the guilt that comes automatically as a result of being part of oppressing groups.

In conclusion:

This is where Steve abruptly ends his blog. You’ll notice that he never actually acknowledges that as a white evangelical heterosexual male from the South, he might be enjoying the benefits of social privilege not available to other christians of a different skin color. Over and over again he plays the Persecuted Person of Privilege card.

The consummate display of his innocent victim complex comes in another blog he published in 2020 entitled, Prepare to Be Bullied, where he writes that christians will be treated badly and bullied. According to Steve, he and his evangelical brethren will be called: bigots, hypocrites, homophobic, sexists, racists, and intolerant (probably because they are) but Steve says the reason for this persecution is because christians have chosen to speak “the truth” about what the bible teaches. Their opponents, however, reject God’s (and Steve’s) authority and defiantly choose to live their own lives.

End notes

The following two statements were written by Antebellum Baptist pastors about the condition of Africans in the southern community. My question is, would these statements be something that might cause modern Southern Baptists to feel at least a twinge of guilt.

“I have placed before my reader what is in the Bible, to prove that slavery has the sanction of God, and is not sinful.” Thornton Stringfellow, 1841.

“Should, however, a time arrive, when the Africans in our country might be found qualified to enjoy freedom; and, when they might obtain it in a manner consistent with the interest and peace of the (white?) community at large, the Convention would be happy in seeing them free.” Richard Furman, Southern Baptist Leader, 1822.

It would appear that in the 1990s, blacks finally “qualified to enjoy freedom”. According to Fitzgearld, facing declining membership, “the Southern Baptist Convention, made efforts to recruit non-Anglo members and churches. The initiative began with a dramatic resolution on the SBC’s 150th anniversary in 1995 apologizing for slavery, on which the denomination had been founded. It regretted the SBC’s failure to support the civil rights movement a century later and the fact that many congregations had intentionally, or unintentionally, excluded African Americans. The resolution denounced racism as a “deplorable sin” and quoted the Bible to the effect that every life is sacred and of equal and immeasurable worth, and that every human is made in God’s image.” Fitzgerald, p. 614. (1)

From Where I Stand

This is a dramatic and hysterical turnabout. When slavery was profitable for slave owners and put money in their pockets, it was sanctioned by God. But 150 years later, with the SBC membership dwindling and donations declining, it became clear that being racist kept money out of their pockets and suddenly, racism became a “deplorable sin”. Their apology for slavery, which was motivated more by finances than guilt, came a century and a half too late. In addition, their failure to support the civil rights movement in the 1960s, was three decades too late. They had over 150 years to do the right thing for the right reasons, but they did not. It took declining membership and dwindling donations to force them to do the right thing, but for the wrong reasons. It’s also important to note that Steve came out in opposition to racism only after it cost him nothing to do so. There is no honor in this.

  1. Frances Fitzgerald, The Evangelicals, The Struggle to Shape America, 2017.
  2. Gregory A. Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation, 2005.
  3. For more about how Antebellum Pastors used the bible to justify slavery see my previous blog.

 

From Where I Stand

Apr. 27, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

20 Apr, 2025

Blog

Critical Theory vs. Christianity 4/5

The Struggle to Maintain White Male Privilege

There is a “resentment against those who might take their relatively privileged place in society.”

We have been exploring a christian website called Abounding Joy. Steve, its author, is a white, heterosexual, evangelical christian male living in the South. Although he’s on the top of the social totem pole and bathed in white, male privilege, he claims that he is the one being oppressed and attacked.

In a 2005 online article, Steve’s expressed his distrust and distain for secular humanism. In that article, in order to support his evangelical agenda, he grossly misrepresented what secular humanists actually believe. Now, he’s at it again. This time he’s attacking something called Critical Theory. The subject of his distain has changed but his simplistic misrepresentations have not.

In his 2005 article, Steve played the Persecuted Person of Privilege card. As we will see, in his 2020 blog he continues to play the PPP card. The word “oppress” occurs 35 times in Steve’s article. This section of Steve’s blog is titled,

How would Christians answer these questions and how would critical theorists answer them?

I have several issues with Steve’s blog.

  1. Steve transfers the discussion of Critical Theory from the social sciences arena (where it belongs) to the spiritual or supernatural realm (where it does not). This might be okay during bible studies, but by comparing Critical Theory with Christianity, he has completely nullified any meaningful and reliable comparison between the two.
  2. Being supernatural by nature, his “christian views” are based on unverifiable beliefs that must be taken entirely on faith. On the other hand, the tenets of Critical Theory have a historical basis and are verifiable. Unlike his christian POV, which must be accepted without question (by christians) and is not subject to change, the tenets of Critical Theory can be acted upon, prompting social change.
  3. Steve is not exactly playing fair. Just as he did with secular humanism, Steve, more times than not, completely misrepresents what Critical Theory stands for. He’s playing a game of chess with himself and setting up the board, and making moves for both sides, so the white pieces win.
  4. He plays the PPP card. Notice how many times he says that Critical Theory calls him the oppressor and wants to overthrow him personally.
  5. He paints christianity as the noble protagonists in this melodrama and Critical Theory as the bad guy, who is painting him as the bad guy.

Steve’s words are italicized, and my comments are in parentheses. Steve’s blog continues…

How would Christians answer these questions and how would critical theorists answer them?

Who am I? 

  • Christian view: A person created in the image of God. Christians are new creations in Christ. (unverifiable)
  • Critical theory view: A member of a group, or groups competing with other groups for power. (Historically verifiable.)

What is my primary problem?

  • Christian view: Sin (unverifiable)
  • Critical theory view: Groups of people oppress other groups of people. (Historically verifiable.)

What is the solution to our problem?

  • Christian view: Trusting Jesus. (unverifiable)
  • Critical theory view: Activism. Overthrowing oppressors.  (Which includes him.)

What is my goal in life?

  • Christian view: To Glorify God and spend eternity with Him. (Pie in the sky belief that is unverifiable)
  • Critical theory view: To overthrow oppressors. (PPPC)

What must I confess?

  • Christian view: That I have sinned. (What exactly is his sin?)
  • Critical theory view: That I am a homophobe, racist, sexist, etc., because I’m a member of an oppressing group (PPPC)

(Boy, Steve really made this one personal, didn’t he? Why would anyone call Steve homophobic, racist, or sexist? Hmmm, let’s see. Have we mentioned that he’s a white, heterosexual, evangelical, male living in the South? It’s a mystery, isn’t it? Steve is playing the PPP card here. He’s claiming that he’s being judged simply because he’s a member of a couple of oppressive groups”. He fails to realize that his beliefs and actions are also a part of the equation.)

How can I be redeemed?

  • Christian view: By the blood of Jesus, by repenting of my sin and trusting Him. (unverifiable)
  • Critical theory view: There is no redemption. I can only confess my guilt as part of an oppressing group.

(Here we go again. Poor persecuted Steve.)

What is my primary duty?

  • Christian view: Love, serve, and glorify God and love others. (Extremely pious, but also unverifiable)
  • Critical theory view: Overthrow the oppressors. (which includes him- PPP)

What is truth?

  • Christian view: God is truth. (unverifiable) Truth is what corresponds to reality. (True statement, but christians quite often deny reality). Evidence and reasoning can help us find truth.

(Another true statement, “evidence and reasoning can help us find truth” but christians have a history of ignoring evidence, using fallacious reasoning, and relying on blind faith to conclude that God is truth.)

  • Critical theory view: Whatever the oppressed say it is. Scripture, evidence, reasoning are all irrelevant.

(Here we go again. Poor persecuted Steve. The “oppressed” reject his claims that he and his evangelical buddies have the only key to truth. He seems unaware that historically, oppressors have nefariously used scripture as a means to maintain their privileged status for millennia.)

What is the relationship between different groups?

  • Christian view: We are all created in the image of God. We can all become new Creatures in Christ. (unverifiable) We love each other regardless of our group identities.

(How pious of Steve, “We (christians) love each other regardless…” I’m sure this is what christians want to believe about themselves, and what they want us to believe about them. Unfortunately, it does not correspond with reality. Do christians unconditionally love members of the LGBTQ community or for that matter, do they love liberals like me? I have my doubts!)

  • Critical theory view: Groups are always pitted against each other. Some are oppressed. Others are oppressors.

(This is an historically accurate thing to say, but Steve grossly oversimplifies it.)

How should I think about Christians who are in minority groups but who reject critical theory?

  • Christian view: We are all created in the image of God and brothers and sisters in Christ. (unverifiable)

(Once again, how noble of Steve. “We’re all brothers and sisters in Christ”. This simplistic statement allows him to ignore that black christians might have lives that are very different from his.)

  • Critical theory view: He’s acting like an oppressor. – e.g., He’s “white” even if his skin is black.

(So, according to Steve, if a black person rejects Critical Theory, he or she is seen as an Oreo by other blacks! Seems to me that this is a black issue, and Steve, as a white man, lacks both firsthand experience and the cultural awareness to adequately address it.)

What if I find that the Bible teaches something I have not believed?

  • Christian view: The Bible is God’s Word. (unverifiable) If I’ve been wrong, I need to change. (This is also a true statement, but we don’t see much changing.)
  • Critical theory view: The Bible is merely a tool being used by oppressors.

(Historically, this is verifiable. Once again, we must point out that people have been weaponizing scripture as a means to maintain their privileged status for millennia. Antebellum Christians used scripture to support slavery.)

What should I believe about God?

  • Christian view: What the Bible says about Him. He exists. He created all things. He is all-powerful, all-wise, all-loving, etc. (All of this is unverifiable.)
  • Critical theory view: There is no supreme God. We have to exert our own power by overthrowing the oppressor.   

(First off, God’s existence can neither be proven nor disproven. The second part of this statement is true. Disenfranchised and marginalized groups do need to “exert their own power” but there are other ways to exert one’s power other than working to “overthrow the oppressor”. One can resist or stand up to bullies. Marginalized groups, such as the LGBTQ community, the BLM movement, and women, are not looking to overthrow Steve’s group of privileged white, males. They are seeking equality. As we will see in the next blog, equality is something that Steve completely fails to address anywhere in his discussion of Critical Theory.)

After thought

It’s highly probable that Steve was a member of the Tea Party. Francis Fitzgearld in her book “The Evangelicals” wrote this about Tea Party politics.

“What they (the Tea Party) vehemently opposed were programs, such as Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which helped the young and the poor. The distinction they made was between government programs they perceived as going to hardworking, productive members of society, such as themselves, and “handouts” that went to undeserving “freeloaders”—a category that seemed largely to be made up of African Americans, Hispanic immigrants, and the young. The context, in the view of the scholars, was an anxiety about racial, ethnic, and generational changes. Apparently, the Tea Party was yet another flare-up of resistance to change—along with resentment against those who might take their relatively privileged place in society.”

To be continued…

 

From Where I Stand

Apr. 20, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

13 Apr, 2025

Blog

Critical Theory and Christianity 3/5

Like it or not, power concedes nothing without confrontation.

People don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.” Nietzsche

 

In the past several blogs we have been looking at a christian website called Abounding Joy and a blogger named Steve. We know that Steve is a heterosexual, white, christian male living in the South. Even though he is on top of his social totem pole, he exhibits characteristics of someone who is suffering from what we call Persecuted Persons of Privilege Complex. (PPPC)

In this week’s blog we’ll continue looking at Steve’s blog about Critical Theory and perhaps we’ll be able to discover why he believes he’s the one being persecuted.

Knowing Steve’s history of misrepresentation of secular humanists, it might be advantageous for the reader to look at the actual tenets of Critical Theory before reading Steve’s portrayal of CT.

Steve’s style of discussion is to ask and answer his own questions. By not asking tough questions he is able to control the conversation without having to address difficult and valid issues. He writes,

Q: What was the primary focus of Karl Marx? A: Economics

Marx did indeed write about Economics. His 944-page masterpiece book on economics, Das Kapital can still be found for sale on the internet. I guess that means it’s still somewhat relevant a century and a half later. However, economics wasn’t the only topic Marx focused on.

My go to source for anything related to philosophy is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Their 15,000-word article about Marx covers an array of Marxists ideas, in addition to economics, his writings included such topics as Alienation, Human Flourishing, Morality, Ideology, and Utopianism. Stanford’s 1,800-word brief explanation of Marx’s stance on economics did not mention either “Bourgeoisie” nor “Proletariat”. Steve’s simplistic summary of Marx’s writings on economy took only 24 words. And here they are.

Q: How did Marx try to bring about revolution? A: He pitted economic groups against each other (bourgeois property owners “oppressed” proletariat working class people). He urged the proletariat to “rise up” in revolution.

It’s true that Marx had a strong distaste for the bourgeoisie and believed that a capitalistic system, (where an upper class exploits the lower class for personal gain), would ultimately lead to a revolution where the proletariat class would “rise up” and overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Take note of Steve’s use of the phrase “rise up in revolution”. It will be a reoccurring theme for the remainder of his blog.

This kind of class exploitation is as old as humanity itself. For millennia this exploitation has played out not only as feudalism, indentured servitude but also with chattel slavery. Marx argued that all capitalist profit is ultimately derived from the exploitation of the worker. “Capitalism’s dirty secret is that it is not a realm of harmony and mutual benefit, but a system in which one class systematically extracts profit from another.” He asked, “How could this fail to be unjust?”

Marx was not the only writer of his time to write about the bourgeoisie’s oppression of the proletariat working class. It was also a major theme in many great novels, such as Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities and Hard Times, Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath and Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables. There is even evidence of unjust exploitation of the poor in biblical times. The Old Testament prophet, Jeremiah seems to be addressing an ancient manifestation of exploitation.

“Among my people are the wicked who lie in wait like men who snare birds and like those who set traps to catch people like cages full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; they have become rich and powerful and have grown fat and sleek. Their evil deeds have no limit; they do not seek justice. They do not promote the case of the fatherless; they do not defend the just cause of the poor. Should I not punish them for this?” declares the Lord. “Should I not avenge myself on such a nation as this?”

By reading the next couple of verses we can see who an accessory to this ancient exploitation was.

“A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land: The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it so. But what will you do in the end?

“And my people love it so!”  This is one of my favorite verses. It seems to also apply to modern times as well. The religious leaders of our day have put a godless man in a position of great power. His unjust policies are adding to the oppression of the poor and the alien living amongst us. If I’m not mistaken the bible speaks rather clearly on this issue.

Jeremiah 7:5-7, “For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly practice justice between a man and his neighbor, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place… then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever.…”

Proverbs 29:7, “The righteous cares about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.”

It’s a mystery to those of us who aren’t a part of the Jesus club why so many christians ignore scripture and continue to support this godless leader and his oppressive agenda. Jeremiah 5 correctly describes these people. “My people love it so! But what will you do in the end”, when their injustice comes for you?

Now back to Steve. it’s important to note here that even though Steve is invested in maintaining the status quo of his privileged lifestyle, he is not a part of the bourgeoisie. He was a school teacher for 29 years making somewhere around $40-50 thousand a year. He was solid middle class and as far as we know, he never created wealth, never had employees, and therefore never had the opportunity to exploit workers. So why is Steve even bringing up Marxism? We’re about to find out.

Q: How do advocates of critical theory re-spin Marxism? A: They pit different groups against each other based on race, sexual preferences, gender identity, religion, etc.

Let me see if I have this right. According to Steve, the main objective of critical theorists is not to achieve a more just and equitable society, but rather, to pit different groups against each other. Perhaps his real concern is that these groups are pitted against him.

Q: What do critical theory advocates mean by “intersectionality?” A: People are always members of more than one group. If they happen to be part of two groups that are in the “oppressed” category, they have more at stake in the revolution

An example of intersectionality might be a woman of color, or better yet, a gay woman of color. Steve is saying that since they are part of two or more oppressed groups then they have a greater stake in the “revolution”.

What Steve seems unable to grasp is that intersectionality also applies to people who happen to be part of two groups that are in the “oppressive” category. Using Steve’s logic, we can conclude that they would have more at stake in “resisting” the revolution because they would have more to lose.

What does this mean for Steve?

We know that he is a white, heterosexual, evangelical christian male living in the South. He’s on the top of the social totem pole. He is bathed in white, male privilege in our society, yet he seems unwilling to acknowledge it.

What’s clear from his writings, is that he is a person of privilege who is fighting to keep his power and status by belittling those who have less social privilege. Apparently, Steve is under the impression that if some minority group (or groups) gain some measure of power, equality, or status, he will lose some of his. The idea that if one group gains power, another group loses theirs is something that causes a great deal of concern for him. We will cover this more in our next blog.

We will also see that Steve never mentions “equality” in his blog. According to him, the above-mentioned groups are not simply fighting for equality, but rather, their goal is to overthrow him and his white, male, christian privilege. This also is a symptom of Persecuted Person of Privilege Complex.

Steve’s claim that christians are being persecuted is not new. This perception of christians being victimized and “robbed of their christian heritage and religious freedoms” is deeply rooted in evangelical history. During the W. Bush administration, William Donahue, leader of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (1) claimed that “the left” had forced christians “to sit at the back of the bus” and then declared, “it’s time we moved to the front of the bus, and that we took command of the wheel.” (2) It’s not clear what Donahue’s stance was on the black civil rights movement, but it’s ironic that many of those white evangelicals who opposed the civil rights movement would embrace Donahue’s description of the plight of christianity.

It’s even more preposterous that a white man, the leader of an organization dedicated to preserving the “civil rights” of the most powerful institution in the history of the world, would compare Catholic’s plight to Rosa Parks and the black civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. In addition, can you imagine that Rosa Parks not only refused to give up her seat in the front of the bus, but then got up, commandeer the steering wheel of the bus, and drove it and its passengers directly to her destination?

The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one.

What we see in Donahue’s ludicrous comment is that Steve is not the only white evangelical infected with PPPC. It’s a systemic problem that still exists to this day. As I’ve said before, the first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one. Steve is only one voice in a much larger chorus of white evangelicals who are claiming that they are the ones being discriminated against. But there is a cure to this malady. And surprisingly enough, that cure comes from the only place it could come… from other evangelicals.

Also, during the W. Bush administration a few courageous evangelicals took a stand against the Christian Right’s “aggressive intolerance, and unholy quest for power.” Rev. Gregory A Boyd in his book, The Myth of a Christian Nation, wrote, “What if we spent all that energy serving each other with Christ-like love. We could feed the hungry, house the homeless, bridge the ungodly racial gap, and side with those whose rights are routinely trampled.”  In Boyd’s view christians, should bear witness to injustice, but they should not try to enforce ‘their righteous will on others.” (3)

Amen, Brother, Amen!

Another evangelical pastor, Rick Warren (whom I have criticized in previous blogs for his simplistic book The Purpose Driven Life) wrote, “I’ve had four years in Greek and Hebrew and I’ve got doctorates. How did I miss the 2,000 verses in the Bible where it talks about the poor?” (4)

Warren made millions from his book and used that money to help the poor and marginalized all over the world. Perhaps, I prematurely judged him.

I have come to realized that there is hope for evangelicals suffering from PPPC. That remedy can be found quite simply in the verse in Micah 6:8.

“He has shown you, O man, what is good: and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justice and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”

End note:

  1. The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, often shortened to the Catholic League, is an American Catholic organization whose stated purpose is to “defend the right of Catholics – lay and clergy alike – to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination.
  2. The Evangelicals, The Struggle to Shape America by Frances Fitzgerald, p. 526.
  3. ibid. p. 540
  4. ibid. p. 550

Coming next

In true evangelical fashion, Steve switches the argument of Critical Theory from the social arena (where it belongs) to the religious realm (where it does not). He proposes a series of questions and then answers each one from a christian point of view and then from a critical theorist point of view.

Knowing his history of egregiously misrepresenting his opponents, will he misrepresent Critical Theory as well? We shall see.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Apr. 13, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

7 Apr, 2025

Blog

Critical Theory Explained

What is Critical Theory and why are white evangelicals threatened by it.

We’ve been critiquing the writings of a christian blogger named Steve, who strongly opposes Critical Theory. Being new to the topic, I was completely ignorant about its basic tenets, so I asked the AI gods, and this is what I was able to glean from the numerous articles about it. Some of the following information comes from this Wikipedia article.

AI Overview

Critical theory is a social, historical, and political school of thought that analyzes and challenges systemic power relations, arguing that knowledge, truth, and social structures are shaped by power dynamics between dominant and oppressed groups. 

Critical Theory researchers attempt to uncover how communication phenomena influence taken-for-granted assumptions regarding who “ought to be” and “ought not to be” empowered in a given society. The thoughts and beliefs of the ruling class tend to be accepted both by those in power and those disempowered by them. Thus, one of the underlying goals of Critical Theory analysis is to reveal the ways in which (words) help create and maintain, political oppression. The ultimate goal is to create a more just and equitable society.

Key Concepts and Origins:

  • Marxist Roots – 1840s: Critical theory emerged from the Marxist tradition, focusing on analyzing economic class relations and the exploitation of labor.
  • Frankfurt School – 1930s: Was a group of German-Jewish intellectuals who sought to understand and critique the rise of fascism and capitalism.
  • Beyond Traditional Theory: Unlike traditional theories that focus on understanding or explaining society, critical theory aims to dig beneath the surface and uncover the assumptions that maintain social inequalities and oppression.
  • Emancipation and Transformation: Critical theory is not just about understanding the world, but also about transforming it to achieve a more just and equitable society.

Core Ideas:

  • Critique of Power: Critical theory examines how power structures and ideologies shape social norms, institutions, and practices.
  • Ideology Critique: It seeks to expose and challenge the underlying beliefs, values, and systems of power that often remain unexamined in society.
  • Social Justice: Critical theory is often used to advocate for social justice and challenge systems of oppression based on race, class, gender, sexual preference and other social categories.
  • Interdisciplinary Approach: It draws on insights from various disciplines, including sociology, philosophy, psychology, and political science.
  • Normative Approach: Critical theory is not just descriptive; it is also prescriptive, aiming to identify and challenge the norms and structures that perpetuate inequality and oppression.
  • Emancipatory Goal: Critical theory seeks to liberate or emancipate people who are oppressed, aiming to create a more just and equitable society.

Examples of Critical Theory in Action:

  • Critical Race Theory: Analyzes how racism is embedded in social structures and institutions.
  • Feminist Theory: Examines gender inequality and the ways in which women are oppressed.
  • Queer Theory: Critiques heteronormativity and explores the experiences of LGBTQ+ people.
    • Heteronormativity is what makes heterosexuality seem coherent, natural, and privileged. It involves the assumption that everyone is ‘naturally’ heterosexual, and that heterosexuality is an ideal, superior to homosexuality or bisexuality.
  • Critical Theory of Education: Analyzes how education systems can perpetuate social inequalities.
  • Critical Theory of Media: Examines how media can shape perceptions and reinforce dominant ideologies.

While researching Critical Theory, I consulted my favorite resource for all things philosophical, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Their 22,500-word analysis of Critical Theory is much too complex (and wordy) to summarize here or anywhere. As we shall explore in future blogs, it’s doubtful that Steve’s dubious 1,600-word blog comparing Critical Theory to christianity would come anywhere close to accurately describing even the most basic tenets of Critical Theory. But that’s not really his objective anyway. His purpose is to explain why he, as a white, heterosexual, christian male living in the South, is the one being oppressed. He is suffering from the Persecuted Person of Privilege Complex.

The About Us page of the Mt. Toll Productions website reflects my stance on the topic of prejudice.

“In this polarized day and age, we have grouped ourselves into tribes. Internet logarithms are designed to make sure that we see only those images that support the ideology of our particular clan. When we are constantly bombarded by only those messages that support the prejudices of our side, we tend not to question what we’re being told. We are blind to the possibility that our way of thinking might actually be shortsighted, misleading, one sided or simply incorrect. This tribal POV condemns us to highly limited ways of looking at the world and thus highly limited modes of behavior. None of us is free of it.” 

Coming soon:

We will be critiquing Steve’s attempt to discredit critical theory, which might also help us to understand why he believes CT is a threat to his privileged way of life.

 

From Where I Stand

Apr. 7, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

10 Mar, 2025

Blog

PPPC – Persecuted Person of Privilege Complex

Privilege is not something someone actively works for or achieves… they are born into it.

People of privilege often are unaware of the advantages they experience within society.

The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one. 

It is not my practice to venture into the political realm. “Where I Stand” blogs are normally directed at evangelical christians and the misinformation found in their writings. However, last week, the Christian Right’s Anointed One declared that the US is not a Woke country. Let’s look at what it means to be Woke and perhaps we’ll be able to see why many christians (including Steve) are threatened by it.

What does ‘woke’ mean?

  • The term woke means being “aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality,” according to the Cambridge dictionary.
  • The Oxford English dictionary describes ‘woke’ as being “aware of social and political issues and concerned that some groups in society are treated less fairly than others.”
  • According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, ‘woke’ is a US slang that can be defined as being “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)”.

Well, that didn’t help much. Do christians really reject any awareness of social problems of racism and inequality? Are they not aware of the reality that some groups are treated less fairly? Do they reject the idea that social and racial injustice actually exists? That would be almost impossible to believe. Let’s see what Steve has to say on the topic. But, before we do, let’s take a look at the meaning of “privilege”.

What is privilege? 

A “person of privilege” refers to someone who benefits from unearned advantages or special rights that are not readily available to others, often due to their social position based on factors like race (white), gender (male), socioeconomic status (solid middle class), or ability, allowing them to navigate life with fewer obstacles compared to those without such privilege; essentially, they have an “advantage” that is not earned through personal effort.

Key points about privilege:

  • Unearned: The key aspect is that privilege is not something someone actively works for or achieves, but rather something they are granted by the societal structures they are born into.
  • Invisible to the privileged: People who hold privilege often may not be aware of the advantages they experience because they are considered the “norm” within society.
  • Systemic: Privilege operates within systems, meaning it is not just about individual actions but also about the broader social structures that perpetuate inequalities.

Examples of privilege:

  • White privilege: White people benefiting from societal assumptions and expectations that favor them over people of color.
  • Male privilege: Men having advantages in society due to their gender, like being taken more seriously in professional settings.
  • Class privilege: People from higher socioeconomic backgrounds having access to better education, healthcare, and opportunities.

Steve is a white Anglo-Saxon, evangelical christian male, living in the South. He is at the top of the totem pole. Hmmm, wonder if there is any privilege there. While reading this blog be on the alert for any hints which might indicate that Steve is suffering from PPPC (Persecuted Person of Privilege Complex).

(You’ll notice that Steve loves to ask and answer his own questions. It’s the best way for him to control the discourse. He doesn’t want any hard questions that might actually be based on reality and cause him to question his narrow world view.)

Critical Theory Q&A by Steve

Steve: By what other name is Critical Theory often called?

  • Cultural Marxism

Steve: Why does Critical Theory often appeal to Christians who have only a superficial understanding of it?

  • Christians would agree that 1) oppressing the weak is bad; 2) racism is bad; 3) bigotry is bad; 4) black lives really do matter; 5) white supremacy is bad; 6) injustice is bad.

MTP: Christians might believe these things, but there is a growing movement in the US denying that privileged and underprivileged classes actually exist.

Because their Anointed One has declared that the US is not a Woke country, many impressionable christians also reject the idea of Woke. As a result, they have also rejected the idea that social and racial injustice actually exists.  So, when Steve makes the above statement, it’s a bit misleading because (white) christians have been led to believe (by certain political leaders and the likes of Steve) that none of those six conditions actually exists in America.

Steve: What does the “bait and switch” tactic (often used to confuse Christians) attempt to do?

  • Find something you will certainly agree with, then try to sneak in something else that seems very similar but really is not.

MTP: It’s important to note Steve’s definition of bait and switch, because he’s about to do exactly that.

Steve: What is an example of a “bait and switch” tactic that is used by evolutionists?

  • Get you to agree that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, or that dogs can be bred to be very small, and then 2 Try to convince you that that’s “all” that evolution is, and that you’re therefore an evolutionist.

MTP: See how he did that? His article is supposed to be about critical theory, but he sneaks evolution into the discussion. What does critical theory have to do with evolution and creationism? We’ve seen this kind of deceptive tricks from Steve before, so we’re not really surprised. (BTW using the word “that” three times in that one sentence confirms that that’s all that we know about Steve’s undergraduate degree, that it was in science, not English.)

Steve: How do Christians show that they believe “black lives matter” more than the people behind the “black lives matter” movement?

  • We believe black unborn babies matter. We believe black lives matter when they are being taken by black thugs.

MTP: First off, you’ll notice that BLM is not capitalized. I don’t believe this is a typo. This might be Steve’s subtle way of undermining the importance of the movement by not respecting it enough to use capital letters. Kind of like what I do with the word “christian”. And second, notice that Steve says that white christians are more concerned about black lives than blacks are. Christians are concerned about unborn black babies; however, their concern seems to cease once “black babies” are born. Next, I think he’s talking about black-on-black violence. I might be clueless here, but I have never heard a white evangelical christian express concern for black-on-black violence. Maybe they do, and I’m just unaware of it. But what really concerns me is his use of the expression “black thugs”. It’s a downright racist thing to say, which of course, according to him, doesn’t really exist.

We took a deeper dive into some of Steve’s other blogs and found one where he says this about the Black Lives Matter movement.

So, what’s the problem with “Black Lives Matter?”

  • It’s a non-Christian movement that uses words like “racism,” “poor,” “oppression,” etc. to teach values that are strongly opposed by God.

Wait a minute, did he just say that exposing systemic racism, and helping the poor and oppressed are values that God strongly opposes? Perhaps Steve’s bible doesn’t contain these verses.

  • Jeremiah 5, For wicked men are found among my people. They are fat and sleek, the also excel in deeds of wickedness; they do not plead the cause of the orphan, that they may prosper; they do not defend the rights of the poor. Shall I not punish these people? Declares the Lord. On such a nation as this shall I not avenge myself?
  • Jeremiah 22:3, This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place.
  • Matthew 23:23, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices–mint, dill, and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law–justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
  • Isaiah 58:6-7, “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter– when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?”
  • Jeremiah 7:5-7, “For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly practice justice between a man and his neighbor, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place… then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever.…”
  • Proverbs 31:8, Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy. New International Version: “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.”

This one is my favorite. Many christians pretend to be righteous, but…

Proverbs 29:7, “The righteous cares about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.”

I wonder how the religious right’s “Anointed One” would measure up to this righteous measuring stick. Since Jan 20, has there been an increase in caring for “justice for the poor and the foreigner among us”? I’m just asking. If we started using “caring about justice for the poor” as our measuring stick, the person currently occupying the Oval Office might be seen as a dwarf.

In another podcast Steve asks and answers this,

How do we know that the United States is not, in general, a racist country?

  • Because of laws passed to prohibit slavery and Jim Crow.
  • Because so many black people are doing all they can to get INTO this country. (MTP: Wow! I’m not even going to dignify this one with a response.)

MTP: Wait, what? The US is not a racist country because laws were passed to prohibit slavery? Wow! What a simplistic thing to say! It doesn’t take much reading of actual history to discover just how inaccurate and simple-minded it really is. Before we get into that, I first have to say, “How noble of those white christians to outlaw slavery. Doesn’t that prove that the United States and specifically, that white christians aren’t racist?” (Please note that level of sarcasm in which that statement was made.)

But wait a minute, wasn’t it white christians who actually opposed the abolition of slavery especially in the Antebellum South? Didn’t they use the bible as their justification to maintain slavery? Oh, and by the way, Steve lives in the South. I wonder what side he would have taken had he been alive in 1864. I’m sure he would have been a staunch abolitionist, (more sarcasm).

“What many modern-day evangelicals fail to acknowledge is that many religious leaders of that era, particularly in the South, supported slavery and used scripture to justify their beliefs.”

Steve brought up the prohibition of slavery so let’s talk about it. Let me see if I have this right. According to Steve, the passage of the 13th amendment on January 31, 1865, supposedly marked the end of slavery in America, and at the same time, ended racism in America as well, proving (at least to him) that America is not a racist country. OMG, what an incredibly ignorant thing to believe. The thirteenth amendment was passed in Washington by a vote of 119 ayes to 56 nays, but its passage in no way guaranteed that emancipation would actually be recognized and upheld in the South, nor did its passage stop oppression. In fact, the opposite actually happened.

Before emancipation, black slaves had a monetary value to the slave owner. A poor white would not have been able to kill a slave without being held accountable by the slave owner for the slave’s monetary value. However, after emancipation, poor whites, who were resentful of newly freed slaves, could and did kill them by the 1,000s without any kind of accountability. In Texas, freed slaves were “frequently beaten unmercifully, shot down like wild beasts, without provocation, followed with hounds, and maltreated in every possible way.” (1)

Let’s move on to Jim Crow laws which, by the way, endured another hundred years after emancipation.

Jim Crow laws were a system of racial segregation that enforced separation of white and Black people in the United States from 1865 to the 1960s. The laws limiting the activities of newly freed slaves actually started in 1865 and were originally called “black codes.” (2) They were later named after a fictional black character from minstrel shows. This is how Jim Crow laws worked?

  • Segregation: Jim Crow laws mandated segregation in schools, parks, libraries, restaurants, and public transportation.
  • Disenfranchisement: Jim Crow laws limited Black people’s ability to vote and hold public office.
  • Intermarriage: Jim Crow laws made intermarriage illegal.
  • Public facilities: Jim Crow laws required business owners and public institutions to separate Black and white customers.

Here are some examples of Jim Crow laws in practice.

  • Black passengers were required to sit at the back of streetcars.
  • Black people were not allowed to use the same water fountains, bathrooms, beaches, or swimming pools as white people.
  • Black children attended separate schools.
  • Black people could only order takeout food from restaurants that served white people.

Steve is old enough to remember the tremulous decade of the 1960s. There is no need in this blog to remind everyone the stance taken by the South during the civil rights movement. But let’s take a page out of Steve’s Q&A strategy to shed some light on the subject.

MTP: Did southern white christians support the Civil Rights Movement headed by Martin Luther King Jr.?

  • No, historically, the majority of Southern white christians were not supporters of the Civil Rights Movement; in fact, many actively opposed it, often citing their religious beliefs to justify segregation and racial inequality. 
Key points to remember:
  • Opposition to integration: Many Southern white Christians believed that racial segregation was ordained by God and used this belief to justify their opposition to the Civil Rights Movement’s push for integration.
  • White supremacist theology: Some Southern white Christians subscribed to a theology that supported white supremacy, further fueling their resistance to the movement.
  • Fear of change: The social and cultural upheaval brought on by the Civil Rights Movement led to anxieties among some white Southerners, including Christians, who feared losing their power and way of life.

MTP: Why does Steve and other white evangelicals dislike the Black Lives Matter movement?

  1. Black Lives Matter disrupts the status quo of what our culture has decided is normal and acceptable.
    • Some people prefer to diminish or deny the reality of racial inequality saying that racism was all but resolved by the Civil Right Movement of the 1960.
  2. Black Lives Matter asks white people to confront their role in anti-black racism.
    • Like it or not, power concedes nothing without confrontation.
  3. Black Lives Matter shines a spotlight on everyday white supremacy.
    • White supremacy has allowed white privilege and anti-black propaganda to thrive even when the majority of people outwardly acknowledges racism is wrong.
  4. Black Lives Matter refuses to shut up.
    • Black Lives Matter is seen as an annoyance, because of their refusal to cease exposing, and publicly shaming the transgressions of white supremacy.

Since Steve says that the “United States is not, in general, a racist country”, I think it would be fair to ask him, as a southern white male, what his stance was in the 1960s. Did he support the Civil Rights Movement? Did he work to pass laws that prohibited Jim Crow restrictions? Or did he oppose the Civil Rights Movement? It seems clear from his writings that, for him, inequality did not and still does not exist, and that he is indeed unaware of the advantages his white, male, christian privileges provide for him.

The most concerning part of this discussion is that the likes of Steve (white evangelical christians) are now in a position of greater power. This political power adds even more status to their privilege and creates even more distance between them and those groups on the bottom of the totem pole. They are enjoying the benefits of their privilege while at the same time denying that other groups have less privilege and less equality.

The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one. Inequality does exist and it’s being propagated by the very people who are called to oppose it.  A large portion of Americans are in denial, and that’s not about to change anytime soon. In times like these, someone needs to speak up. Since christians cannot be counted on to do it, now is the time for other brave souls to take a stand and…

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.” 

End notes:

Thaddeus Stevens: Scourge of the South by Fawn Brodie

(1) Brodie, p. 235

(2) Brodie p. 239

May 23, 2025

It has come to my attention this week, that Persecuted Persons of Privilege Complex has reached epidemic proportion. Recently, in my home state of Colorado, legislators passed a law protecting transgender and LGBTQ members from discrimination. Several evangelical pastors told their congregations, from the pulpit, that they could be thrown in prison for speaking out against transgenders and the LGBTQ community. These courageous pastors were going to bravely stand up for God in opposition to those who were out to destroy them. How noble of them!

However, the law actually protects first amendment rights, stating that churches are exempt from the law. This fact did not deter these Persecuted Pastors of Privilege from spouting their hate and bigotry in the name of God. The first amendment still gives them that right.

These pastors were doing what christians have done for millennia. Their objective is to create an “Us vs Them” mentality, an essential ingredient for the survival of religion. Anyone who believes differently, and stands up to their bigotry, must be demonized, while (in the same breath) christians must be painted as righteous christian soldiers who are the ones being persecuted. We’ll talk more about this in future blogs.

Coming Next:

Later in his blog Steve says that advocates of Critical Theory view him as homophobic, racist, and sexist, simply because he is a member of an (imaginary) oppressing group and are seeking to violently overthrow him. He is now the persecuted one. And thus, has joined the Persecuted Persons of Privilege Club. We’ll continue with Steve’s Q&A about Critical Theory and discover more evidence that he is definitely suffering from PPPC.

 

From Where I Stand

Mar. 10, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

2 Mar, 2025

Blog

What would cause you to change your view of the existence of God?

“If there is anything that is obvious, it is that the existence of God is not obvious. Dan Barker

“Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don’t know.” Bertrand Russell

“God could clear a lot of stuff up with a five-minute press conference.” George Carlin

The Question!

Toward the end of a 2019 debate between Richard Howe and atheist Dan Barker, each of them was asked by the moderator what might cause them to change their beliefs. (1:47:50)

Dan Barker went first.

Dan, what would cause you to say that there is a God?

I will paraphrase his reply. He said that atheism is vulnerable to disproof and that atheists would immediately change their minds if they were shown to be wrong. He remarked that there are 1,000s of things that could change his unbelief in God and he gives one specific example. He quotes a passage in the bible that says whatever believers ask for, they shall receive. (It’s curious that the atheist quoted scripture, and the theist did not.)

So, Barker proposed that if the scripture were true, Howe could ask God to allow him to foresee the future and God would allow it. Barker further supposed that if God communicated to Howe that the next day, Barker’s house would be destroyed by a meteorite, and Howe communicated that information to Barker (beforehand) and it happened exactly as Howe had described it. According to Barker this would be clear evidence that he could not ignore, and which might cause him to acknowledge that perhaps he has been wrong about God. However, he concluded by saying that “so far” we don’t see that kind of evidence, and he would continue with his non-belief until there was evidence to the contrary.

Then it was Howe’s turn.

Richard, what would cause you to believe that there is no god?

His 403-word answer was difficult to understand, and impossible to paraphrase. I decided to transcribe it and let the readers decide for themselves what exactly Howe was trying to say.

Howe’s response.

“I like these questions because in my experiences in debates, and I haven’t done as many debates as Dan has, but this question comes up pretty often and so I thought about this, and because I think it’s a fair question to ask. I think there is a meaningful sense in which certain kinds of theories or beliefs about reality can be rendered meaningless if they’re unfalsifiable if nothing could count as evidence against your belief then there… at least in the scientific sense there’s really no… your belief doesn’t pick out anything. Philosophical beliefs are a little bit trickier in terms of falsification because the principle of falsifiability is itself not falsifiable. So right there we got some kind of problem. But nevertheless, I’ve thought about this and I think that what would begin to mitigate my confidence that God existed… at least, let’s say, the god that I’d think existed… the classical god of… the god of classical theism… is if somehow, I began to believe that logic really didn’t apply to reality… that contradiction… contradictions maybe could both be true… in some forms of say, mysticism. I’ve read of people who have had certain types of mystical experiences or drug experiences and they come out with this… a less of ability to… they actually… it has mitigated their belief in the rationality and the sort of normal sense of the term logic and reason that actually applies… this sort of Wittgenstein view in the early Wittgenstein and the Tractatus… he ends the Tractatus… seven propositions in the Tractatus. The last proposition is something to the effect that about which we cannot speak thereof we must remain silent… and he thought that there was this sort of, or at least some people were interpreting that, there’s sort of some kind of realm that’s beyond our ability to think logically and reasonably and we really can’t talk about it. I think I know enough of it, because Wittgenstein was getting at… to know well… whatever he thought that realm was, it bore no resemblance whatsoever to what I belief as a classical theist. So, if I came persuaded that maybe Wittgenstein was on to something as a lot of Buddhist philosophy has done, then I think that would probably begin to erode my belief in classical theism. If I could be disabused of my… my belief that life… that reality is logical.”

After reading bits of the Tractatus and finding that it did nothing to help make any sense of Howe’s response, (in fact, made it even more confusing), I decided to abide by its seventh proposition which says, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”. Perhaps, Howe should have started with this proposition.

Howe’s response contained not even the slightest hint of evidence for the existence of God. This leaves us to conclude that perhaps, he has none. However, being a graduate of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he is well schooled in the area of philosophy, so that’s the hand he played.

There would be no “Does God Exist?” debates if the question were one of evidence, not philosophy.

Where’s the beef?

One would think the best way for a theist to discredit an atheist would be to provide evidence that would prove beyond all doubt that their god actually does exist. I expected that somewhere in the debate that Howe would be able to produce at least some semblance of actual evidence for his theism. But that’s not what he does. Instead, he spends the bulk of his debate time trying to school Barker in philosophy.

After listening to Howe’s big fluffy bun philosophical explanation for the existence of God, one has to ask… “Where’s the beef?”

Proof of God’s existence!

In Answering the Music Man, a gaggle of theists attempt to discredit Barker’s atheism. One of Howe’s fellow co-authors, John D. Ferrer, in his chapter, attempted to discredit “Barker’s Brand of Atheism”.

Ferrer proposes, in a rather sarcastic way, what he believes it would take to convince atheists that God actually exists. He writes, “If God dictated the Bible on live TV, ended the California drought with forty days of raining Cabernet (wine), and personally moonwalked across the set of God’s Not Dead III.”

This is the evidence he believes would prove the existence of God? Really?

Ending “the California drought with forty days of raining Cabernet”? That would be disastrous; red wine stains everywhere, and not enough white vinegar in the whole world to clean it up. Moonwalking on national TV? Now that would be cool. At least we’d know where MJ ended up. What if instead of these, God ended world hunger or human trafficking, or the suffering of innocent victims caused by wars or brutal dictators? Wouldn’t godly kindness toward all mankind be more convincing to atheists like Barker and me than God doing the moonwalk on American TV?

What would cause me to say that there is a God?

After hearing both Barker and Howe’s answers, and reading the silly evidence proposed by Ferrer, I started wondering. “What would cause me to say that there is a God”. This is difficult to answer, because, like Barker, I spent decades as a bible believing christian and at this point it would be nearly impossible for someone to argue me back into the fold with apologetics or philosophy. It would take evidence; undeniable, verifiable evidence. Now the question is “what kind of evidence would bring me back into the fold?”

Some quick thoughts.

If christians would stop obsessing about protecting the unborn and focus instead, on the already born who are starving to death by the thousands each day. The World Counts website says that a child dies from hunger every 10 seconds and that poor nutrition and hunger is responsible for the death of 3.1 million children a year. Wouldn’t that be worth God’s attention?

How about if God eliminated all human trafficking? Maybe those involved in the sinister business would perhaps suddenly die from a heart attack or a stroke or something like that. Maybe God could just give them all a change of heart and they would start helping rather than hurting those who they are now victimizing.

How about if Christians would focus less on proselytizing and telling non-believers that “the wages of sin is death” and focus more on Matthew 25, “the extent you showed kindness to one of the least of these, you did it to me.” Why is something that we can see, like reducing human suffering, less important than proselytizing souls for an afterlife that we can’t see?

If God is love, why is love so noticeably lacking in church mission statements? If the God of Love is supposedly living inside christians’ hearts, shouldn’t the theology of love be more prominent in their “actions” than a theology of hate? I’m just saying.

And lastly, there is a certain (christian?) congresswoman from Colorado who is famous for her nonstop spewing of political nonsense and hate. Perhaps God could give her a change of heart… one filled with compassion and empathy so that she actually used her position to help people and reduce harm, rather than being an agent for harm. If God could pull off that miracle, I’d be back in the pew next Sunday. But don’t save me a seat.

 

From Where I Stand

Mar. 2, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >