On Critical Race Theory, conservatives keep getting caught up in the word game. Remember that it is a theoretical model for the interpretation of sociology (in particular, of legal functions).
It is either true or false, real or imaginary, before it gets to any data. We get confused as soon as statistics are raised that imply unjust applications of law based upon racial interests, or terminology about ‘races’, or the right interpretation of history and who can interpret it when really it’s just “critical” methodology applied to race in law.
It’s not really a big thing.
It’s not a persuasive position.
It’s not one readily defended by most folks of any inclination when they take the time to think about what is actually being said.
Now some will jump immediately to the fruit of its application, speaking to the actual problems in race, law, justice and history as validation for CRT but at that point CRT itself has become irrelevant to the discussion.
At that point we are just using the old tools of history, ethics and reason to make arguments toward certain preferred outcomes from certain existing conditions.
CRT is not helpful here particularly because if it’s method is carefully followed it can render rational moral discourse of the old kind that brought such powerful and meaningful progress into race based analysis moot. It is a philosophy, and that would lead us to ask, then is it good philosophy? And if it is not then why have it?
The best answer seems to be because of the confusion it causes when no one can figure out what it is.
And that is because people can get just about anything out of it.
As soon as someone says “critical race theory implies this… “ someone else will say it implies that, and another that it implies something else because it is made of wax and has little in the way of formal or solid foundations for its applications or interpretation. It could mean almost anything under the right torture and manipulation.
But some intend its use to divide people and take advantage of an opportunity to spoil the unity of the people of God. All over a little bit of color.
So we need to be on point Christian. We are one people, one nation that God has made a nation. The world might do it’s usual work of hate and division but as for us we will have none of it.
For the Christian God has made all people of the Earth of one blood and calls forth his own from every nation, people, tribe and tongue and our citizenship is of a far off country.
Neiswonger
Christian Theology 
Thank you for the blog, which is much clearer on the point of critical race theory than most long-winded (and practically useless) expositions I’ve read.
You are correct: in application, critical race theory has no real value, because it was meant as a critique and never proposed as a solution. In fact, critical race theory, in its bungled current applications, is inherently racist, and can never lead to real progress, as it labels logic itself as a racist western device.
I do have one complaint about your blog, though: its vs it’s. While critical race is up for debate (or actually can’t debated, because it doesn’t recognize logic, or in many cases, fact), the rules of grammar are not. Its, as a possessive, never uses an apostrophe.
I would have emailed this comment to you directly if I had the means to do so. Sorry for the public outing. I’m not that much of a pedant — just pedantic enough to care.
LikeLike