Despite my utter ignorance of the works of Strachan and Machen exempting what was mentioned in the article, I am fairly confident saying that Strachan's methodology is highly reminiscent of those loudest voices that argue for and support BLM, extreme feminism, trans/gay whatnot, CRT, Green New Deal, and related agendas. Loose and variable definitions of words that are applied to people upon slightest provocation and expected to instantly and without question mark someone as irredeemably evil (see: "bigot," "racist," "homophobe," "nazi"). Misrepresentation and dramatic exaggeration of other speakers and writers (Jordan Peterson comes to mind). Lack of coherent arguments and an appeal to anger, disgust, fear, and/or the desire to be one the 'correct' side. Whether this is characteristic of his work, just this one book, or an entire misunderstanding I know not.
About any real systematic suppression and attacks; Christianity throughout its history has helped those in need, even as far back as the first century church they were feeding and caring for not only their widows, orphans, and homeless, but also everyone else that needed help. Whether CRT or systematic racism is true (it is false) should not effect our response to those we see in need. God does not call us to rant and yell for the government to help or solve something, we are called to give what we have in whatever ministry God has placed us. Giving a meal to a nearby family that recently lost their income or helping someone home after a wreck or a blown tire does not depend on family history, ideology, race, nationality, or any other difference the human race has applied to itself. In this I agree with the article.
I appreciate this article's focus on the unity of the church—this is definitely something we could use more of. I think the article is definitely correct in trying to correct the ways in which Strachan is unnecessarily divisive over issues that are simply non-essential. At the same time, though, as the article points out he is definitely correct to reject the notions of "whiteness" and other racial categories. We are all made in the image of God, and there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ. In the end, the most important category someone can fall into is either those whose names are written in the Book of Life, or those whose names are not; those who are saved, or those who are not saved.
Quite honestly, in my experience reading articles like these, talking to Christians, and even hearing pastors speak at school board meetings, the primary issue seems to be that of definitions. On one side, you have the conservatives who label everyone else as trying to teach that white people are inherently evil oppressors while on the other side you have the liberals who label everyone else as trying to whitewash history and remove any mention of racism, slavery, or injustices committed by white people. It's some typical combination of strawman arguments and political talking points being repeated back at the other side ceaselessly. Christians from both sides need to actually take the time and effort to converse with one another and get into the specific details of what they believe. I think that many would find that it is less about history, politics, or even facts in general, and more based around the desire to correct oppression and help the marginalized in society as we're called to (Isaiah 1:17, Micah 6:8).
At the same time though, it is important that Christians do not get swept up into Cultural Marxism and the belief that seeks to characterize in black and white terms who are the oppressed and who are the oppressors based on something like race, sex, religion, socio economic status, or any other category. The truth is much more nuanced than to say that all rich white Christian men are the perpetrators of all the world's injustice throughout history. History should focus on what happened, not trying to craft a narrative that inevitably concludes with a modern day political ideology.
If "wokeness" was indeed "the belief that class-and identity-based oppression should be opposed", then obviously all Christians should be in favor of it because we should seek to end oppression. At the same time, if wokeness also includes "recognizing present-day systemic racism and white privilege... and the division of the world into oppressors and oppressed", then Christians should most definitely not accept all the facets of wokeness because it seeks to divide just as (if not worse than) the extremely anti-woke Christians do. It is because of the fact that some parts of the woke ideology (whatever it may be) are indeed agreeable that people like Strachan can take bits and pieces from statements here and there regarding wokeness to then turn around and characterize all woke sympathizers as an extreme who accepts all of its tenants that he has just defined himself.
I think both of you are raising good points regarding discussions about CRT. You can't have a constructive dialog without clear, agreed-upon definitions and this doesn't seem to be the case when people discuss CRT. (What is CRT? What is systemic racism? Etc.) As Christians, I think we have an obligation to engage in dialog sincerely and part of that is working to define terms and taking the other side's statements at face value.
Despite my utter ignorance of the works of Strachan and Machen exempting what was mentioned in the article, I am fairly confident saying that Strachan's methodology is highly reminiscent of those loudest voices that argue for and support BLM, extreme feminism, trans/gay whatnot, CRT, Green New Deal, and related agendas. Loose and variable definitions of words that are applied to people upon slightest provocation and expected to instantly and without question mark someone as irredeemably evil (see: "bigot," "racist," "homophobe," "nazi"). Misrepresentation and dramatic exaggeration of other speakers and writers (Jordan Peterson comes to mind). Lack of coherent arguments and an appeal to anger, disgust, fear, and/or the desire to be one the 'correct' side. Whether this is characteristic of his work, just this one book, or an entire misunderstanding I know not.
About any real systematic suppression and attacks; Christianity throughout its history has helped those in need, even as far back as the first century church they were feeding and caring for not only their widows, orphans, and homeless, but also everyone else that needed help. Whether CRT or systematic racism is true (it is false) should not effect our response to those we see in need. God does not call us to rant and yell for the government to help or solve something, we are called to give what we have in whatever ministry God has placed us. Giving a meal to a nearby family that recently lost their income or helping someone home after a wreck or a blown tire does not depend on family history, ideology, race, nationality, or any other difference the human race has applied to itself. In this I agree with the article.
I appreciate this article's focus on the unity of the church—this is definitely something we could use more of. I think the article is definitely correct in trying to correct the ways in which Strachan is unnecessarily divisive over issues that are simply non-essential. At the same time, though, as the article points out he is definitely correct to reject the notions of "whiteness" and other racial categories. We are all made in the image of God, and there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ. In the end, the most important category someone can fall into is either those whose names are written in the Book of Life, or those whose names are not; those who are saved, or those who are not saved.
Quite honestly, in my experience reading articles like these, talking to Christians, and even hearing pastors speak at school board meetings, the primary issue seems to be that of definitions. On one side, you have the conservatives who label everyone else as trying to teach that white people are inherently evil oppressors while on the other side you have the liberals who label everyone else as trying to whitewash history and remove any mention of racism, slavery, or injustices committed by white people. It's some typical combination of strawman arguments and political talking points being repeated back at the other side ceaselessly. Christians from both sides need to actually take the time and effort to converse with one another and get into the specific details of what they believe. I think that many would find that it is less about history, politics, or even facts in general, and more based around the desire to correct oppression and help the marginalized in society as we're called to (Isaiah 1:17, Micah 6:8).
At the same time though, it is important that Christians do not get swept up into Cultural Marxism and the belief that seeks to characterize in black and white terms who are the oppressed and who are the oppressors based on something like race, sex, religion, socio economic status, or any other category. The truth is much more nuanced than to say that all rich white Christian men are the perpetrators of all the world's injustice throughout history. History should focus on what happened, not trying to craft a narrative that inevitably concludes with a modern day political ideology.
If "wokeness" was indeed "the belief that class-and identity-based oppression should be opposed", then obviously all Christians should be in favor of it because we should seek to end oppression. At the same time, if wokeness also includes "recognizing present-day systemic racism and white privilege... and the division of the world into oppressors and oppressed", then Christians should most definitely not accept all the facets of wokeness because it seeks to divide just as (if not worse than) the extremely anti-woke Christians do. It is because of the fact that some parts of the woke ideology (whatever it may be) are indeed agreeable that people like Strachan can take bits and pieces from statements here and there regarding wokeness to then turn around and characterize all woke sympathizers as an extreme who accepts all of its tenants that he has just defined himself.
I think both of you are raising good points regarding discussions about CRT. You can't have a constructive dialog without clear, agreed-upon definitions and this doesn't seem to be the case when people discuss CRT. (What is CRT? What is systemic racism? Etc.) As Christians, I think we have an obligation to engage in dialog sincerely and part of that is working to define terms and taking the other side's statements at face value.