The Boogeyman in the Belfry: An Appraisal and Apology of Critical Race Theory

In summer 2021, Matthew C. Harrison, President of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS), posted his support of the LCMS Mid-South District’s passage of Resolution 03-04-21A which, among other things, rejects critical race theory (CRT).[1] The resolution reads in part, “That the Mid-South District in convention reject the world view of CRT, as it is contrary to Scripture and counterproductive to true racial conversation and reconciliation.”[2] Using the LCMS Mid-South District, the LCMS president apparently deemed all of CRT, in its varied gradations, critiques, practitioners, and applications, as wholly incompatible with the scriptures and “counterproductive to true racial conversation and reconciliation.”[3]

It is not at all surprising that individuals, congregations, and districts connected to the LCMS are speaking about critical race theory. The racial unrest of 2020 in the United States heightened awareness of what began decades prior as a legal theory but has now become a contentious political football. In churches it has become the boogeyman that inhabits the belfry. People living and working within the US, including congregations and church bodies, cannot help but be confronted with arguments for or against the use of CRT. This is true specifically within the LCMS. Most recently, due to concerns of “mission drift” at Concordia University Wisconsin and Ann Arbor, LCMS President Matthew C. Harrison cited approvingly the example of Grove City College who fought against similar “infiltration of Critical Race Theory into the mission and instruction of the college.”[4]

At some point, it seems, the church becomes compelled to speak. The question becomes, then, what should it say? The LCMS has offered one way to speak about critical race theory; the goal of this article is to offer another. In order to do that, I will begin by briefly investigating the origins and shared themes of CRT. That investigation will demonstrate that critical race theory is not monolithic in its theory or practice, exposing not only the variegations but also the existence of internal and external critique of the movement. Finally, I will explore areas where Lutheran theology and elements of critical race theory potentially coalesce. Ultimately, I argue that far from being something to unilaterally reject, critical race theory can be used as a helpful diagnostic tool to see the depths of sin embedded in the structures of church and society. Even if critical race theory cannot serve as a remedy for sin and its outworking, it can and should be pressed into service for the sake of people entrenched in systems of oppression and brokenness.

An Appraisal: Themes, Origins, and Tenets of Critical Race Theory

In his pioneering work, “Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest Convergence Dilemma,” Derrick A. Bell Jr. ignited a firestorm by arguing that the landmark decision to end segregation was the result of the self-interest of white people coalescing with that of black people.[5] He wrote:

I contend that the decision in Brown to break with the Court's long-held position on these issues cannot be understood without some consideration of the decision's value to whites, not simply those concerned about the immorality of racial inequality, but also those whites in policymaking positions able to see the economic and political advances at home and abroad that would follow abandonment of segregation.[6]

Bell argued that three specific areas of interest led to the Brown v Board decision. First, he cited a desire to demonstrate international credibility against Communism in order to “win the hearts and minds of emerging third world peoples.”[7] Second, he noted the necessity of reassuring black people that “the precepts of equality and freedom so heralded during World War II might yet be given meaning at home.”[8] This had specific value among black veterans who were angered by the discriminatory treatment they received following service in both World Wars.[9] Finally, he noted the idea that “segregation was viewed as a barrier to further industrialization in the South.”[10] These factors led Bell to assert that the Brown v Board decision did not result simply from the development of moral indignation: “As with abolition, the number who would act on morality alone was insufficient to bring about the desired racial reform.”[11] The convergence of interests, then, could explain more fully why the Supreme Court decided to overturn legal precedent that had been challenged by black people, in Bell’s words, “for 100 years.”[12]

In demonstrating his interest convergence theory, Bell exhibited two themes common to what is now called critical race theory: first, interest convergence theory itself and second, a revisionist approach to history.[13] Interest convergence theory, despite using Brown v Board as the pioneering example of its legitimacy, can, and often is, applied more broadly. In part, interest convergence theory suggests that many of the major victories of the Civil Rights movement happened not because of moral indignation alone, but because the interest of blacks and whites, broadly speaking, aligned in the right moment.[14] Bell succeeds in asserting his argument because he chose to reexamine the historical context of Brown v Board. That reexamination of history, specifically American history, is a common theme among critical race theorists. Delgado and Stefancic, in their indispensable work Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, explain that,

Revisionist history reexamines America’s historical record, replacing comforting majoritarian interpretations of events with ones that square more accurately with minorities’ experiences. It also offers up evidence, sometimes suppressed, in that very record, to support those new interpretations. Revisionist historians often strive to unearth little-known chapters of racial struggle, sometimes in ways that reinforce current reform efforts.[15]

Put differently, revisionist historians attempt broaden the historical perspective by reshaping the narrative from one that only includes a majority view to one that accounts for the minority experience. Bell does this for interest convergence theory in citing the experience of black veterans.

The themes discussed briefly above are only two of four themes cited by Delgado and Stefancic in their work that attempts to present critical race theory to the broader public. Why is that presentation important? Because, what it is commonly known as CRT today emerged, in part, from critical legal theory.[16] The early practitioners, Bell chief among them, sought to understand and critique the basis of laws within the American context. According to Delgado and Stefancic,

Critical race theory sprang up in the 1970s, as a number of lawyers, activists, and legal scholars across the country realized, more or less simultaneously, that the heady advances of the civil rights era of the 1960s had stalled, and, in many respects, were being rolled back. Realizing that new theories and strategies were needed to combat the subtler forms of racism that were gaining ground, early writers, such as Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, and Richard Delgado, put their minds to the task. They were soon joined by others, and the group held its first workshop at a convent outside Madison, Wisconsin, in the summer of 1989.[17]

Delgado and Stefancic root the origins of CRT in the attempts to investigate and explain why the passage of laws in the 1960s did not have the intended durative impact. While the first workshop was held in 1989, one cannot deny that critical legal theory, and subsequently CRT, have connections to, or were influenced by, ideological movements that predate its genesis. That does not mean, however, that critical legal theory or CRT should be outright rejected solely on the basis of those potential influencers. To claim otherwise is historically and theologically problematic. It is historically problematic because proving influence requires more than stating one’s intuition or seeing potential ideological connections—it requires direct evidence that those lawyers, activists, and legal scholars across the country who are actually responsible in time for the genesis of CRT were all directly imbibing the exact same influential sources. It is problematic theologically because rejecting an idea on the basis of a supposedly flawed source requires, if one is to be consistent, the rejection of every idea any sinful human being has had since the fall into sin. Karl Marx is no more or less of a sinner than Martin Luther. Thus, rather than reject CRT on the basis of supposed influence, which is entirely problematic, it must be assessed solely on the basis of the theory and its application by the various practitioners of it. This is something theologians have known, and done, for centuries. Take, for example, any of various Lutheran theologians throughout the centuries, many of whom cite Luther as an influence even today. No Lutheran theologian today would want to be categorically rejected because of the position some Lutheran theologian in Germany in the nineteenth century held. Lutheran theologians want to be judged on the basis of their own theological output. Lutheran theologians owe the same to scholars in other fields.

When approaching the field of critical race theory, one immediately begins to see how variated CRT actually is in its theory and application, so much so that within the field itself there is internal critique of various strains.18 In the preceding paragraphs I have attempted to briefly explore two of the four major themes of CRT, interest convergence theory and revisionist history. The other two themes are a critique of liberalism, which is a critique of the liberal ideal of color-blindness and instead asserts that it is through “color-conscious efforts to change

the way things are [that] will do much to ameliorate misery,” and structural determinism, which is “the idea that our system, by reason of its structure and vocabulary, is ill equipped to redress certain types of wrong.”[19] It is far beyond the scope of this work to investigate thoroughly all of the major themes and the variations within them—which is part of the point I am attempting to make. To unilaterally dismiss all of CRT is to treat as monolithic that which is in theory and application variegated. And yet, even within the variegations, there seems to be at least one common thought, namely that “racism is ordinary, not aberrational.”[20] It is curious why such a tenet would be outright and unilaterally rejected when the course of history in the United States seems to demonstrate the veracity of the claim not just in the past but in the continuing present. Perhaps, though, it is the notion that racism is still ordinary and not aberrational that is difficult for some to accept. For theologians of the Apostles’ Creed and the Augsburg Confession, though, it should not be surprising.

An Apology: Original Sin and the First Article in Relation to Critical Race Theory

Article II of the Augsburg Confession is not merely theoretical; original sin is real: “All human beings who are born in the natural way are conceived and born in sin. This means that from birth they are full of evil lust and inclination and cannot by nature possess true fear of God and true faith in God.”[21] Confessing original sin does not simply mean that people are born without faith; it means that in every way people are born antagonistic to God and each other. As Luther rightly understood, humankind is always curved in on itself.[22] This sin not only clings to humans in every age but is passed on from one generation to the next. In no way should the presence and persistence of sin in any and every age surprise the theologians of the Augsburg Confession. In light of this confessed reality I would submit that on the basic tenet of CRT, theologians and theorists agree—racism is not unique, it is as ordinary and ubiquitous as any other sin. That does not mean, however, that theologians and theorists would, or should, agree on how to deal with it.

Theologians of the Augsburg Confession believe, teach, and confess that the remedy for sin is, ultimately, the finished work of Christ on the cross. His justification given to sinners through word and sacrament calls forth the new man and the new obedience of faith. This justification is wholly received as gift, apart from works, so that no one confuse the source and guarantee of salvation, Jesus Christ and his life, death, and resurrection for the sinner. And yet, this does not mean that the church disengages from society and the effects of sin evident therein; good works are always bound to follow. Even the Augsburg Confession, specifically AC XVI, recognizes that societal structures ultimately come from God and are good for Christian engagement.[23] The question is not if Christians engage in societal life; it is how. Baptized and regenerated believers are set free into the world for service to their neighbor. They do so fully aware, as the Apostles’ Creed reminds them, that God is the one who created them “together with all that exists” and “still preserves” them (SC).[24]

First Article gifts are those gifts given by God to support body and life and are not given only to believers. The doctor, whose vocation is to support body and life, is a first article gift. The farmer, whose vocation it is to support body and life, is a first article gift. The scholar, whose vocation it is to support body and life, is a first article gift. That does not mean that every doctor, every farmer, or every scholar embodies the gift. Some doctors seek to do harm and to kill. Some farmers seek to hoard the fruits of the earth for the sake of profits. Some scholars are content to live in sterile ivory towers of theory whose practice supports no one. Doctors, farmers, scholars, and I would submit, critical race theorists, could potentially be the First Article gift God gives to support body and life. That does not mean I in any way affirm that all critical race theories, theorists, or practitioners are inherently and without further investigation the First Article gift to be received unquestioningly. I am saying, however, that they could have insights for the betterment of people in this world. The First Article demands that Lutheran theologians take critical race theory as seriously as we would any other theory or profession or vocation that has the potential to support the body and life of God’s creatures here on earth. We must do so because as theologians of the Augsburg Confession we know just how deeply sin and its effects are actually embedded into daily life.

The history of the Missouri Synod provides an example of how a theologian of the Augsburg confession approached the question not only of race relations but also structural sin that is worth consideration. In 1968, J.A.O. Preus, president of Concordia Theological Seminary, then in Springfield, IL, attended a meeting of black Lutheran pastors.[25] Preus thought highly enough of Dr. Gayraud S. Willmore Jr’s paper, claiming that “it furnishes excellent insight into the thinking of a leading negro theologian and pastor,” that he personally sought permission for The Springfielder republished it.[26] In doing so Preus also advocated for it to be read despite knowing that some readers could have potential disagreements. He said, “I am sure that our readers will not agree with everything that is said, but we are herewith presenting it in order that you may become better informed to some of the problems and issues that face our negro brethren and that face all of us who belong to predominately white churches.”[27] In advocating for the reading of the piece despite the potential for disagreement, Preus demonstrated that theologians can, and indeed should, critically engage material because of the potential for the material to inform the reader, even if that reader might disagree with specific elements.

The example Preus set in his editorial remarks, however, does not end with the advocacy of reading an essay. His editorial speaks clearly and directly about notions of structural sin and the responsibility of clergy to understand the depth of the problem. Here a longer quote is necessary. He writes:

While I have done considerable reading on the subject of black power and the unrest among negroes, I had never really confronted the issue as completely as I did at this meeting. We have in all predominantly white church which have a minority of negroes, a situation which is not only explosive but potentially extremely troublesome for members of both races. There seems to be no question that the Kerner report was correct in stating that the real problem is a white problem, namely, white racism. This has so completely penetrated all structures and institutions of our society that many negroes feel there is no way in which this problem can be eradicated except by the complete destruction of the institution and the system. Yet no one really wants to see this happen.

Again and again our Lutheran negro clergymen stated their desire and their intention of remaining within their Lutheran Churches. But the white majority in our Lutheran Churches needs to listen very carefully to what is being said. Not so much because we fear a pull-out (which probably some white members would welcome) but because we need to give the black man in our churches a position of dignity and equality, which he feels (and probably rightly) that he has not heretofore enjoyed.

We need to face honestly the question of how to get negro Lutherans, men who are dedicated to the Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions and to the heritage and program of their churches, to have a vital role in the work of the Church, particularly as it applies to the American Negro. [28]

The remainder of the editorial provides examples of ways the church could give special attention, including advocating for the appointment of black people to mission boards at the district and synodical level as well as addressing specific recruitment and training needs.[29] Not only did Preus give serious consideration to the Kerner Report, he gave serious consideration to his Lutheran brethren, brethren who did not want to be theologians and clergy of any other confession but the Augsburg Confession.[30] In this way, Preus demonstrates that serious consideration of people and ideas does not automatically mean a rejection of all that theologians of the Augsburg Confession hold dear.

We Must Be Told

Recognizing that racism is ordinary is not a denial of the scriptures or the confessions, it is for the Lutheran theologian, par for the course. While I would wholeheartedly agree that the only true remedy for sin is the gospel, I also confess that the law is there to show me sin, to show me what I cannot see in myself and in the world around me. A twentieth century Lutheran theologian once made such a claim in front of the Missouri Synod gathered in convention in 1967:

There is prejudice, a fact none of us needs to be told these days. What we must be told is that it is in all of us. The danger to members of the church is that they do not recognize their prejudices for what they are: a reflection on the good name of Christ, who offered His life for all that all might have life in His name. What that barber said in A Time for Burning is true: “Your Jesus is contaminated by your prejudices.”[31]

Oswald Hoffmann understood that sometimes the church cannot see their own prejudices: “We must be told.” Of course Hoffmann understood the implications of blindness to prejudice, it reflects upon the one whose name Lutherans bear, not Luther, but Christ. Notice though, that implication comes after the thing that is often so hard to admit; not that prejudice exists, but that it exists “in all of us.” Where CRT can come alongside theologians and people of the Augsburg Confession and the scriptures, people on whose brow is the mark of the cross, and tell us the things we must be told, it should be welcomed. Where CRT takes a step too far and advocates for things which no theologian of the Augsburg Confession or the scriptures can advocate for, it should be rejected. In actuality, Lutherans practice this kind of first article partnership already in other arenas. For example, in the advocacy for unborn children, linking arms with Roman Catholics for the purpose of life advocacy does not seemingly mean a wholesale acceptance of Roman Catholic thought.

We must resist the urge to treat CRT as if it were monolithic and should thus be rejected unilaterally—it is not and it should not be treated so. It should also not be received as the gospel remedy for sin because there is only one gospel, the gospel of Jesus Christ—something we must be told and something we must tell. The gospel may not ameliorate all of the effects of sin in the here and now, nor should we expect it to, but it does free us and send us back into the world unafraid of theories and theorists that may at times step too far, free us to love and serve those who the world continues to crush under the effect of structuralized sin. Lutheran theologians need not fear a boogeyman in the belfry because we have already been told that sin is real, that its effects endure, and God has gifted his creatures with the ability to see that sin and work against it.

Matthew E. Borrasso is pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church in Lexington Park, Maryland and is a Ph.D candidate at The University of Birmingham (U.K.)

NOTES

1 The Mid-South District is one of thirty-five districts in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Each district is a collection of congregations and typically meets in convention once every three years. These district conventions often help direct the work of the national convention. For the post see: Matthew Harrison. 2021. “Excellent.” Facebook, July 3, 2021. https://www.facebook.com/matt.harrison.1614460/posts/10225534228133459

2 “Resolution 03-04-21A.” https://mid-southlcms.org/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-Resolutions-Floor-Committee-3.pdf. Matthew Harrison. 2021. “Excellent.” Facebook, July 3, 2021. https://www.facebook.com/matt.harrison.1614460/posts/102255342281334593 “Resolution 03-04-21A.” https://mid-southlcms.org/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-Resolutions-Floor-Committee-3.pdf. Interestingly enough, that final version of the resolution differed from the one initially presented to the convention in at least one small, but important, way. Where the above quote reads “as it is contrary” the original version read, “where it is contrary.”

3 The change is not insignificant. By changing that one single word the convention passed not simply a resolution, but full-throated judgment. Whereas the initial version, at least in theory, retained the possibility of the application of ideas connected to CRT, where those ideas or concepts did not stand contrary to scripture, the final version eliminated any possibility. See: “Resolution 03-04-21.” https://mid-southlcms.org/wp-content/uploads/Resolutions-Floor-Committee-3.pdf. The Minnesota South District of the LCMS also passed a similar resolution with a similar change in wording. See: 2022 Convention Proceeding, 79th Convention, Minnesota South District, LCMS, June 9–11, 2022, Concordia University, St. Paul (Burnsville, MN: Minnesota South District, LCMS, 2022), 14, 28–9. It seems as though unilateral rejection is the path being forged by some within the synod. As of the writing of this piece, President Harrison’s social media post has been shared over four hundred and fifty times by individuals and congregations, many of whom have ties to the LCMS. Matthew Harrison. 2021. “Excellent.” Facebook, July 3, 2021. https://www.facebook.com/matt.harrison.1614460/posts/10225534228133459

4 President Harrison’s letter to the Board of Regents, dated May 9, 2022, was leaked to the public on May 12, 2022. See: https://steadfastlutherans.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2022-05-09-Harrison-CUWAA-letter-to-regents.pdf.

5 Derrick A. Bell Jr., “Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest Convergence Dilemma,” Harvard Law Review 93, no. 3 (1980): 518–33.

6 Bell, 524.

7 Bell, 524.

8 Bell, 524.

9 Bell, 524.

10 Bell, 525.

11 Bell, 525.

12 Bell, 524.

13 Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, 3rd ed. (New York: New York University Press, 2017), 13.

14 Delgado and Stefancic, 20–4.

15 Delgado and Stefancic, 25.

16 Delgado and Stefancic also note the influence of radical feminism on the emergence of critical race theory.

17 Delgado and Stefancic, Critical Race Theory, 4.

18 For examples of variations in thought see section “IV: Looking Inward” and for external and internal critique see section “VI: Critiques and Responses to Criticism” in Delgado and Stefancic, Critical Race Theory, 58–76, 102–112.

19 Delgado and Stefancic, Critical Race Theory, 27, 31.

20 In point of fact, Delgado and Stefancic note at least five seemingly shared tenets of critical race theorists. Delgado and Stefancic, Critical Race Theory, 8–11.

21 AC II, in The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, eds. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 36, 38.

22 Consider the claims of interest convergence theory and the ordinariness of racism in the context of Luther’s Romans commentary. He writes: “The common saying that human nature in a general and universal way knows and wills the good but errs and does not will it in particular cases would be better stated if we were to say that in particular cases human nature knows and wills what is good but in general neither knows nor wills it. The reason is that it knows nothing but its own good, or what is good and honorable and useful for itself, but not what is good for God and other people. Therefore it knows and wills more what is particular, yes, only what is an individual good. And this is in agreement with Scripture, which describes man as so turned in on himself that he uses not only physical but even spiritual goods for his own purposes and in all things seeks only himself. This curvedness is now natural for us, a natural wickedness and a natural sinfulness. Thus man has no help from his natural powers, but needs the aid of some power outside of himself. This is love, without which he always sins against the Law ‘You shall not covet,’ that is, turn nothing in on yourself and seek nothing for yourself, but live, do, and think all things for God alone.” Luther’s Works, American Edition, 55 vols., eds. J. Pelikan and H. Lehmann (St. Louis and Philadelphia: Concordia and Fortress, 1955ff.), 25:345. The well-known and oft cited Luther axiom, incurvatus in se, should be enough to suggest that both interest convergence theory and the ordinariness of racism are theologically compatible. People are so curved inward that they put their interests before the interests of others, they affirm their own place in the world before affirming the place of another. That does not mean that Bell or any other critical race theorist would agree with everything Lutherans suggest theologically. It also does not mean that Lutheran theologians need agree with everything any critical race theorist suggests about societal and political life. It does mean, however, that the two groups are not wholly incompatible in their assessment of the nature of human beings as people relate one to another and thus structure society.

23 AC XVI, Book of Concord, 48–51.

24 SC, Book of Concord, 354.

25 J. A. O. Preus, “Editorial: The Consultation of Black Pastors,” The Springfielder XXXIII, no 2 (Summer, 1968); 3–4.

26 Preus, 3.

27 Preus, 3–4.

28 Preus, 4.

29 Preus, 4.

30 A modern appraisal of The Kerner Report can be found here: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/1968-kerner-commission-got-it-right-nobody-listened-180968318/

31 Oswald Hoffmann, “I Believe One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,” in Convention Proceedings of the 47th Regular Convention of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, New York, New York, July 7–14, 1967 (St. Louis, MO: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1967), 64.