Dave Miller, Tom Ascol, and CRT/I: Conspiracy Theory!

Dave Miller wrote a piece this week entitled, “Tom Ascol Plans to ‘Take the (SBC) Ship.’” The entire post concerns what Miller interprets as the stated “agenda of Tom Ascol and the Founders.” Miller presumed Ascol’s agenda from a single tweet, an “agenda” we’ll look at more closely below.

The initial difficulty is, the tweet contains a statement neither attributable to Tom Ascol nor Founders Ministries. Rather the quote Ascol tweeted was from a review of the recent documentary, “By What Standard?” funded by Founders Ministries, a review written by Arkansas pastor, Allen Nelson IV and linked in the tweet.

Apparently, Miller never bothered to read Nelson’s review from which Ascol quoted, and from his weak criticism offered about Founders Ministries’ documentary, perhaps neither did he take time to watch the film.

Stating he was assisted in his criticism by an unnamed person, Miller makes ridiculous, unreasonable claims he attributes to Ascol and Founders Ministries based upon a single statement neither Ascol nor Founders made. Miller even states as much but proceeds to criticize regardless of his known ignorance. “Granted these aren’t Ascol’s words, but can we safely assume by the quoted retweet, under his name, that he would agree?”

First, this wasn’t a retweet but a tweet Ascol created by quoting from the review of “By What Standard?” by the Arkansas pastor mentioned above, along with a link to the review.

Second, no, we most certainly do not “safely assume” Ascol would necessarily agree with either all or part of a review he happens to tweet about. I recently tweeted a link holding a view on an issue with which I most certainly did not agree. But it was a well-written position and therefore worthy of consideration.

Third, to compose a critique of a person’s view based solely upon a quote unattributable to the person under consideration is not only shallow, a bit mean-spirited, and even suspicious, but also reveals who may actually be harboring an agenda himself. It’s hardly a secret Miller promotes and defends virtually every position SBC leaders presently maintain. Since Miller serves on the Leadership Council of Southern Baptists’ Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), and Resolution 9 (at least the one passed in June 2019) was birthed by Curtis Woods, Keith Whitfield, Walter Strickland, and Alicia Wong among others who also are closely aligned with the ERLC and Russell Moore, could we not safely assume Miller might possess his own agenda in defending and promoting those positions held by Russell Moore and the ERLC? We’d surely be more justified in doing so than Miller basing his entire critique of Tom Ascol and Founders Ministries on words they neither spoke nor wrote.

More relevant to the substance of Miller’s response to Ascol, let’s first review some of the unreasonable claims and spurious assumptions he makes and holds in his piece. Afterward, we’ll examine at least one point Miller makes that could have had significance had Miller shown he understood the basic elements of Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality (CRT/I).

First, in speaking of the many crises Southern Baptists have faced since 1845, Miller makes some questionable assertions (Miller’s words are emboldened):

“slavery was blindly supported as godly in SBC pulpits” – Early Southern Baptists neither “blindly” supported slavery nor did they argue slavery was “godly.” They usually made a biblical case for slavery from the text of Scripture. Ever how flawed their case was—and it was hermeneutically and morally flawed—they did not accept it “blindly” any more than the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States and abroad. Nor did they argue it was a “godly” practice. Rather they argued slavery, as regulated and practiced according to Scripture (as they interpreted Scripture), was not ungodly. There’s a vast difference between the two. To have argued it was a godly practice, they would/should have been encouraging abolitionists to follow their lead in godly living and purchase slaves of their own. They did not. Instead they argued contra abolitionists that what they were doing was not sinful. In short, early Southern Baptists argued they were free to own slaves or not own slaves. For them, slave-owning was morally permitted but not biblically commanded.

“SBC churches excluded people of color and cheered segregation and oppression” – Leaving aside the sloppiness in failing to supply a timeframe for his claim, yes, a few churches affiliated with the SBC may have officially excluded Black believers but certainly neither all nor necessarily the majority. Nor does it seem to have ever been the official position of the SBC to have done so.

“Recent revelations have made it clear that many SBC pastors and church leaders have preyed on the sheep instead of shepherding them, and that instead of dealing with issues of sexual abuse, churches and their leaders worked to cover over the sin and enable the abusers” – First, presuming Miller is speaking about the Abuse of Faith series published by the Houston Chronicle (HC) earlier this year, the overwhelming majority of those profiled in the series were neither recent nor revelatory. The series was fundamentally a rehash of Christa Brown’s blog started in the early 2000s. Virtually all of the persons in the HC database were gleaned from media stories that already had publicly reported the incident over the last 20 years. Even so, the database is seriously flawed with dozens of purported sexual offenders not affiliated with an SBC church. And though HC has been informed of its dismal mistakes numerous times, they refuse to correct their errors. What is more, a little-known class-action lawsuit against HC is presently being explored citing HC’s known and intentional purpose in deceiving the public about a crisis among 45,000 churches that does not actually exist.

“Crisis like never before” – Miller presumes Tom Ascol intended to suggest that the present crisis—”the one addressed in his so-called ‘cinedoc’ – the passing of resolution 9, and the advance of the social justice movement in the SBC”—is the worst crisis Southern Baptists have ever faced; that is, a “crisis like never before.”

The first difficulty is, not only did Ascol not pen these words, it’s unclear why Miller would specifically understand the words the way he did. Miller took the words “like never before” in the sense of “worst crisis ever” and offers several examples in SBC history he believes are worse than the crisis he claims Ascol cites:

• A college professor taught that “Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed were just all different flags under which God flies his name”
• “Our founders were racists and slaveowners”
• A Southern seminary professor reportedly said in the 70s that “Jesus never meant to die, but made some political miscalculations and ended up on the cross”
• “Hundreds of SBC leaders were exposed by the Houston Chronicle but the real evil is people like Rachael Denhollander who call attention to the problem.”

But what if the words “crisis like never before” do not refer to whether one crisis is worst than another but instead whether one crisis is of a different kind than another? Since Miller showed no indication he read the review from which the tweet quote was taken, he presumably guessed as to what the words meant to convey. But even if Miller had read the review, it’s hard to tell whether the author intended one way or another. While a question to the author might be in order, an ignorant presumption that he categorically meant what Miller presumes is not. Thus, a large section of Miller’s critique becomes dubious at best.

What is more, even if the author of the quote intended to suggest that the “passing of resolution 9, [etc.]” is the worst crisis Southern Baptists have ever faced, Miller fails to show how the author would be mistaken. Rather he attacks the notion and the people he associates with it with provocative rhetoric having no basis in either the original review from which the quote was taken (Miller never once indicates he even read the review much less engaged the review. Perhaps that was the contribution of his mystery partner) or the quote itself.

Miller describes the notion as “lies” and “false accusations” by “liars [who] are having a heyday in the SBC today.” According to Miller, Tom Ascol and Founders Ministries are “agenda-driven,” the agenda of which is designed to ensure “that the SBC conform to their will and their interpretations. They assume that their views (and, perhaps, theirs alone) reflect the revealed truth of God.” Ascol and those associated with Founders Ministries, along with “the ‘discernment’ rags [sic]” who “spread those false accusations,” are specifically set on “stirring up dissension and division in the SBC”.

Miller’s characterization of Ascol and Founders Ministries’ “agenda” is virtually manufactured, a magic rabbit he pulled out of a hat. Nothing in the review, the quote, nor the documentary film lends itself to the conclusions he draws, but Miller performs his magical trick nonetheless. Indeed, if there were indications of this so-called “agenda,” surely Miller could supply at least one example. Nothing. He merely asserts it without a shred of evidence, apparently unaware that the very absence of evidence makes his own critique look entirely like an agenda-driven hack job.

Even more indicting is Miller’s strange presumption that objections to CRT/I is specifically limited to Tom Ascol and Founders Ministries (and supporting “discernment” blogs), a presumption easily dismissed as either gross ignorance or intentional deception (hopefully the former).

The fact remains, critics of CRT/I come from a broad swath of evangelicals both inside and outside the SBC as well as outside the Christian faith (Miller mentions James Lindsay whom I’ll deal with below). Some historians, philosophers, and/or cultural analysts who have no affiliation with Founders Ministries have raised serious objections to CRT/I infiltrating the evangelical church. Those who have followed my blog over the years are very much aware I am not normally considered a supporter of Founders Ministries. But I surely raise the same concerns about CRT/I as does Tom Ascol. Hence, to suggest this is an issue created by Tom Ascol and Founders Ministries is patently absurd on its face.

Furthermore, recall it was the SBC Resolutions Committee that introduced Resolution 9 “On Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality” into the mainstream of SBC life. Thus, if anyone can be described as “stirring up dissension and division in the SBC” it should be the Resolutions Committee not either Founders Ministries, Tom Ascol, or anyone else.

Finally, Miller made one substantial point in his critique. He writes,

In their documentary, James Lindsay is featured multiple times. Lindsay is an atheist. Everything he says comes from this worldview. And yet they use him to understand critical race theory and the implications of such. Isn’t this precisely what resolution 9 was suggesting?

In response, Lindsay is featured in the film (not sure of the times he is featured), but I’m unsure he should be classified as a atheist. I think he’s more of an undecided. Either way, however, Miller is correct in identifying him as certainly not a Christian believer and maybe not a believer of any kind at all. Miller is also correct in identifying “Everything he says comes from this worldview.” And, Miller is additionally correct that Founders Ministries “use him to understand critical race theory and the implications of such.” However, Miller’s presumption that Resolution 9 was suggesting this very thing about CRT/I simply doesn’t follow.

While it’s true “Everything [Lindsay] says comes from this worldview,” not everything Lindsay says comes from this worldview only. For example, Lindsay has a very similar understanding as do we of the necessity of rational inquiry; what constitutes substantial evidence; correct logic and what constitutes logical fallacies; and the primacy of objective evidence over subjective experience, among many other similar traits between his worldview system and a traditional Christian worldview. Hence, given the nature of CRT/I, it’s no surprise that someone like Lindsay would come to similar conclusions as those of us who embrace a traditional Christian worldview since there is overlap in the nature of evidence and argument itself. For my part, given his failure to grasp this important aspect of how two worldviews are both similar and dissimilar, Miller shows he has little to no understanding of CRT/I and its potential impact on the SBC.

And, though Lindsay (an unbeliever) does appear in the documentary, he was not the main critic featured in the film. Evangelical historian, Glenn Sunshine, got more air time than did James Lindsay, as did Southern Baptist historian, Tom Nettles. Indeed, including a university professor outside the SBC, a seminary professor inside the SBC, and an unbelieving philosopher outside Christianity all coming to the same conclusion about the dangers of CRT/I should raise a red flag for Southern Baptists that we may be playing with a theological timebomb.

But for Dave Miller, no sweat. It’s all a conspiracy cooked up and served by Tom Ascol and Founders Ministries to dupe any stooge dumb enough to listen to their supposed lies.

For my part, I’m going with the tangible evidence Ascol and Founders Ministries assembled over the emotive rhetoric and conspiracy theory of Dave Miller and SBCVoices. Others are welcome to make up their own mind.