How Is Socialism Unbiblical?

I’ve seen this question raised numerous times on several platforms over the last months. Many people, particularly millennials (who are disillusioned with what they perceive to be the greed of corporate America) are wondering why socialism isn’t more received by Christians and the church. The straightforward question that I've seen posed is: How is Socialism unbiblical? 

I’d like to take a few moments and answer that question.

After the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, the New Testament Church begins. Listen to Luke's account of what it looked like:

"And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved." (italics mine)

This particular scripture is often cited by those who are advocating for Socialism and attempting to come up with a biblical defense for this worldview. The thought is: No one was concerned with holding on to what was their's. They gave freely to one another. And engrained in that very thought is actually the explanation as to why Socialism is in fact not biblical or Christian. Let me explain.

In Socialism, the government takes from everyone. But the taking is not equal. The more you earn, work for, own and possess, the more they take from you. That said, they also take from the poor. Then the government "redistributes" equal amounts of wealth among all the people. At least, that's what they would like you to believe. Here's where this is not only fundamentally wrong, but clearly unbiblical and unChristian.

Socialism makes earthly wealth the greatest good. Julie Roys, in her article Why Socialism is Not Christian, she lays out this fundamental understanding: "To socialists, all that really exists is the material world. In fact, Karl Marx, the father of socialism/communism, invented the notion of dialectical materialism — the belief that matter contains a creative power within itself. This enabled Marx to eliminate the need for a creator, essentially erasing the existence of anything non-material. To socialists, suffering is caused by the unequal distribution of stuff — and salvation is achieved by the re-distribution of stuff. There's no acknowledgment of spiritual issues. There's just an assumption that if everyone is given equal stuff, all the problems in society will somehow dissolve."

"This worldview contradicts Christianity, which affirms the existence of both a material and a non-material world — and teaches that mankind's greatest problems are spiritual. The Bible says the cause of suffering is sin and salvation is found in the cross of Christ, which liberates us from sin. Because of sin, though, there will always be inequalities in wealth."

Bernie Sanders is a leading proponent of this ideology in today's society. He once posted on social media: “Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders on Wall Street and elsewhere, whose policies and greed are destroying the middle class of America.” Here, Sanders is mimicking Karl Marx, who viewed history as a series of class struggles between the rich and the poor – and advocated overthrowing the ruling class. This is in no way biblical or Christian. Jesus told the Rich Young Ruler, "Go sell all you have and then come follow me." Jesus wasn't about seeing classes toppled, but transformed.

The Lord's response to the inequalities among us is for His Spirit-filled people to care about, give to, and carry the burdens of those around them "as any has need." Speaking in practical terms, if the government takes all my money to "redistribute" it as they see fit, I am robbed of the opportunity and the privilege of living generously. Socialism is actually completely opposed to a life of generosity. And in that way, it robs people of exercising that spiritual gift and obeying that biblical command.

As Roys points out in her article, there are many more reasons why we can clearly call Socialism an unbiblical worldview and ideology. She explains that Socialism punishes virtue, it endorses stealing, it encourages envy and class warfare, and it subversively attempts to undermine (and ultimately destroy) marriages and families. While I know these claims may sound extreme, there's a reason for that: they are. And this is because the end result of Socialism is extreme as well. The logical conclusion of Socialism is Communism. The end result is always mass poverty and authoritarian power. The exact opposite of what it says it advocates.

Aristotle once remarked, “Men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives.” If you look closer and dig deeper, you will almost always find that those advocating for Socialism are not only hungry for power, but are themselves hoarding wealth. Karl Marx was a financially irresponsible sponge, who took from others for most of his adult life. Bernie Sanders owns 3 homes and is said to be "worth" over $2 million. You can argue that that's not nearly as wealthy as many other ideologues or politicians. That may be true. But most of those other politicians are not suggesting that they have a right to take what's yours and give it to me as they see fit.

The Bible makes it very clear that Socialism is not the way of Christ. And history, economics, and good sense make it very clear that Socialism is a dead end path to misery and authoritarianism. Here are some thoughts and quotes from some folks who are smarter than me.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." – Winston Churchill

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples’ money." – Margaret Thatcher

"A socialist is someone who has read Lenin and Marx. An anti-socialist is someone who understands Lenin and Marx." – Ronald Reagan

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." – Alexis de Tocqueville

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." – Winston Churchill

Seek to Understand

It is not an understatement to think or suggest or believe that almost everyone in the world has been emotionally affected by the circumstances we have faced over the last 6-7 months. Dr. David Rock, a neuroscientist who specializes in leadership development, said in an interview earlier this month with Inc. Magazine that "during the pandemic, almost the entire world is reacting neurologically to higher levels of threat perception than normal." No one is exempt. We have all felt the weight that this season has dumped upon us. 

Here's why this matters: There is a 99% chance that whatever you are facing, dealing with, carrying, confronting, arguing or debating, or even rejoicing over or celebrating in this season, you are more emotionally involved, engaged, and spent than at any other point in your life. 

Allow me to repeat that: You are more emotionally involved, engaged, and spent than at any other point in your life. 

Make sure you grasp this.

Whatever good or bad thing - fractured or healing relationship - positive or negative situtation you may have faced just one year ago, if it was a campfire then it will be a raging forest fire now. 

So, here's how considering this might help you and me during this season.

Whatever your child's teacher did or does that infuriates you, remember: that teacher is easily carrying the same weight you are. Have grace and mercy.

Whatever your student's parent did or does that infuriates you, remember: that parent is easily carrying the same weight you are. Have grace and mercy.

However irrational or overbearing your friend or coworker is being on social media or in the breakroom at work or over that Zoom call, remember: he is probably not even aware of how harsh or brash he is coming across. Extend some grace and mercy. And maybe privately let him know.

Realize and accept that most people who think differently than you do politically do not genuinely have a desire to see the country burn to the ground. They do not intend to use their vote to move this great nation toward socialism or toward slavery. Most people are genuinely trying to think with conviction and conscience to make the best decision they can. If you want to discuss politics with them, you're going to need to do it somewhere other than on Facebook or Next Door. Invite them over for coffee or go grab a burger. And for heaven's sake...extend some grace and mercy. (And if you haven't had a good hamburger lately, that could be adding to your stress!)

Never before in my lifetime (or yours) has literally anyone and everyone in the entire world been able to say, "I understand." They can right now.

But, do we? 

Are we being understanding?

Understanding - having empathy and knowledge - almost automatically demands a certain level of grace. Of patience. Of longsuffering. 

Are we being understanding?

Are we listening?

Or are we all just yelling, screaming, steaming, accusing, pointing fingers, and hellbent on delivering the final death blow to someone we used to like but now just think of as "one of those idiots?"

How did we get here? What's happened to us?

King Solomon may have put his finger on it. He said in Proverbs 18:2, "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion." 

Ouch! That stings a little. Only because it's true.

We've stopped listening. We've stopped working and trying to understand. And make no mistake, trying to understand takes work. We have to be intentional about it. 

We all not only have an opinion, we now have a place to freely express it.

But it's no longer an arena of ideas and thought; it's an echo chamber of blah blah blah...I totally agree.

We've replaced empathy with suspicion.

We accuse rather than question.

No, we're not being understanding! But there's still time. 

We can do this! 

But how?

Well, spiritually by recognizing that the Lord calls us to humbly seek to understand those around us, specifically anyone we're praying will see His light shining in and through us. Practically, I find Patrick Lencioni's wisdom incredibly helpful here. In his book, The Advantage, Lencioni describes 2 very different approaches to communication. The first is Advocacy. As implied, with advocacy a person seeks to get his point across ("I think this..." or "We should..."). The second approach, which is rarer to find these days, is Inquiry. With this approach, a person seeks to understand another person's point of advocacy by asking questions ("Why do you think...?" or "What led you to this conclusion?"). 

If we're seeking to understand, INQUIRY TRUMPS ADVOCACY.

Seek to understand before seeking to be understood.

Stephen Covey said that this is a habit - a formed and determined pattern or character trait - in the life of effective people. 

Seek to understand before ramming your opinion through like a rhino. 

Seek to understand before declaring your new manifesto and nailing it on the wall.

If you don't, Solomon says you're a fool. 

The Lord tells us through the prophet, Jeremiah, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? I the Lord search the heart and test the mind." (Jeremiah 17:9-10) Our hearts were deceitful long before COVID-19 was a thing or the world was in a pandemic. Your heart and mine. Now, more than ever, you and I need the Lord to search our hearts and test our minds. He will do it. If you seek Him and ask Him.

You want to be understood. I get it. So do I.

But so does that friend or coworker of yours. 

You can be bold and compassionate at the same time. The world may not think so, but Jesus tells a different story.

Maybe in seeking to understand, you and I will learn something new. Maybe we will change our minds. Or maybe we will change someone else's. But if we just keep yelling....we may never know.

Time

Some things take time. 

Not more time than you or I have, but more time than we would like to give.

Last week I tweaked my back lifting weights. I felt it tighten up and knew what was about to happen. The first 2 days I was in such pain I could barely concentrate. This is what happens when you have herniated discs in your lower back and set one of them off. Move the wrong way and it’s like a pinball unleashed in your body. As a result, over the last week I’ve been to the chiropractor 3 times for stem and heat therapy, ultrasound, and adjustment. I’ve easily spent an accumulated hour on the floor stretching, at home and at the gym. I had to pass up playing golf. And needless to say, I haven’t done any deadlifts in the last 7 days. But every day, it’s loosening up. Each day it’s getting better.

When this happens though, what I WANT is to take a pill and it all be fixed.

But when this happens, what I NEED is to treat what caused the problem in the first place. What I NEED is to stretch and strengthen my leg and back muscles. What I NEED takes way more time then I WANT to give. But not more than I have.

Time requires waiting.

Waiting requires patience.

Patience demands priority.

Priorities require evaluations and decisions.

And very often those decisions are not between bad and good, but between good or better. 

Sometimes those decisions are between better and best. 

But choosing between better and best demands that I decide: What’s my priority? What’s more important?

And so if I choose best over better, this will demand that I choose patience. This is because (very often) the process and the waiting are just as important as the end result, outcome, goal, or destination. Our character doesn’t microwave. We are a slow burn people. And so what is best is almost always going to require waiting.

And waiting is going to require time. God set it all up this way.

The good news is, you & I have time. 

We just have to decide what we’re going to do with it. 

"Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil." Ephesians 5:15-16

The Fractured Foundation of Critical Race Theory

This is the 3rd post in a series in which we are addressing Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality, & the ideological framework that these ideas support & promote. 

As I was trying to wrap up some final thoughts to follow up from my first post on Critical Race Theory & my additional thoughts on White Fragility, I realized that almost every single comment, refutation, or conversation I’ve had with anyone who wants to argue or pushback on something I’ve written or said - particularly regarding or saying that Critical Theory is antithetical to the gospel - is some version of “I fear that disregarding or undermining the good parts of Critical Race Theory (or White Fragility) by only pointing to the bad parts does more harm than good.” This is the most common defense or argument I’ve been presented: If you just point out the bad parts people will miss the good parts. 

The other thing I’ve noticed is that no one pushes back by actually defending these supposed good parts. No one is rushing to defend any of the ideals proposed or promulgated by this worldview. There’s just a fear that we might be doing damage to the good it can/could do. This is not a credible basis for arguing in favor of something. Especially for a worldview that has no foundation to stand on.

Let me share what I consider a comparative dilemma.

On one hand, if I’m talking to a Mormon I want to find common ground. This helps us connect. On the other hand, more than anything, I want them to see that we’re actually not on common ground. The “Jesus” they profess to believe in is not the Jesus in scripture. Their Jesus is not God; he was created by God. My Jesus - his crucifixion & resurrection - is sufficient for my salvation; theirs is not. They still have works to do. This is one of the myriad reasons that Mormonism is dangerous. This is why it’s considered a cult. It's anti-gospel. It's heretical. And in spite of this, many Mormons have no idea of the fallacies of their own belief system.

Critical Race Theory, Critical Theory itself, Intersectionality, White Fragility - these are all man-made ideologies that crumble underneath themselves. The answer to combat a “system” that would promote or foster a toxic practice or thought like racism is not to develop another faulty, poisoned “system” to attempt to defeat the first one. This is essentially succumbing to an idea like “If you can beat’em, join’em.” 

To be extremely blunt, I think we have to confront a major hurdle we face in even attempting to address this issue: White people feel bad. Really bad. Guilty, in fact. This issue is (as Shelby Steele describes it) white guilt. Many white people I know hurt for their black friends. And rightly so. They want to do something - to be part of the solution, not the problem. And much like we often do in our relationship with the Lord, when what we need is to pray, listen, & wait....we feel we need to do something, so it is in this situation. We need to feel like we’re doing something tangible. Accomplishing something visible. We want to feel that we've been part or the solution. And...we really want to get rid of that guilt! And herein lies one more problem: Critical Race Theory won’t allow me that freedom. 

Critical Race Theory & Intersectionality classify me as a white, middle-class, Christian, heterosexual male. I am the classic definition of the ultimate OPPRESSOR. On one hand, the only way CRT accomplishes its goal is if I move from oppressing to actually being the OPPRESSED. However, in the scope of Intersectionality I can never fully escape being the oppressor. So, for me, it’s a lose-lose situation. Unless….

Unless, of course...I denounce my faith, become a woman, attend enough diversity training courses, & (of course) allow the government to take more of my money so they can responsibly assist the oppressed with it, as I have no capacity to do on my own or in my current state. This would move me at least a good 3 spaces along in my level of moral authority.

I know many will read that and think or say, “Now you’re just being ridiculous!” Yes, it is ridiculous! But actually, no. I am taking these ideologies to their end conclusions. This is the depths to which this slippery slope slides. And it’s a long way down!

Friends, what becomes very clear if you can & will clean the window off just enough to look through it is that the Marxist foundation & motives of Critical Race Theory cannot be hidden or ignored. This ideology is absolutely not about striving for equality & restoration; it’s about reappropriating power & wealth. It’s not about empowering blacks through development; it’s about exploiting them through victimization. It also in no way frees a white person to be driven, motivated, or changed by anything other than guilt. And as Shelby Steele writes in The Content of Our Character, “…the fear for the self that is buried in all guilt is a pressure toward selfishness. It can lead us to put our own need for innocence above our concern for the problem that made us feel guilt in the first place. But this fear for the self not only inspires selfishness; it also becomes a pressure to escape the guilt-inducing situation.” (italics mine)

Now, I exhort you to consider all of that & then ask yourself: How is that not antithetical to the gospel?

If one person can never truly be free of being a victim & the other person can never truly be free of their guilt, where do you go from there? 

Finally, returning to the initial concern, let me now pose this question: 

What good parts of these ideologies are people concerned about sacrificing? 

What good parts are we afraid of neglecting in pointing out the bad parts? 

Going back to my previous question from my previous post: Where or how does Critical Race Theory mysteriously or miraculously solve a problem that is not addressed, confronted, defeated, or restored in & through the gospel? The answer is: Nowhere. It doesn't. And as I've stated, these ideologies are not consistent with the Word of God or the good news of salvation in Christ. Here's a very brief, but very well done video by the folks at What Would You Say? called Is Critical Theory Biblical? I encourage you to take 5 minutes to check it out.

If you begin with the standard of God’s Word, how are you reconciling this ideology?

Maybe that leads to the bigger question: Are you beginning with the standard of God's Word?

If so, what is it about this highly questionable worldview that a Christ-follower would feel the need to defend?

We all have to make the decision & answer the question: What’s the standard? 

What is it that everything else in life gets held up to, measured by, & weighed with? The one, trustworthy, life-giving, never-failing standard is the Word of God. It is our firm foundation! Always begin there.  

The Sinking Ship of White Fragility

This is the 2nd post in a series in which we are addressing Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality, & the ideological framework that these ideas support & promote. The ideas posed & presented in the book, White Fragility, are an extension of this worldview. 

In 2018, Robin Diangelo finally assembled & published the thoughts & ideologies behind the phrase she had coined just a few years earlier, White Fragility. While the book was moderately successful at first, the resurgence of racial tension in America following George Floyd’s death sent the popularity of the book through the roof. Not only has the book’s influence grown, the ideas within have taken a foothold with many Christians, churches, & even denominations. (The United Methodist Church even has a video series led by Diangelo on White Fragility.) As a pastor, having many people within our church asking about the book, being told they should read the book, or having already read the book, I have felt a great need to address the ideas, implications, & substance of what is presented within its pages.

Before I go any further, I feel I need to add some caveats, asterisks, & prefaces to what I'm about to say. In the midst of this cancel culture we live in - where you completely write someone off & consider everything they say & think as discredited or untrustworthy because you disagree with them on a single point or issue - I am not writing Diangelo off, suggesting that nothing she has to say is worth consideration. There are some points & issues she raises that are definitely worth discussing & working to reconcile. However, as you'll read moving forward, I don't find many. And the overall foundation of her work crumbles beneath those singular issues. With that said, here we go.  

I want to begin by being straightforward: I read a lot. And over the last few years, I have made concerted efforts to read varying viewpoints, dissenters, authors, & ideas that I know challenge or even oppose what I think or believe. I’ve even changed my mind every now & then (maybe). Here’s the straightforward part: I could barely make it through this book. I felt like I was trying to row a boat with holes in it the size of footballs. I really wanted to row, but I was so distracted by the water coming in the holes that I couldn’t seem to get anywhere. In that vein, Danny Slavich entitled his review & critique of White Fragility (on Christianity Today's website) “Eat the Meat; Spit Out the Bones.” To be honest, I felt like every time I began chewing on what I thought was meat, it turned out to be grissel. But I kept chewing & swallowing. Here’s what I digested.

As Diangelo spent years leading diversity training & teaching at the university level, she argues that she saw a consistent response on the part of white people becoming defensive toward the topic of racism. This led her to establish the belief that this defense mechanism has been inherently woven into the fabric of “whiteness” (her term, not mine). She begins the book by asserting that there are 2 overarching ideologies that foster racism within white people: Individuality & Objectivity. Here is some of what she has to say:

"Individualism is a story line that creates, communicates, reproduces, and reinforces the concept that each of us is a unique individual and that our group memberships, such as race, class, or gender, are irrelevant to our opportunities." (p.10)

"We are taught to think about racism only as discrete acts committed by individual people, rather than as a complex, interconnected system." (p.3)

“For many white people, the mere title of this book will cause resistance because I am breaking a cardinal rule of individualism—I am generalizing.” (p.11)

"Objectivity tells us that it is possible to be free of all bias. These ideologies make it very difficult for white people to explore the collective aspects of the white experience." (p.9)

First off, individuality does not imply that our relationship to (or) the influence of our race, class or gender are irrelevant. It means that, within that context, I am aware that God has created me to be a unique individual. (Psalm 139 speaks nothing of race, class, gender, or nationality.)

Along these same lines, objectivity does not tell us that it's possible to be "free of all bias." To be objective is to be aware of your biases & to be able to look past them to a degree.

Finally, this supposed idea of the "white experience" (not just here but throughout the book) implies that every white person has the same experience. This, of course, is ridiculous, considering the comparison of a white man raised in poverty in the Appalachain Mountains of West Virginia with a white woman brought up in wealth & privilege in Manhattan or Chicago. These 2 individuals are almost from 2 completely different planets. His white experience will potentially look nothing like her white experience.

From Chapter 1 on, there are presuppositions being laid down & argued that don't hold water. So as I said, the foundation is already crumbling. The boat's already sinking.

As the book unfolds, what Diangelo is arguing & submitting is that each of us, as white people, are born into a system that - having nothing to do with our own individual circumstances, but because we are white - affords us opportunities, while also passing down an inherent ignorance to the system itself. She asserts that the only way for me to correct this is to take time to objectively determine (after already arguing that we really have no objectivity) where, when, & how the system has benefitted me (&) where my ignorance is rooted so that I can go back & (essentially) repent. [In present-day language, I need to be woke.] For instance, if I'm ignorant to my own racism because I don't know enough about racism, then I need to educate myself. If I'm completely oblivious to my racism because I don't have very many black friends, then I need to have more black friends. And so on. 

In regards to that last assertion, can you think of a scenario that more feeds the idea of having a "token" black friend than this one? Or that should be more insulting to a black person? I can't. And an enormous number of black people seem to share that thought.

George Yancey (an author & professor at Baylor University who happens to be black) said in his article Not White Fragility - Mutual Responsibility on The Gospel Coalition website: "As an African American who has not only done academic work on these issues but had to navigate the issues of racism personally, I recognize the irony of reviewing a book by a white woman. But as a professor in the social sciences, I believe she provides little empirical work to support her assertions. The work on implicit bias is questionable at best. Implicit bias may be real, but it doesn’t seem a major factor in why people discriminate against others. Another empirical problem is her lack of research for the unique defensiveness of white people. Where’s the cross-racial research indicating fragility is unique to them?

How can we test for white fragility? As far as I can tell, the only way a white person can’t be “fragile” is if they agree with the accusations brought against them. Any reaction other than compliance is taken as evidence of white fragility. This is not useful as a conceptual tool for hypothesis-testing.

What about the empirical results of anti-racism techniques? The type of diversity training that emerges from such efforts has been shown to have little long-term effect on prejudice. Further, focusing on privilege can actually decrease sympathy for poor white people while not raising the overall sympathy for black people. Research seems to indicate that taking the route of DiAngelo is not lessening our racial hostility—but it may be making that hostility worse.

The concept of white fragility is an academic way to tell white people to be quiet and listen. Bottling up the expressions of white people, though, is not the path to addressing our society’s racial alienation. Indeed, it’s a path that will continue to frustrate attempts at correcting racism’s genuine effects." (italics mine)

John McWhorter (Professor at Columbia University, contributing writer at The Atlantic, who also happens to be black) reviewed Diangelo’s book in an article The Dehumanizing Condescension of White Fragility. I highly recommend reading his article in full. He concluded his critique by saying, "White Fragility is, in the end, a book about how to make certain educated white readers feel better about themselves. DiAngelo’s outlook rests upon a depiction of Black people as endlessly delicate poster children within this self-gratifying fantasy about how white America needs to think—or, better, stop thinking. Her answer to white fragility, in other words, entails an elaborate and pitilessly dehumanizing condescension toward Black people. The sad truth is that anyone falling under the sway of this blinkered, self-satisfied, punitive stunt of a primer has been taught, by a well-intentioned but tragically misguided pastor, how to be racist in a whole new way." 

Those are the thoughts of critical thinking, educated black men.

At this point, I believe the most important thing for me to do (as Yancey & McWhorter have done) is to address & confront the overall implications of the book & the flaws in this ideology.

Let's start with scripture. And let's start at the beginning.

In the Garden of Eden, sin came into the world. As a result, when I entered into this world through my mother's womb, sin was inevitably going to be in my veins. In fact, more than my veins, it was going to seize the throne of my heart. Yours as well. And this had nothing to do with the color of my skin. That dose of melanin, however great or small it was, sadly had no effect on the condition of my heart. We are all created in the image of God. We are all knit together in our mother's womb by our Creator. We all enter this world with a heart bent toward our own exaltation. We are all dead in our sin. But thankfully, there is one who has rectified the situation, restored the beauty, & reconciled our relationships - to our heavenly Father & to one another. His name is Jesus. 

In Romans 5, the Apostle Paul gives us this brilliant parallel between how death & sin entered the world through one man (Adam), but life & salvation came from the other man (Jesus). "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men."

One trespass. That's all it took. Sin. Death.

One act of righteousness. That's all it took. Forgiveness. Reconciliation.

If you claim to be a Christ-follower, you have to come to the reckoning of whether or not you believe that "by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works...." 

I've been asked: How is Critical Race Theory antithetical to the gospel? How are the ideas presented in White Fragility at odds with the gospel? Well, remember: While Jesus saved us from sin, death, & separation from the Father, he also saved us to life, holiness, reconciliation, & good works. The whole ideology presented in White Fragility says there are good works that I can only find & figure out through being enlightened or woke. In other words, no - White Fragility is not trying to replace what I've been saved from, but it is most certainly altering what I've been saved to. Also, if it's a system that's the source or cause of something like racism, this (in effect & to a degree) let's me off the hook for my own individual responsibility. It's no longer about my sin, it's about the system. That is antithetical to the gospel.

You have to decide whether or not you believe:

"God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another." (1 Corinthians 12:24b-25) 

Did I erase those divisions? No. Jesus did. 

Do I have to personally walk in this truth & work to tear anything down that would try & rebuild those walls of hostility? Absolutely.

That begins with my own sin. That's the starting point. White Fragility says otherwise.

As a Christ-follower, I have to determine whether or not I believe:

"Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male & female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:25-28)

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit." (Ephesians 2:13-22)

So how does all of this have any relevance to the subject & how is it that White Fragility is in any way in conflict with the Word of God?

To put it simply, it distracts & leads us away from the true SOURCE of the problem, & therefore, continues on in pointing us to the wrong SOLUTIONS to the problem.

As I said in my post entitled, The Gospel & Racial Reconciliation: "We have to be clear about this: SIN is the source of racism. SIN is the source of abuse. SIN is the source of entitlement. And SIN is the source of the spirit that attempts to cover over these things as well."

I challenge you to take all of this into account & prayerfully consider: How is this not antithetical to the work of the gospel?

Allow me to pose another question: What does White Fragility accomplish, defeat, or address that is not accomplished, defeated, or overcome through the power of Jesus Christ working in & through the lives of His people, through the power of His Spirit, & upon the truth of His Word? Where is the gospel lacking or insufficient?

Friends, this book (& the ideas within it) are possibly the greatest conglomeration of cultish nonsense I have read in quite some time. I believe it is condescending & insulting to black people, defeating & degrading for white people, & not only does nothing to repair the harm of racism, it actually ties our hands behind our backs & leaves us all with no hope that things can be made right, rectified, or restored. It's a sinking ship. Do not get on board!

The False Gospel of Critical Race Theory

As recently as 18-20 months ago, I had never even heard of Critical Race Theory & had no idea what Intersectionality was. Over the last year, I have not only become aware of it, but I have seen the evidence that it is exploding into our culture. 

Over the next days & weeks, I want to expose that these ideas - specifically Critical Race Theory - are not only contrary to the gospel, but are on their own a works-based worldview of enlightenment. They are a false gospel.

Let's begin with the overarching question: What is Critical Theory? 

Critical Theory is a worldview that believes there are power dynamics present in terms of social relationships.

The object of CT is to expose that the power brokers (the OPPRESSORS) carry certain assumptions & biases (&) they funnel & cement those biases into the systems they create without even realizing they’re doing it. 

The job or role of CT is for the OPPRESSED to uncover those biases & assumptions so they can be critiqued, exposed, dismantled & overthrown. The task is for the OPPRESSED to overthrow the OPPRESSORS.

As an example, in Marxism, the oppressor is the Capitalist or the Bourgeoisie. Karl Marx proposed through his famous Communist Manifesto. As the British Library website explains, Karl Marx "was a revolutionary German economist and philosopher, and the founder of the Communist movement. Marx was writing against a backdrop of great industrial change. Overcrowded, newly industrialised cities were expanding, and much of the working class lived in great poverty. Marx saw history as the story of class struggles, in which the oppressed fight against their oppressors. According to Marx, as history unfolded, the victory of one class would pave the way for the future freedom of the rest of society." When Marx's assertion didn't come true, an Italian Marxist named Antonio Gramsci proposed the idea of the Cultural Hegemony, which said the powerful classes in society set the way everyone is supposed to think & everyone else unknowingly buys into it.

I know your question at this point is possibly: Who cares? Why is this important?

The answer is simple: This worldview is no longer creeping or sneaking it's way into our society; it has become a full-fledged raging monster. And the main avenue for it's invasion into the west is through Critical Race Theory. So, we need to specifically dive deeper into understanding it.

Monique Duson, Director of The Center for Biblical Unity, explains that in CRT, white people are the oppressors & black people are the oppressed. As a white person, CRT asserts that you probably don't see your own racist tendencies or thoughts because - as Critical Theory in general suggests - the oppressors are unaware of their own biases & impositions on the rest of society. This is the source & root of all "systemic racism" present in a culture or society. Further, as an oppressor, not only are you not supposed to be a racist, you have to be an anti-racist. There are certain things you must do & say, & certain ways you must do & say them, to prove that you've been enlightened of your problem & to show evidence that you're actively working to dismantle the problem, beginning with yourself.

If you're brain hurts & you're already exhausted from trying to grasp all of this, there's good reason for that. This framework & worldview is totally works based. It’s cultural gnosticism. Critical Race Theory says: You're lost & your only hope of salvation is to be WOKE.

Critical Race Theory undermines the gospel. It predetermines that there isn’t enough grace to cover sin.

Critical Race Theory places the seed & root of sin on a group or race, rather than the individual. That's not what the Bible teaches. 

Critical Race Theory doesn’t actually speak to the oppression of or discrimination against black people. In fact, it actually works against exposing the heart that would attempt to affirm racism. It's burning down a straw man.

And to speak to where & how CRT is invading our culture, you need to understand that this is the prime doctrine & ideology that the Black Lives Matter organization is founded upon. In a brief 2-minute video several months ago, attempting to appeal to Southern Baptists to make a visible effort at eradicating racism, J. D. Greear (President of the SBC) made the assertion that this thinking had "crept into the ranks of BLM", rather than acknowledging or understanding that, in contrast, the entire organization & movement are built on these principles & this worldview. You cannot separate the BLM organization & movement from cultural Marxism & Critical Theory. They are one and the same.

Make no mistake: Critical Race Theory is an attack on the gospel & is an enemy to the reconciliation of grace that can only come from & through the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you are a Christ-follower, you need to work to understand it so that you can be ready to confront it. It's not headed this way; it's here.

To further understand CT, CRT, Intersectionality, & the vast array of deceptive ideologies that accompany them, here are several other resources from people who are much smarter than I am:

The Trojan Horse - This is an interview Sovereign Nations Founder Michael O’Fallon and the co-founders of New Discourses, Dr. Peter Boghossian and Dr. James Lindsay, discuss the current tools of societal and institutional deconstruction being introduced throughout civilization under the banner of “Social Justice.” These, they discuss, are presented in a manner not unlike the legendary Trojan Horse.

Race, Injustice, & the Gospel of Critical Race Theory - Alisa Childers interviews Monique Duson to discuss racism, biblical justice, and some of the words and phrases we're seeing in our social media newsfeeds like "white fragility," "whiteness," and "social justice." 

Critical Race Theory - This is an entire catalog of articles, blogposts, interviews, & videos addressing & exposing CRT.

The Trojan Horse, Episode 3 - O'Fallon's interview with Boghossian & Lindsay (an Atheist & an Agnostic) continues, diving deeper & more specifically into the origins and core concepts of critical race theory in plain language, so that it and its terms can be more clearly understood.

By What Standard? - Tom Ascol & Founders Ministries produced this documentary exposing how CRT is already slipping into the ranks of the Southern Baptist Convention. This effort became blatantly obvious & exposed at the 2019 gathering of the SBC as it was pushed through in Resolution 9. 

Defend & Confirm Podcast - My friend Russell Berger & fellow pastor Sean DeMars have several episodes defining, addressing, confronting, and deconstructing the false ideology of CRT.

More to come....

Where Else Would We Go?

The 6th chapter of the Gospel of John is long. It’s intense. It’s packed with human desperation & divine intervention. Jesus feeds 10,000 plus people with 2 fish & 5 loaves of bread. He walks on water. Peter walks on water! It’s a pretty packed couple of days. Then Jesus gets to Capernaum & begins to teach them, wanting them to learn from what they’ve just seen & experienced. Answering their questions, Jesus explains that he has the words of life. He says, “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit & life.” (Bill Klein, one of our elders at The Brook, preached through this text yesterday.) Just before this, as Jesus gives the famous (& very hard to understand in the moment) you must “eat my flesh & drink my blood” discourse, he is using a physical illustration to communicate a spiritual truth. (Bill made this point in his sermon.) Jesus is saying that he is enough; his life will be the example for us to follow & his blood will be enough for our atonement. But as he says all of this, John tells us that “many turned back & no longer followed him.” He then turns to his disciples & asks them the hard question, “Are you going to leave me, too?”

Think on that question for a moment. 

Are you going to walk away from Jesus? 

Are you going to go & search for the words of life somewhere else? From someone else?

Prayerfully consider the question for a moment.

It should only take a moment. That’s how long it took Peter.

Peter answered Jesus, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” Peter asks Jesus a rhetorical question that still bears all the weight it did at just that moment. “Lord, where would we go? Who else would we turn to? You have the words of life! You are the Son of God!”

While I know many of us as Christ-followers hear Peter’s question & response (&) feel the stirring of our Spirit & emotions over the implications, the fact is, we sometimes ask this question...while walking away from Jesus.

Where else would we go? Where else would we turn?

We turn to the news. We put our head in the echo chamber.

We go to the latest self-help book. Maybe this new way of thinking will change everything.

We look to the mirror, in vain affirmation or with loathing disappointment.

We listen to our feelings; our lying, ever-changing, deceitful emotions & feelings.

We believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he alone holds the words of life; yet, we often seem to be determined to look — to even run — anywhere & everywhere other than to him to feed us, to fill us, & to guide us.

David knew who to run to. In Psalm 18 he declares: “I love you, O Lord, my strength. The Lord is my rock & my fortress & my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge.” He continues: “This God — his way if perfect; the word of the Lord proves true; he is a shield for all those who take refuge in him.” (v.1-2, 30)

The psalmists knew. 

"God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble." Psalm 46:1

"My soul clings to the dust; give me life according to your word!" Psalm 119:25

"This is my comfort in my affliction, that your promise gives me life.” Psalm 119:50

King Solomon knew.

"The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous runs into it and is safe." Proverbs 18:10

We can not only listen to the Lord; we can cry out to him. We can bring all our burdens & lay them at his feet. We find rest in him. Only in him!

Jesus said, “Come to me, all you who are weary & heavy burdened, & I will give you rest.” Matthew 11:28

When persecution began in the New Testament church, they didn’t consult men, they cried out to God. (Acts 4:23-31)

Paul knew who to run to. Who to turn to. 

He implores us: “…do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer & supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.” (Philippians 4:5) In other words: Don’t worry about anything; instead, pray about everything!

Jesus is truth. He is the way. He is peace. He is hope & joy & rest. He is life!

You know this, right? 

So, why would we go anywhere else? Why would we turn to anyone else? 

Peter answered Jesus, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, & we have believed, & have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God!”  

For the Sake of Others

Not long after I arrived in India in 2014, we were driving out of the city and into a village when I noticed this all-too-familiar symbol painted on the side of a building. I was dumbfounded. But I didn’t say anything. As we drove a bit further I noticed 2 or 3 more apparent swastikas on buildings, walls, and signs. I couldn’t sit there any longer wondering. I asked my translator, “Why in the world are there swastikas everywhere? What kind of sick people would put those up?” Without hesitating or blinking an eye, Robin (my Indian translator) informed me, “Oh, Hitler stole the swastika from us.”

All I remember thinking was, “What? How on earth have I never heard this before?”

For whatever reason, I became a bit fascinated with this. How could one of the most profoundly powerful symbols of the 20th century actually been hijacked? Stolen? If this was true, how on earth did Hitler and the Third Reich land on this particular work of art to become the brand of their brutal regime and their perverted ideologies? How did this happen?

Here’s what I discovered.

"In the ancient Indian language of Sanskrit, swastika means "well-being". The symbol has been used by Hindus, Buddhists and Jains for millennia and is commonly assumed to be an Indian sign.

Early Western travellers to Asia were inspired by its positive and ancient associations and started using it back home. By the beginning of the 20th Century there was a huge fad for the swastika as a benign good luck symbol.

In his book The Swastika: Symbol Beyond Redemption? US graphic design writer Steven Heller shows how it was enthusiastically adopted in the West as an architectural motif, on advertising and product design.”

"Coca-Cola used it. Carlsberg used it on their beer bottles. The Boy Scouts adopted it and the Girls' Club of America called their magazine Swastika. They would even send out swastika badges to their young readers as a prize for selling copies of the magazine," he says.

It was used by American military units during World War One and it could be seen on RAF planes as late as 1939. Most of these benign uses came to a halt in the 1930s as the Nazis rose to power in Germany.

The Nazi use of the swastika stems from the work of 19th Century German scholars translating old Indian texts, who noticed similarities between their own language and Sanskrit. They concluded that Indians and Germans must have had a shared ancestry and imagined a race of white god-like warriors they called Aryans.

This idea was seized upon by anti-Semitic nationalist groups who appropriated the swastika as an Aryan symbol to boost a sense of ancient lineage for the Germanic people.

The black straight-armed hakenkreuz (hooked cross) on the distinctive white circle and red background of the Nazi flag would become the most hated symbol of the 20th Century, inextricably linked to the atrocities committed under the Third Reich.

"For the Jewish people the swastika is a symbol of fear, of suppression, and of extermination. It's a symbol that we will never ever be able to change," says 93-year-old Holocaust survivor Freddie Knoller. "If they put the swastika on gravestones or synagogues, it puts a fear into us. Surely it shouldn't happen again.”

The swastika was banned in Germany at the end of the war and Germany tried unsuccessfully to introduce an EU-wide ban in 2007.

The irony is that the swastika is more European in origin than most people realise. Archaeological finds have long demonstrated that the swastika is a very old symbol, but ancient examples are by no means limited to India. It was used by the Ancient Greeks, Celts, and Anglo-Saxons and some of the oldest examples have been found in Eastern Europe, from the Baltic to the Balkans.

[Excerpt from How the World Loved the Swastika — Until Hitler Stole It, by Mukti Jain Campion, 2014]

As I said above, when Robin first shared this unknown bit of history with me, my first thought was, “How on earth have I never heard this before?” I have come to believe that the answer to that question actually leads to another question we — as Americans — should be asking. To put if simply: How is it that some of our symbols have managed to not only survive, but continue to be celebrated?

I truly believe that the answer to my question — as to how I had never heard about the origins of the swastika — is that most people throughout Europe, Asia, and around the world have readily allowed this symbol to go the way of the evil, brutal, and horrific plague it came to represent: the Nazi party and the Jewish Holocaust. To dawn that symbol or flag today evokes a level of hate and horror that is still almost incomparable. And no one questions why. Pure and simple, it’s because of what this image came to be associated with: fascism and murder.

Fast forward.

As an eight-year-old boy, the confederate flag was first and foremost a symbol of the two greatest rebel rousing outlaws I knew of: Bo and Luke Duke. It shined atop that bright orange beauty of an automobile, The General Lee, which (much like the flag) at that point in my life was not a person, but a car. It was all very innocent. But then, I went to school. I began learning things. I became a huge fan of history (probably somewhat because I hated math & science). And as I learned more and more about the history, conflicts, and struggles our ancestors battled through to get us where we were, I gained perspective. I had to come to grips with the fact that — fair or unfair, right or wrong — for many, the confederate flag still evokes images, thoughts, and even memories of hate and horror that beg to be forgotten. And no one should question why. Pure and simple, it’s because of what this image came to be associate with: racism and slavery.

But this is where it all gets dicey. It seems as though many who would never for a moment suggest we repurpose the swastika, moreover the Nazi flag, can’t seem to let go of the battle flag of the south. Why is this? 

What is it about the confederacy that’s so valuable that we refuse to let go of a symbol that overtly commemorates times of slavery, racism, and segregation? Can someone answer that question? 

This is not the removal of a monument; this is the surrender of a symbol. The symbol, in many people's minds, that represents one of the darkest movements and ideologies in our country's history. To bring this flag down is not revisionist; it's repentant. 

My real question is this: If we know the wounds, the baggage, and the burdens this symbol and flag still drags along behind it, can we not just give it up once and for all for the sake of others?