Introduction:

Today the American Church is facing a crisis of monumental proportions – and is blithely unaware of the danger. Right now, there is a movement that is tentacular in its reach, terrifying in its effectiveness, and totalitarian in its goals. This movement is nothing less than a false gospel, the likes of which the Church in America has never faced before. Moreover, unlike external threats to the faith such as Modernism, Darwinism, or Atheism, this false gospel is viewed as a means of retaining the relevance of the Church and her message. Like Liberalism before, this new gospel insists it is the salvation of the faith – but unlike Liberalism, it doesn’t attempt to invalidate the Historicity of Christ, or the Resurrection, nor does it insist on abandoning the gospel as it stands. Rather, this false gospel is syncretistic and has, does, and will undermine Christianity theologically, and eradicate it practically. This threat comes from Wokeism.

Seen through an uncritical eye, Wokeism, and particularly Racial Wokeism (not environmental, economic, or Wokeism pertaining to gender-dynamics or human sexuality), seems to be saying reasonable things, or at least things which are understandable given our current milieu. And it is this very prima facie reasonableness which poses its greatest danger, because Racial Wokeism is certainly a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It is so dangerous because it relies on a constellation of beliefs, central to which is Critical Race Theory (CRT), as well as other interconnected presuppositions, which create an alternative gospel, that is not only not consonant with the orthodox faith, but outright contradictory thereto.

For the pastor-theologian and the thoroughgoing academic, Racial Wokeism presents a fascinating study into several disciplines.[1] Epistemology and Anthropology are the most critical to understanding Racial Wokeism as a worldview. After the worldview is established, the Soteriological implications essentially present themselves.

In what follows I will attempt to do three things. First, I will demonstrate how Racial Wokeism is incompatible with orthodox Christianity from an Epistemological perspective. Second, I will show how Racial Wokeism relies on a faulty view on Theological Anthropology. Third I will make the Soteriological implications of Racial Wokeism explicit, with a view to how pastor-theologians and evangelical academics ought to respond.

Part One: An Incoherent Epistemology.

As stated above, Racial Wokeism is the resultant worldview which comes through an à la carte selection of various beliefs and presuppositions. However, there are several which are necessary for the system to have some kind of Gestalt. In this paper I will be dealing primarily with Critical Race Theory (CRT)[2]; White Fragility[3]; Intersectionality[4]; and elements of Postmodernism[5].

To understand why the Gestalt of these, at times seemingly disparate theories, results in such an Epistemological nightmare, let’s begin with a bit of background. A few decades ago scholars began working together on new theories of how race interacted with outcomes -- basically, what impact does being White or Non-White have on where you begin and where you end in life. Of course, asking these questions is not remotely controversial! These are the kinds of questions one would expect from scholars trying to understand sociology or demography or economics, especially as much of this research was directed towards educational theory.

Now to answer this question, they employed Critical Race Theory. Essentially the racial counterpart to Critical Legal Theory, which is the Legal counterpart to Critical Theory.[6] Critical Race Theory is an epistemological theory that has 5 basic key components. An article by Tara Yosso, Octavio Villalpando, Dolores Delgado Bernal, Daniel G. Solórzano gives a clear summery of the position:[7]

1. The Intercentricity of Race and Racism: Critical race theory starts from the premise that race and racism are pervasive and permanent.

2. The Challenge to Dominant Ideology: A critical race theory in education challenges the traditional claims of the educational system such as objectivity, meritocracy, color-blindness, race neutrality, and equal opportunity. Critical race theorists argue that these traditional claims act as a camouflage for the self-interest, power, and privilege of dominant groups in U.S. society.

3. The Commitment to Social Justice: A critical race theory in education challenges us to envision social justice as the struggle to eliminate racism and other forms of subordination while empowering groups that have been subordinated. CRT seeks to advance such a social justice agenda.

4. The Centrality of Experiential Knowledge: Critical race theory recognizes that the experiential knowledge of People of Color is legitimate, appropriate, and critical to understanding, analyzing, and teaching about racial subordination in the field of education.

5. The Interdisciplinary Perspective: Critical race theory draws from the strengths of multiple disciplines, epistemologies, and research approaches. A critical race theory in education challenges traditional, mainstream analyses by analyzing racism and other forms of subordination in education in historical and interdisciplinary terms.

The paper continues:

Critical race theory frames what we do, why we do it, and how we do it.

• What do we do? We focus our work on addressing the many forms of racism and their intersections with other forms of subordination.

• Why do we do it? The purpose of our work is to challenge the status quo and push toward the goal of social justice.

• How do we do it? We work by listening to, reading about, and centering the experiences of People of Color.

Despite however innocuous these tenets may sound to the uncritical ear there are extremely serious problems which must be addressed. First, the very first tenet states that, “Critical race theory starts from the premise that race and racism are pervasive and permanent.”

This assertion is made and made authoritatively. But how does one prove that racism is pervasive and permanent? Particularly when we consider the interaction of CRT with other concepts within Racial Wokeism, it becomes clear that “pervasive” is not simply “endemic” but “total” and is particularly directed at Whites. How can this be proved or sustained in anything like a scientific way?

It cannot. It certainly cannot be sustained if we understand Racism to mean “active antipathy towards members of another race” or “feelings of racial superiority”. How does one prove one has feelings?

Racism is pervasive and permanent, and this is sustained by appealing to a concept called “Implicit Bias”. Despite whatever protestations a White person might make: “but I have black friends and black family members and I love them and care about them!” These are dismissed, because not only is Implicit Bias real – but Whites are unaware that they have these Implicit Biases. Thus, if you’re White, you’re racist and you just don’t know it. Not only do you not know it, but you can’t even access it through introspection![8] You say, then how can we prove that all people are all biased when there are people who do not consciously hold racist feelings, or do racist things? If indeed people hold these biases, they could be evinced in some kind of action – because claiming these Implicit Biases exist, and they cause a person to be an active or passive participant in Systemic Racism, seems to be unsustainable.

Now, it is certainly acceptable to Christian thinkers that people may have aspects of personality unknown to themselves – and that they may be inaccessible due to some kind of defense mechanism – an Implicit Bias Denial. But if the point of CRT is to create social change, then actual events which evince Implicit Bias must be pointed out. It is insufficient to simply assert that something like pervasive, indemonstrable Biases exist and hope to use such a claim to precipitate policy change!

Certainly, Christians would all agree that all people should strive to eradicate any kind of unjust bias from their hearts. We should strive to be more just and less prejudiced. The Fall has tainted every aspect of personality. But when making universal claims universal evidence is necessary – or at least evidence in particular instances which can reasonably extrapolated to be universal.

Critics of Systemic Racism point out a lack of concrete evidence. Yes, Implicit Biases may exist, they say, but to grammatically equate “Implicit Bias” with “Racism” seems a deliberate engineering of language, as well as being empirically unsustainable. Critics say, “show me the evidence of Systemic Racism as a result of Implicit Bias and if we agree that the current, social or political systems are unjust we will try to change the system.” However, remonstrances from Whites demanding empirical evidence can be, are, and ought to be dismissed, say adherents of CRT because the Persons of Color’s experiential knowledge is legitimate!

“Critical race theory recognizes that the experiential knowledge of People of Color is legitimate, appropriate, and critical to understanding, analyzing, and teaching about racial subordination in the field of education.”

This form of Existentialism is dangerous at best and deadly at worst. What happens when a Person of Color’s experiential knowledge confronts objective truth, or statistical knowledge, or any kind of datum that would contradict his or her knowledge? Well, the Person of Color’s experiential knowledge is legitimate. If the POC’s experience is legitimate, then the empirical counter-factual must either be a product of the Systemic Racism system or must be misinterpreted.

If this seems ludicrously unacademic – it is. But it is nor fringe. Standpoint Epistemology, a theory that began in Marxist, and later Feminist Thinking has now been incorporated into arguments for Critical Race Theory. The concept is, essentially, a form of extreme Postmodernism, where a Person of Color’s lived experience cannot be externally invalidated, and most certainly NEVER invalidated by a White Person, because a White person cannot, literally cannot understand the Person of Color’s experience.

However, this street does not go both ways. As a White man, I cannot understand the lived experience of my wife – because she’s a woman. Neither can I understand one of my best friends Mike, because he’s Black. Certainly, no one can have comprehensive[9] knowledge of another human, but does that negate our ability to sympathize and empathize? Yet, women and racial and sexual minorities can understand me, because they exist within the dominant culture. So, my wife and Mike can understand my lived experience, but I can’t understand theirs because my Implicit Bias and White Privilege blind me, in a very literal sense blind me, from understanding their perspective. Now, on top of this being a complete overstatement of lived experience, it ignores our common humanity. But, our shared nature as creatures made in the imago Dei is insufficient. I, as a White man, cannot share in the lived experience and therefore I cannot criticize it.

Before we conclude studying the Epistemological Incoherence of Racial Wokeism, let’s recapitulate some conclusions. 1, All white people are racist and participate in Systemic Racist structures which subordinate POC. Both White racism and participation in Systemic Racism are permanent, because of, at a minimum, Implicit Bias. 2, White People cannot, literally cannot find this Implicit Bias in themselves through introspection – where empirical evidence fails, one simply must accept it by faith. 3, Any attempt to disagree that these things exist is foolish because Persons of Color’s lived experience have said that Systemic Racism and Implicit Bias are real, and nothing, particularly White people, can invalidate a Person of Color’s lived experience.

Epistemologically, we can see, that the more we learn about the constellation of concepts and presuppositions within Racial Wokeism, the more we see it relies on faith, the rejection of empirical knowledge in preference to the experience of particular people. Indeed, as Lorde and others point out, Racial Wokeism needs to reject concepts such as empiricism and scientific method because these are “the Master’s tools” and the Master’s tools will never tear down the Master’s house! Sadly, the “Master’s tools” rejection of Western Logic is not fringe!

Unfortunately, the arguments do not get better. Many Whites will reject these precepts and continue to assert that they are not racists. But that’s simply more proof that the White person IS a racist. The concept of White Fragility utilizes circular reasoning to assert that any criticism of Systemic Racism is more evidence of that racism!

“White fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress- inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium.”[10]

So, let’s rephrase that: White people are racist and also hate being called racist and when you try to prove to them they are racist, they deny it – which is further proof of their racism. Which looks an awful lot like asserting someone is a pathological liar. If they say that they aren’t, isn’t that exactly what a pathological liar would say?

Is it possible that many White People do feel stress when confronted with racial issues because they harbor racist feelings or have committed overt acts of racism? Of course. Is DiAngelo’s thesis circular reasoning which invalidates it, from a logical perspective? Of course. Yet, White Fragility, and iterations thereof are the key to sustaining the Racial Wokeism theory of Systemic Racism. White Fragility is the claim which defeats all counterarguments – and it itself cannot be critiqued because critiques of circular reasoning rely on a Systemically Racist White European Epistemology.

While many pieces of the Systemic Racism argument may have merit, and to the degree they have merit, should inform our thinking about race, Racial Wokeism requires a total rejection of any and all empirical, or logical criticism because it has invested itself in absolutist claims relying on the rejection of the most foundational precepts of rational thinking: the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Again, while many concepts addressed above may, indeed, have merit, taken as a whole Racial Wokeism is a faith-based system which relies on an incoherent Epistemology.

Part 2: A Faulty Theological Anthropology.

One of the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory is its singular explanatory power. Certainly, broad explanatory power is one of the most crucial concepts in assessing any theory. However, cogent and coherent theories exist within a constellation of competing and corroborating concepts – there is no Alexander to cut the Gordian Knot in sensible theories. Ironically, however, conspiracy theorists simply cannot accept that there are other components to truth than explanatory power. We’ve all met people like this – people who ramble ad nauseam about something that is clearly false, and if you’re foolish enough to demonstrate a clear inconsistency in their system, it is dismissed with a wave of hand as “lies THEY came up with”.

In America today, Systemic Racism is a conspiracy theory. It is, quite literally, the solution to every problem. Counterfactuals and contradictory data are dismissed as “biased” or “unreliable” or “a product of THEM”. Systemic Racism is, as seen above, a much more defensible position for those wishing to effect social and political change than Overt Racism, because Systemic Racism is unfalsifiable. Overt Racism requires laws, policies, words, and actions – data, and verifiable data. Systemic Racism can simply be asserted. Yet, a figure as eminent in the panhagion of Racial Wokism as Kimberlé Crenshaw rejects that Racist Systems are the unqualified cause of all social ills:

“There is also a general tendency within antiracist discourse to regard the problem of violence against women of color as just another manifestation of racism. In this sense, the relevance of gender domination within the community is reconfigured as a consequence of discrimination against men period of course, it is probably true that racism contributes to the cycle of violence, given the stress that men of color experience in dominant society . It is therefore more than reasonable to explore the links between racism and domestic violence. But the chain of violence is more complex and extends beyond this single link. Racism is linked to patriarchy to the extent that racism denies men of color the power and privilege dominant men enjoy. When violence is understood as an acting out of being denied male power in other spheres, it seems counterproductive to embrace constructs that implicitly link the solution to domestic violence to the acquisition of greater male power. The more promising political imperative is to challenge the legitimacy of such power expectations by exposing their dysfunctional and debilitating effect on families and communities of color. Moreover, while understanding links between racism and domestic violence is an important component of any effective intervention strategy comma it is also clear that women of color need not await the ultimate triumph over Racism before they can expect to live-violence free lives.”[11]

What Crenshaw writes here is what any reasonable person must conclude, if we are to accept that historic racial injustices have any causal link to the problems presently manifest in the Black community.

And here is where it is easy to lose the thread. It is crucial for Christians who take Theological Anthropology seriously to recognize that Moral Agency happens within the confines of the lived experience, which is largely entirely outside of one’s control. On the other hand, it is crucial to never forget that there is a world of difference between a Necessary Cause and a Sufficient Cause – that difference is as stark and serious as the difference between Christianity and Behaviorism – or Biological Determinism. Unfortunately, few political conservatives seem willing to publicly recognize Historic Racism as well as poor public policy, even if well meaning, as being contributing factors to the demise of the urban Black family and the skyrocketing rise of violent crime. Conversely, a growing number of people, particularly political liberals, seem to wish to argue that Racism, both Historic and Systemic, are the single cause of all issues within the Black community — despite a large number of Black voices saying the opposite!

Moynihan famously warned that the Black family was in danger of disintegrating – and in many places it has! And the White family is headed the same direction. The phenomenon of fatherlessness within the Black community is not, I repeat is not, caused by any inherent racial inferiority of Black people – as we see the same phenomenon is happening among Whites. The same is true for criminality, drug use, undereducation, and generational poverty. To say that these problems are the result only of Black inferiority is foolish and ignores the same phenomena within the White community. Complex factors led to these issues similarly to how complex factors have led to many of the same problems in Appalachia.

Conversely to say that these are all the results of Systemic Racism is facile and infantilizes Black people by denying them the Agency which people readily admit to all other races. Only the ignorant and the invested will maintain that Systemic Racism ALONE is the cause of all problems facing the Black community. However, to say that Historic and Modern Racism, present day injustices, and contemporary political policies do not contribute in major ways to the destruction of human flourishing is to ignore that human beings are enculturated beings and are, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, mainly products of our nature and nurture.[12]

To clarify, the Christian position has always been one which tries to recognize the competing realities of Depravity, Enculturation, and Free Will in explaining human behavior. It may be best to recognize that these 3 concepts move from universal to general to individual in their scope. Depravity, of course, affects all of humankind and limits humanity such that sin has corrupted every aspect of personality. How that depravity manifests, however, is determined both environmentally and hereditarily (which I have called Enculturation). A person living in a society that constantly degrades women is more likely to commit acts of violence against women than one raised to treat women with dignity and respect and as the moral equals of men. A person raised in a household where narcotics are constantly abused is more likely to use narcotics than a person raised in an environment without drug abuse. A child of alcoholics is more susceptible to alcoholism than a child of non-alcoholics. A child of people five feet tall is less likely to play NBA basketball than a child of two 7 footers! Nature and Nurture do compound Original Sin and Depravity, by funneling that depravity into specific channels of sinfulness. Lastly, of course, is individual choice, or Free Will. Of course, it must be noted that our Wills can be damaged so that we act in sinful and self-destructive ways absent of any active agency – the stimulus/ response mechanism called addiction or habit. And Christians would agree that addiction and habits can become so strong that only an act of God can restore some kind of volitional Moral Agency. But, on the whole, we do well to recognize that while Depravity and Enculturation both limit us and shape our personality, individuals do make individual choices for which they are individually morally responsible.

Does this mean that people born into poverty are doomed to be drug users or criminals? No. But it does mean that because of how Depravity and Enculturation affect Free Will, that people born into poverty are more likely to engage in violent crime or to abuse illicit drugs. When studying human behavior and systems we must remember a helpful precept: people in groups are highly predictable and people as individuals are highly unpredictable. The statistical predictability of groups is due to Depravity and Enculturation. The statistical unpredictability of individuals is due to Free Will. This concept is fundamental to a Christian Theological Anthropology.

Thus, it ought to be apparent how Racial Wokeism suffers from an irredeemably faulty Anthropology. Racial Wokeism states that all problems have the source in Systemic Racism, as seen above, this statement cannot be refuted because of how Systemic Racism is defined (or rather not defined). This, of course is only looking at the Black side. The White side is equally as faulty, though the reasons are less readily apparent.

Systemic Racism, as defined by CRT relies on the presupposition that all White people have Implicit Bias. Despite very serious doubts[13] about the scientific veracity of tests purporting to measure Implicit Bias, it seems that ALL people have Implicit Bias, not only White people. However, as shown above, Implicit Bias is inaccessible through introspection. Of course, no Christian theologian worth her salt would say that simply because something is inaccessible through introspection relegates it to being a non-entity. However, if something cannot be verified EXTERNALLY, and is inaccessible INTERNALLY, then one must raise serious doubts, beyond the methodological, to the whileworthiness of such theories.

But, one must ask, as a Christian, is it possible that all White people are implicitly biased with respect to Blacks? Perhaps. But since the, enormously popular industry standard, Harvard-administered IAT only measures White/ Black biases, it may not be predicting racial antipathy, but perhaps simply in-group preference. Is this sinful? Perhaps, perhaps not. It depends on how it manifests. There is every reason to believe that nations and nationalities exist into the Millennium and even Eternity – meaning that ethnicity is sacred and intrinsic. Is it thus wrong for a Scot to be proud of Scotland and proud to be Scottish? Of course not! All nations and peoples as unique cultures express aspects of human personality and therefore the Divine imprint on human personality and therefore Divinity. The Scots manifest the Persons of the Trinity differently from how the Masia or the Maori or the Moravians do. But is it wrong for Scots to feel superior to anyone else? Of course.

Humans like what is comfortable and the same. When this creates harmony and community this is good. When it leads to inhospitality and exclusionary behavior or injustices it is bad. Implicit Bias tests may simply measure that we are comfortable with the familiar. Does this mean that some do not suppress or repress racial aggression? Of course not. But this needs to be verified scientifically and statistically before it can be proposed as a basis for public policy.

As a Christian I want to make clear that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and our depravity affects every aspect of our lives and beings. And the New Testament is clear that racial biases and overt racism existed then and do exist now. But in Christ these barriers can be overcome. Paul says before Christ we were hated and hated eachother – but not anymore.

Again, I think it is perfectly reasonable to assert that Implicit In-Group Preference may be native to all humans. But whether this can be verified as antipathy and an unconscious desire to actively, or passively, perpetuate injustices against people of other races solely on the basis of race is dubious at best.

In sum, those Wokeists who advocate the Anthropological theory of Systemic Racism would do well to point out injustices in laws and public policies and group behaviors that are verifiable. But as it stands Racial Wokeism relies on a view of human nature which ignores Free Will and reduces all societal problems to Systemic Racism. This Systemic Racism is the result of Implicit Bias on the part of Whites who benefit from the structural injustices of the system. However, Whites, unlike Blacks or other POC must act to alter their Implicit Biases, since these are malleable. Indeed, within Racial Wokeism, the only people who are morally responsible for Systemic Racism are White People who due to either active antipathy, or White Fragility, refuse to do the Antiracist work necessary to change the Systemically Racist system. Yet, as we will see next, changing the system is depressingly impossible.

Part Three: A Counterfeit Soteriology.

Racial Wokeism, is not a system of thought which relies upon external verifiability or even being intellectually coherent. It is a faith-based system which seeks to explain the world-as-it-is through dynamics of power and oppression and lays the onus of all social ills upon the shoulders of White people who benefit from and sustain the Systemically Racist system(s) within American and Western society.

In many ways Racial Wokeism, in the United States, is structurally similar to the Christian gospel. The Fall which Christianity places in the Garden of Eden, for Wokeists occurred when White Colonizers came to America, and was exacerbated in 1619 with the arrival of the first Black slaves.[14] In Christianity, all people are fallen; Wokeists believe that POC, because of their status as oppressed, peoples cannot and do not bear any moral responsibility for the problems in society. Christianity states that salvation comes through the finished work of Jesus Christ, equally available to all men, by faith alone. Racial Wokeism teaches that society must be reformed through “Antiracist” work which is never completed and must be undertaken by people who are permanently and pervasively racist, who cannot claim moral improvement by their action, who cannot reject participation, and who will never achieve total victory.

Racial Wokeism offers a counterfeit gospel — a κακαγγέλιον. Racial Wokeism offers a system of Legalism which is far more cruel and capricious than Mosaic Pharisaism. To be fair, Antiracist advocates claim openly, that “Racial inequity is the result of bad policies, not bad people.”[15] But whether this is sincerely meant of mere subterfuge remains to be seen. Because, people, in general, do not view racism as morally neutral – nor do Antiracist activists themselves. Because for someone to advocate a bad policy that makes that person either ignorant or malevolent. Moreover, why is White Fragility such a central concept for Whites if they do not feel their morality is being impugned when racial stress occurs?

The attempt to dissociate the cluster of terms surrounding “racism” from “moral failure” may seem like an attempt to bridge the gap between those fighting for racial equity and resistant Whites, but in reality it is simply dishonest. If race based inequities are unjust, then how can those who perpetrate them not be unjust? While academics may find a distinction with a difference, average people do not and can not.[16] They see words such as “injustice”, “inequity”, and “racism” and draw a moral conclusion. As well they should.

Efforts to defang the term “racism” seem disingenuous at best. And thus, at least in the popular understanding, what Antiracist advocates are speaking about are issues of moral gravity where there are very clear heroes and villains — as evidenced by the now infamous catastrophe of the Evergreen State College implosion. As stated above, this work will never be finished. And for White people, who have accepted by faith the credo of Racial Wokeism, they have no Epistemological or Anthropological means of escape. The system, existing within its own self-sustaining circle of incoherence, is immune to external criticism and internal doubts. A White person who, by faith, accepts that all social problems in America are the result of Systemic Racism (and that this cannot be doubted because Persons of Color say so), that White person can never emotionally or intellectually have any resistance to anything Antiracist Wokeism decrees without falling into the sin of White Fragility. Moreover, that same White person can never be done with his Antiracist work and must always seek more and more to do Antiracist work, including pointing out non-believers and to trying to evangelize them, or pointing these heretics out when they refuse to convert. This same White person receives zero moral merit for so-doing. Even the White person who is the perfect Antiracist is only doing it to benefit himself and is therefore continually culpable, even while being an Antiracist, of perpetuating Implicit Bias and Systemic Racism!

There is no escape from Racial Wokeism, except total rejection.

So how ought Christian intellectuals, both pastor-theologians and academics, to respond?

First, as intellectual leaders we do well to never throw the baby out with the bathwater. Racism, both historic and present is real, though not pervasive, and, in Christ, certainly not permanent. As I’ve stated repeatedly, many of the concepts used by Racial Wokeists, certain aspects of CRT, Intersectionality, Implicit Bias, and White Fragility, may have merit and may warrant further study.

Second, we don’t keep the bathwater for the sake of the baby – and we throw them both out if the baby is a changeling! The attempt to recognize the importance of experience must never give way to Existentialism, and certainly not a racially prioritized intellectualism as seen in CRT or “the Master’s Tools”. Bad Epistemology must be pointed out to be so. An incoherence is an incoherence. The rhetorical assertion of an incoherent worldview built on a rejection of Non-contradiction, is an incoherence par excellence! Van Til! thou shouldst be living in this hour: America hath need of thee.

Third, Christian intellectual leaders need to know that many of the terms and expressions which sound innocuous are loaded and formalized. It behooves us to not simply say “Black Lives Matter”, whilst wishing to support the reality that Black lives do matter, while uncritically and, perhaps, unwittingly legitimizing an organization that wishes to defund police, has links to riots and terror, rejects the nuclear family, and is fully on board with normalizing transgenderism, homosexuality, and other forms of sexual sin. This requires courage of many kinds, moral, intellectual, emotional, and even physical.

Fourth, Christian intellectual leaders must reject the false gospel of Racial Wokeness for the Christ-supplanting legalism that it is.

Fifth, Christian intellectual leaders must hold all people of all races morally responsible for their actions, regardless of how their Enculturation has affected them. The infantilization of the Black race does not affirm Black people as fully human. Taking away Black Agency only reinforces negative stereotypes and encourages unaccountable actions.

Sixth, Christian intellectual leaders must do their part in speaking out against actions, and policies that are demonstrably and empirically unjust.

Seventh, Christian intellectual leaders must not fall prey to accepting Racial Wokeism and ignoring the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teaching of the Bible in an effort to remain “relevant”. He who marries the Spirit of this Age will be a widower in the next.

In conclusion, the interconnections between race, income, sex and sexuality, history, morality, and power are complex and not easily reducible. Oversimplifying these interconnections by stating that all problems and discord stem from White Male Heterosexual Cisgendered oppression is both ahistorical and unbiblical – moreover, it is intellectually dishonest. Christians, particularly pastors and professors, need to know what we’re talking about before we confidently affirm it. We must beware of beautiful lies – even if they are beautiful lies which our people are clamoring for. It is our duty as intellectuals to reject incoherent and unbiblical false gospels, and to do so unflinchingly and without fear. If we cannot speak the truth people do not wish to hear, then there is no need or place for us in the Body of Christ.

Footnotes:

[1] Which is to be expected as CRT asserts itself to be interdisciplinary.

[2] Here we will be looking primarily at the Tenets of CRT, as indentified by Solórzano. See especially Yosso, Tara, William Smith, Miguel Ceja, and Daniel Solórzano. “Critical Race Theory, Racial Microaggressions, and Campus Racial Climate for Latina/o Undergraduates.” Harvard Educational Review 79, no. 4 (2009): 659–91. Also worthy of note is “Whose Culture Has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of Community Cultural Wealth.” Race, Ethnicity & Education 8, no. 1 (2005).

[3] DiAngelo has been writing for some time, offering her explanations as to why Whites cannot deal appreciably with racial issues. Part of the problem is what she calls a “false binary” where there is only Racism, which is bad, and not being a racist, which is good. To avoid dealing with being in the middle, as a person who deems themselves non-racist=good, Whites resort to “Individualism”. Like almost all the authors one can cite in these issues, DiAngelo offers good insights, but her presuppositions betray her ability to move towards a more holistic Anthropology. Indeed, when her work is read across a timeline it is clear that her work becomes increasingly less nuanced and more combative. Moreover, she seems to fail to see the circular reasoning which “White Fragility” must ultimately depend. See DiAngelo, Robin. “Chapter 10: What Makes Racism so Hard for Whites to See?” Counterpoints 398 (2012): 167–89. DiAngelo, Robin. "POPULAR WHITE NARRATIVES THAT DENY RACISM." Counterpoints 497 (2016): 255-75. DiAngelo, Robin. "WHITE FRAGILITY." Counterpoints 497 (2016): 245-53.

[4] Crenshaw, Kimberlé. "Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color." In Applications Of Feminist Legal Theory, edited by Weisberg D. Kelly, 363-77. Temple University Press, 1996. Accessed June 7, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14bs8md.30.

[5] I mean both Academic and Popular understandings of Postmodernism and all its implications in thought, from Semiotics to Philosophy. Most notable among which are concepts such as the subjectivity of truth, and speech as violence. Underpinning much of this though is Critical Theory in all its iterations, CT, Frankfurt School, Cultural Marxism, etc. Indeed, Villalpando writes that Higher Education in America is dominated by a racist Epistemology. Consonant to Lorde’s “Master’s Tools” argument, Objectivity and Scientific Method and even Logic are reduced to the products of Racism and White Privilege. Bernal, Dolores Delgado, and Octavio Villalpando. “An Apartheid of Knowledge in Academia: The Struggle Over the ‘Legitimate’ Knowledge of Faculty of Color.” Equity & Excellence in Education 35, no. 2 (2002). Of extreme interest is Lorde’s “Master’s Tools” argument. http://s18.middlebury.edu/AMST0325A/Lorde_The_Masters_Tools.pdf.

[6] While “Cultural Marxism” is often dismissed as an Alt-Right boogeyman, the links between Critical Theory and its progeny to Marxism cannot be ignored. Whether a necessary connection continues to exist between these concepts remains to be seen, but there certainly is methodological and presuppositional overlap. Interestingly Jamin defines Cultural Marxism , saying: “Ultimately, Cultural Marxism, as Critical Theory, refers to a part of cultural studies focusing on the “built” dimension of culture, and new ways to act, to affect, and to influence its substance.” While Jamin sees much of the criticism of Critical Theory to be conspiratorial, Jamin’s own definition recognizes that Critical Theory seeks to alter the substance of existing culture! While it is beyond the scope of this paper to write seriously on connections between Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism/ Critical Theory it is clear that there is, currently, a major effort to redefine certain words: particularly Racism. Conservatives often do go overboard in rejecting Political Correctness, and to reject that, they must wholesale reject the Postmodernism they see as being a necessary foundation to Political Correctness. Sadly, this means that many of the serious critiques of Modernism which Postmodernism offers are ignored by Christians, particularly at the educated lay level. While it is well to reject nefarious ENGINEERING of language, too often Christians reject the natural Evolution of language: thus, the popularity of Webster’s 1812 Dictionary. See Jamin Jérôme. “Cultural Marxism: A Survey.” Religion Compass 12, no. 1/2 (2018).

[7] I have here edited for length. The full article can me found at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1036&context=naccs.

[8] Staats, Cheryl. “Understanding Implicit Bias: What Educators Should Know.” American Educator 39, no. 4 (2016): 29–33. For wuick reference see Ohio State’s Kirwin Institute for a “State of the Science” article on Implicit Bias. http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/research/understanding-implicit-bias/

[9] Incidentally, Christians would do well to understand the difference between comprehensive knowledge and sufficient knowledge.

[10] DiAngelo, Robin. "WHITE FRAGILITY." Counterpoints 497 (2016): 247.

[11] Crenshaw, 368.

[12] As every parent knows, fatigue and hunger are contributing factors to misbehavior among children. However, GOOD parents know that while extenuating circumstances may EXPLAIN misbehavior they do not EXCUSE it. Misbehavior is always wrong. Extenuating circumstances do not cause sin, but remove the social and personal barriers which normally suppress the sin nature. While, of course neither Black people, as a whole, nor poor Whites should be treated like children, the point is to demonstrate a key facet of human nature and agency.

[13] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201712/mandatory-implicit-bias-training-is-bad-idea; https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html.

[14] Nevermind that undesirables were being kidnapped from England in mass numbers and sent to work in plantations as effectively slaves with no legal remedy. “Indentured Servitude” has largely been whitewashed from history, but its existence demonstrates several things. First, that class-based power-dynamics were used actively and vigorously to both get wealth for the wealthy and get unwanted children and unskilled men and women of low repute out of London and England more broadly. This does to a great degree validate claims that European Settlers came to America very ready to perpetrate outrages against others and to exploit their power for personal gain. Second, it demonstrates that Racism was, originally, a secondary issue to the greedy exploitation of the poor in the American extension of the British Class system, which sought to reestablish some form of Feudalism on American soil. This distinction is important, not because it diminishes real racism, but because it contextualizes it. A decidedly unchristian ethic, wherein the rich and powerful had the right to exploit the poor – might makes right — is where many of the problems of Colonialism came from. The British were willing to exploit White and non-Whites.

[15] Ibrahim X. Kendi has said this in books and on his website and is consonant to statements made by DiAngelo and others who seem to wish to dissociate terms like “racism” from having a moral component.

[16] As seen at the now infamous meltdown of Evergreen State University. If you are unfamiliar, use Aero magazines article as a primer: https://areomagazine.com/2019/03/15/teaching-to-transgress-rage-and-entitlement-at-evergreen-college/.