Slave to the King

Unworthy rebels, redeemed by the King of Kings and made servants fit for His use.

Tag: Critical Race Theory

Encouragement for the Battle Weary

May 21, 2021 / / 0 Comments

I know a lot of us are weary of the current cultural warfare. Some of us simply never want to hear the terms Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality, Marxism, etc, ever again. If we could just wipe them out of lives, we would be happy beyond measure. I can identify with that. This seems to be all-consuming. It is everywhere. I would love to see and be part of just about any other conversation. Some days, it feels like it is never going to end and we are all battle weary.

Yet, at the same time, this battle is perhaps one of the most important we’ve engaged in for our generation. I’m not talking about the politics (though it is a huge component of what is going on), I’m referring to the spiritual. What this cultural war has revealed is the lack of spiritual maturity going on in the professing Church at large. Many self-identified Christians are either ignorant of Scripture or believe their personal feelings and experiences supplant Scripture. The very core of the cultural war is the battle for the sufficiency of Scripture.

There is little doubt that CRT and similar ideologies will one day collapse in on themselves. Critical Theory systems depend on the idea that there must always be oppressor and oppressed classes. Eventually, competing oppressed classes will come into conflict with one another. Somebody’s victim status is going to demand to be considered more important than another victim status. Thus, competition between victim classes will result in a new oppressor/oppressed battle within currently allied groups. When that happens, when they start eating their own (something that is already happening) the movement will begin to collapse.

Of course, should the Critical Theory promoters actually achieve their stated goals and create a Neo-Marxist “utopia,” then all victim groups will no longer be useful to those in control. They will be dismissed as dissidents to be pushed down, isolated, and ignored. All one needs is a cursory understanding of history to recognize this to be true. Only the willfully deluded will believe “that won’t happen this time.” In either scenario, the existing Critical Theory movement will diminish and fall apart.

But, that is not something we should settle for. Why? Because the very core beliefs that allow for the existence of such a movement will never go away. Critical Theory exists because it descends from previous leftist ideologies. Post-modernism, Neo-Marxism, the Frankfurt School, political activism, and more are the very progenitors of the existing Critical Theory system. Each rose and fell as an ideology or movement, but their very beliefs were passed down and retained within our cultural system. Much of how we think today has been affected. Even those of us who are opposed to Critical theory find ourselves speaking of having one’s own truth, not judging others, there not being only one way, etc. We may not realize it because it has become so ubiquitous, but much of Western Culture, and even the Christian church have been inculcated with the beliefs of these systems.

Once evidence of this is the failed “Emergent Church” movement. Emergent church “preachers” prided themselves in not knowing anything for certain. They asked all kinds of questions, but never really wanted solid answers. Certainty of anything was the only real sin. It was arrogant and prideful to believe anyone could know exactly what God had said. This movement was all the rage, for a time. Eventually, all questions and no answers mean you don’t really have anything to stand on. Without a firm foundation, you sink into the mire of your own creation. And such did the Emergent movement. But, not without leaving a lasting effect.

People may not have called themselves Emergent, but many professed Christians were impacted by its teachings. Uncertainty about the Word of God and a love for one’s own feelings grew in Evangelicalism. The leaven had taken root and grown in churches around America. People still take great pride in believing that it is humble to not stand firmly on doctrine. That genuine love is letting people find their own path and not insisting on believing all of God’s Word is true or sufficient.

Now, the impact from that system, the widespread roots of it are bearing fruit in the Woke Church. Since we need not believe God’s Word has the final say on all things, that our own feelings and lived experiences have equal authority, this became fertile ground to implant Woke ideology. Now, those that once believed we couldn’t be certain about God’s Word believe that people’s own stories can be given equal to or greater weight than Scripture. As Solomon wrote, “There is nothing new under the sun.”

The cultural battle is important because the war of worldviews is important. You either submit to the worldview of God in Scripture or you espouse the worldview of man. Christians cannot abdicate their place in this battle. We must be people of the Book. We must expose “plausible arguments” for the fraud they really are. We must tear down the strongholds of the world and shine the light of God’s gospel as revealed in His Word. I know you are weary, brethren. I know you wish the battle to end. But, until the final trumpet sounds and our Savior returns triumphant, we have much to do and disciples to make. Take heart, do not be weary in doing good. Your Savior and His gospel are worth it.

Philosophies and Empty Deceits – The Battle for the Sufficiency of Scripture

April 9, 2021 / / 3 Comments

In his letter to the Colossians, Paul repeatedly urges his readers to grow in faith, maturity, and knowledge. And from that growth, he calls on them to live in such a manner as they honor and obey God. It is precisely because Christ has redeemed them and made them new creations that the Colossians are not only able but expected to grow and live in this manner. Throughout his writings, Paul makes it clear that unsaved people are unable to honor and obey God. They are dead in their sins and cannot be pleasing to God unless they are made holy in Christ. Yet, to Christians, Paul gives repeated commands to demonstrate holiness and obedience to God. Followers of Christ are to reject the ways of the world and cling tightly to the commands of our sovereign Lord.

To the Colossians, Paul’s ever-fervent prayer is that they will “be filled with the knowledge of his [God’s] will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding” (1:9). Paul wants Christians to not only know God but to know His will. He prays for this so that the Colossians will “walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God” (1:10). In other words, knowing God’s will (what He wants us to know and do) makes it possible for the Christian to actually live their lives in a manner that bears godly fruit. In order to practice rightly, they must know His will rightly.

A Battle Brewing

In our current age, there is a battle over the sufficiency of God’s Word. Many professing Christians will claim they believe Scripture is inerrant but demonstrate in practice they find it is not sufficient. By stating that the Bible is inerrant, Christians are proclaiming, rightly, that all that God has spoken in His revealed Word is without error. That the perfect and holy God did not allow for error to be written into the Scriptures. This has been a battle long fought for many generations. And it is a battle that must still be fought daily as many progressivists in our current age still deny God’s Word is divinely inspired.

The battle today is one of the sufficiency of Scripture. Does the Word of God contain all that is needed for faith and practice in the life of a Christian? Does it speak to the issues of our day and does it give the answers we need? Can we trust that this document, despite its Divine authorship and whose canon was closed approximately 2,000 years ago, actually understands the conflicts, sins, and issues of the 21st Century? The answer for the Christian must be a resounding “Yes!” For if we cannot trust that God provided us with sufficient instruction in the Scriptures, then we cannot trust that God is truly omniscient. And if God is not omniscient, then He is not God and He ought not to be trusted when He tells us that salvation is in Christ alone. In short, if Scripture is not sufficient, then God is not trustworthy and we have no hope of eternal life.

Yet, there are those today who, if not by full admission then by practice, deny the sufficiency of the Scriptures. Perhaps the most evident indication of this is the ongoing debate over the matter of social justice. No matter which form it takes – critical race theory, gender theory, queer theory, etc. – social justice advocates proclaim that the ideological framework of Theory is an analytical tool by which we can understand systemic oppression and then go to the Scriptures to apply the gospel imperatives. Such argumentation, no matter the claims of those who deny it, practically puts the ideology above Scripture because we must use the analytical tool to understand how and why such oppression occurs. Therefore, it is a practical denial of the sufficiency of Scripture.

Rejecting Plausible Arguments

In Colossians, Paul tells his readers that he has written to them and prayed for them to grow in knowledge “in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments” (2:4). Paul literally labors and struggles for those in the church that they may “reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery” (2:2). He does this so that the arguments of the world can be distinguished and separated from the true knowledge of God. Paul does not want his readers to be beguiled by claims of knowledge that seem to have a veneer of truth but ultimately lead one away from godly life and practice.

Paul writes to the Colossians, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (2:8). Paul is warning the Colossian believers that there are worldly arguments that are antithetical to the teachings of Scripture. They are man-made and without biblical substance. They come from the wicked heart of sinful men and are not from Christ. And he makes it a point to tell the Colossians that these arguments are capable of taking a person captive. They are that persuasive. These arguments seem to be legitimate. There is something about these philosophies that, without examining them against the light of Scripture, a person might just find themselves caught up in them and believe them wholeheartedly.

Later in chapter 2, Paul points out two types of arguments that fall into this category. First are those arguments that appear biblical, but neglect the full revelation of Scripture. “Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ” (2:16-17). In the early church, there were many who tried to call Christians to come back under the Jewish law, to practice circumcision, and to adhere to the festivals and sacrifices. Paul admonished the Galatians in his epistle to them for doing this very thing. This is because the Old Covenant had been a type and shadow of the “things to come,” pointing to their ultimate fulfillment in Christ under the New Covenant.

The Old Covenant could never bring about salvation because it was intended to be a schoolmaster, pointing the Jews to the fact they never would be able to earn merit with God as they were dead in trespasses and sins. It was a signpost pointing to the coming Christ who fulfilled the law in its entirety and who was the perfect sacrificial lamb who would take away the sins of the world. For the Colossians, Paul was warning them against any argument which would take them back under the law. They had the sure word of God in all of Scripture revealing to them that Jesus was the promised Messiah and it was He alone who was the substance of these things. They did not need to listen to those who were outside of Christ and who rejected the revelation He was their promised deliverer. To go back under the law was to reject the revealed Word of the one whose prophets foretold of Christ’s coming. It may have sounded plausible, but in truth, it was a complete rejection of the revealed Word.

Secondly, Paul writes about arguments that appear to have some kind of biblical basis but are entirely worthless. He states, “let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,” (2:18). He later writes in verses 20 to 23, “If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were alive in the world, do you submit to regulations – ‘Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch’ (referring to things that all perish as they are used) – according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh” (emphasis added).

These arguments seem to have a connection to the Old Covenant. Certainly, the Jews had laws regarding dietary restrictions, not touching dead bodies, etc. However, never were they commanded to live ascetic lives, never were they allowed to worship angels, and anyone with a claimed vision better have it proven 100% accurate or the were to be slain as a false prophet. Paul makes it clear that, no matter how persuasive these arguments may have seemed, they were without any biblical support. A Christian may have thought practicing these actions could have somehow added to their holy walk, but in fact, they were completely worthless. By examining such claims against the genuine knowledge found only in God’s revealed Word, the Colossians would realize that all of these arguments had no value in combatting the desires of the flesh. They were worldly practices that did not even point to the God of Scripture and were never commanded by Him at any time.

Paul was concerned for the Colossians that they were to understand, firstly, they belonged to Christ and that He purchased them by His blood. He pointedly writes about how Christ is the creator of all things (including the Colossians) who made all things by and for Himself. He is the image of the invisible God who is now revealed to the saints and is the Savior of all, Jews and Gentiles alike. It is in His Word these things are revealed and there was no worldly argument, no matter how plausible it seemed, that could change this very truth. Therefore, Paul commands the Colossians to reject those arguments which could lead them into prideful practice, thinking they somehow could add to the work of Christ and achieve something of their own merit.

Paul calls upon the Colossians to live in a manner worthy of Christ. “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry” (3:5). When Christians adhere to the Word of God, our desire ought to be that which denies the desires of our flesh and submit humbly to God.

Social Justice – An Empty Deceit

This takes us back to the arguments of our current age. In the matter of social justice, what are the advocates of such a philosophy concerned with? Equality. Specifically equality of outcome, especially in the arena of worldly wealth and power. Social justice claims that oppression is systemic in culture and that those who have power and wealth have obtained it unjustly by oppressing certain groups. Primarily, the oppressed groups are argued to be minority ethnic persons, women, and persons who practice sexual immorality. Advocates argue that for true justice to reign, the oppressed persons must be elevated and given the wealth and power denied them by the oppressive group (which by definition are caucasian, heterosexual men). Social justice is focused on earthly matters which can only be defined by earthly categories. It then takes those categories and attempts to force them into God’s Word by insisting the world’s definitions are the same as the Scripture’s definitions.

This is a perfect example of the type of “philosophy and empty deceit” against which Paul warns. Certainly, Christians are to be concerned for the oppressed and downtrodden. We are called to love our neighbors and are to care for those in need (staring within the church first, then extending outward to the world). Christians live in a world that is broken and ruled by tyrants. While we are to be obedient to those in authority over us, we are also expected to call our leaders away from sin and to repentance (see John the Baptist’s interaction with Herod for example). However, Christ makes no command within Scripture to be concerned with the overtaking of government, to reign in politics, or to command arbitrarily what is to be considered equal or equitable. Rather, the command of Christ is to go forth and preach the gospel to the nations. Our primary mission is to call the world away from sinful, worldly desires and to follow Christ.

The beautiful thing about such a command and call is the impact it brings to the nations who follow Christ. As people reject sinfulness and embrace Christ, they have a new nature that leads them to walk in the commands of God. People develop loving hearts and desire to help others. Wherever Christianity has blossomed, nations have changed for the better. Therefore, the most loving thing we can do is preach Christ and Him crucified to the world. This doesn’t mean we don’t call out sinful governments and practices, we most certainly do. But we are not caught up in the vain pursuits of the world, trying to make a utopia in a fallen creation.

Social justice, however, commands the opposite. It divides people into oppressors and oppressed. It stirs anger, evil desire, and covetousness. It focuses on our earthly identities and makes them unchangeable. It tells people they are either always victims or always victimizers. There is no hope of atonement, only the never-ending treadmill of works one must do in hopes of receiving a token of acknowledgment for their efforts. It promises worldly possession and powers on the basis of victim status and perpetual punishment to those who do not accept their designation as oppressors. It brings no promise of joy everlasting, no hope of salvation, and no possibility of unity. Social justice is posited as a “plausible argument” but is nothing but “empty deceit.”

God’s Word Humbles and Equips

In Colossians 3, Paul commands the church to not only reject what is earthly in us but also put on what is fitting as God’s chosen ones. We are to put on “compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so also you must forgive” (3:12-13). Genuine knowledge of the Word leads us not to that which keeps us in pride-filled division. Rather, it leads us to humble submission to one another, loving one another, and most of all, forgiving one another. We are not lead to hate another for what they have that we do not. We do not desire their downfall that we might be lifted up. Rather, it is a joyful self-giving to one another, not that we are benefitted in a worldly way, but that we would glorify Christ who purchased us.

We build each other up by letting “the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teach and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God” (3:16). We identify ourselves as one body, unified in Christ, “Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all” (3:11). We are not divided by earthly designations, but we are united in the Savior who was promised by the prophets in the Scriptures as revealed from God. We look solely to His Word which commands us and rejects the precepts and philosophies of this world.

Brethren, far too many Christians and local churches (not to mention parachurch ministries and “celebrity Christians”) have been taken captive by the empty deceit of social justice. In doing so, they have denied that God’s Word sufficiently speaks to the issues of our day. They claim that only modern-day “Theory” can adequately explain how and why society is in its current state. They allow worldly definitions to replace the meanings of justice and equality that God has laid out in His Word. They tell us that we must embrace these “plausible arguments” which have an “appearance of wisdom” if we are to do the work of the gospel. But in truth, these arguments are worthless and have “no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.” Therefore, I implore the reader to stop being swayed by what the world is demanding we accept. See social justice for what it is, a worldly system by which we can be taken captive and lead from the truth of Scripture. Apply yourself daily to the reading of the Word and pray God gives us all wisdom to speak the truth in a time such as this.

Book Review – White Fragility

October 28, 2020 / / 0 Comments

American culture is currently embroiled in an ideological battle over which worldview will determine the course of the nation’s future.  One of the most vocal ideologies in this battle is Critical Race Theory which is seeking to supplant the existing framework of Western Culture.  This theoretical ideology essentially states that the existing American culture is a direct result of hundreds of year of ethnic oppression of blacks by white persons. The oppression is so ingrained in the fabric of American life that white persons will always have a built in advantage to grow and succeed where black persons will always be relegated to being an oppressed class. This systemic racism has allegedly been built into the foundations of our government, schools, businesses, and so much more.  It is entirely pervasive, there is no aspect of our lives it has not impacted.  

Under this ideology, racism is a system, not an act.  A person is not a racist because they actively hate or mistreat another on the basis of ethnicity. Rather, a person is a racist because they are part of the white oppressor class, born with innate privileges over the black oppressed class. One simply has this privilege on the basis of their skin color and they will live, think and act in such ways as the dominant white culture has taught them to act, as person who see themselves as superior to those who are being oppressed.  One need not hate or mistreat the oppressed class to be racist.  One need only exist as a member of the privileged class, receiving the benefits of their privilege, failing to recognize or admit that they are privileged, failing to be fighting against their privilege, and by nature they are racist.  The ideology of Critical Race Theory teaches that the white person must not only admit they are racist by nature, but work actively to absolve themselves by renouncing their white privilege and working to overthrow the racist system in order to make some level of atonement.

Enter “White Fragility” by Robin DiAngelo.  This book, authored by Ms. DiAngelo, has become a best seller and the go-to instruction manual for many who are seeking to teach and train white persons to actively repent of white privilege and overturn the systemic racism of our culture.  It has become almost synonymous with the anti-racism movement and has even been used in local municipalities as a training manual for city diversity classes.  This is not an obscure or unknown book.  Ms. DiAngelo has become a sought after speaker and training coordinator in anti-racism/white privilege seminars.  Her material has become a go-to resource throughout the country.  Therefore, it behooves us, especially as Christians, to read and understand such materials so that we can not only rightly understand the arguments, but rightly refute what Ms. DiAngelo and others are actually saying as opposed to straw man representations.  

To that end, I spent several weeks reading and interacting with the text. For transparency, the extensive time it took to read the book was simply because I could not make it through more than a couple of paragraphs before I felt the need to highlight and write responses in the margins to DiAngelo’s various claims throughout the book.  Thus, I often had days go by before I could pick the text back up and devote time to critically reading the book.  And critical thinking is a must with “White Fragility.” To tip my hand early, this text is not a book which encourages you to think deeply, question things and respond thoughtfully whether you agree or disagree.  “White Fragility” is a prime example of leftist propaganda and indoctrination. DiAngelo does not encourage her readers to examine her claims critically.  She dictates from page one what you must believe and what you must do.  

I felt it important to write this review and address several problems I discovered while reading the book. As the issues are pervasive throughout the text, rather than take the review as a chapter by chapter examination, I have chosen to highlight the issues in a series of themes that I found as I read the text.  I hope this review helps our readers understand why the current debate over Critical Race Theory is important and ought not be dismissed as having no real impact in our lives.

Biased Presupposition:

Ms. DiAngelo starts her book stating she does not intend to prove to her readers that systemic racism is real.  She pointedly states that she starts with the assumption that it is real and writes entirely from that perspective.  Admittedly, DiAngelo has not written a book discussing what Critical Race Theory is and is not seeking to prove that systemic racism exists.  Rather, she has written a book that intends to address what she believes are the evidences of white persons acting on their racist foundations and failing to, or being unwilling to, change the system that has benefitted them for so long.  Thus, since the premise of her book is to get people to renounce their privilege and work toward dismantling a racist system, it is understood that she would start with the concept that systemic racism is real.

The problem lies in the fact that Ms. DiAngelo is so settled in the assumption that systemic racism is real that she must treat any disagreement with that premise as de facto proof of a conspiratorial effort to maintain white dominance in culture.  DiAngelo’s standard drum beat throughout the course of her book is that, when white persons are confronted with their “racism,” any reaction other than immediate acceptance and contrition is evidence of their white fragility.  By asserting a narrative that is to be considered as absolute fact, DiAngelo deftly avoids any need to honestly interact with opposing viewpoints and narratives.  

Furthermore, she makes the claim that the traditional understanding of racism – a conscious, directed hatred or discrimination against an ethnic group or person – is not actually racism.  Racism is not an act, it is a system.  Traditionally understood racism is actually just an obvious manifestation of real racism which works systemically in culture to oppress people of color and elevate white persons. This effectively neutralizes any effort by a white person to deny they are racist.  You cannot ever not be racist because pointing out that you don’t have racist attitudes or behaviors is an insidious effort to maintain your white dominance.  The systemic nature of DiAngelo’s racism definition makes it nebulous, without any real evidences that can be addressed and repented of. Rather, it is a constant moving of the goal posts that a person can never reach and a constant state of guilt of which no one can be absolved. 

DiAngelo’s biased presupposition sets the standard for the entire book and she controls the narrative by never treating competing perspectives as ever having equal weight or value. 

Reductionistic History:

Ms. DiAngelo does attempt to address the history of American culture with regard to racism.  However, her treatment of history is terribly reductionistic, boiling everything down to racist motivations and intentions.  The problem with history and cultural development of attitudes and behaviors is that one cannot simply ever point to one singular stream from which they developed.  Attitudes and actions develop over time in culture, coming from multiple streams and sources.  Religion, society, family, ethnic traditions, and more often work together to develop how a society acts and thinks. Additionally, one cannot simply attribute one ethnicity as being solely responsible for these developments. Cultural development can often cross ethnic lines, especially in a diverse society as America.  To boil down everything to white supremacist racism is to to intentionally ignore all of the rich history, both good and evil, many people and groups have brought to the table.  It is an exercise in intentional ignorance.

Also to be considered is that DiAngelo’s efforts to address history are solely based in race and power dynamics.  The only motivations ascribed to groups in American history are either to gain and maintain racial power, or to survive as a racially oppressed group.  There is no allowance for any other possible motivations. DiAngelo always describes history as developing specifically under the quest for racial dominance, thus painting everyone existing today as either having benefitted from or as being oppressed by this history. And the reader is specifically told they are never allowed to be divorced from their history. You own it, you belong to it, and you will be held responsible for it.  There is no escaping the reductionistic history she has assigned white persons and they are expected to bear the guilt of that burden perpetually.

Lack of Competing Citations:

Ms. DiAngelo cites numerous scholars, books, and studies throughout the book.  However, virtually every citation given is from a source that favors Critical Race Theory.  While it would make sense that an author will use sources friendly to their stated premise, proper research mandates that they consider other arguments as well.  Remember that DiAngelo gives no credence to objections to systemic racism.  She argues repeatedly that any opposition is de facto proof of white fragility.  Therefore, by failing to cite any sources which challenge Critical Race Theory or systemic racism, DiAngelo further cements that her narrative is the only possible narrative that can ever be allowed to exist.  

When one researches for the purpose of writing an article, paper, or book, it is necessary to challenge one’s presuppositions by looking at what those who take alternate positions believe.  By doing so, one is not compromising their premise, but is often helping to refine their argument.  Understanding the opposition helps one avoid the inevitable straw man argument and may even challenge the writer to abandon a poorly held premise in favor of a better position.  By rightly and respectfully researching those arguments which challenge one’s own, the end product is made all the better.

However, true and respectful research also means treating the opposition as though they have thoughts and ideas that may be on an equal playing field.  When we choose to not interact with those arguments, we relegate them as to having no value and will likely treat those who hold those views as being beneath our recognition.  And this, DiAngelo evidences in spades. She does not show any willingness to listen to opposing positions. To do so would undermine the very foundation of her book.  Thus, her singular acceptance of Critical Race Theory only citations is evidence that DiAngelo is not at all interested in dialogue, but indoctrination.

Lack of Context and Emotional Manipulation:

Throughout the course of “White Fragility,” Ms. DiAngelo uses anecdotes, stories, and studies as evidence for her claims.  Unfortunately, there is a consistent lack of context in her use of these evidences.  For example, DiAngelo often refers to the percentages of white persons who hold positions of government and corporate authority as well as those who have extensive wealth. Yet, no explanation is ever given as to how or why these persons attained those places.  She decries the idea of meritocracy, that people can earn places of power or wealth by their own merit, as part of systemic racism. Thus, the high percentages of white persons in those positions can only be the result of racism.  

Likewise, she discusses several issues within the legal system, such as sentencings in criminal cases. Disparities between white and black sentencings for similar crimes is considered racist; however, she gives no context as to the reason for the disparate sentences (i.e. prior criminal history, victim impact, nature of the crime versus plea negotiations).  Without these specifics, all the reader can see is the differences and is directed to conclude that racism is the cause.

DiAngelo is also fond of using personal anecdotes from training seminars wherein persons who are white are shown as reacting, she would say, with white fragility toward their racism being exposed.  Yet, repeatedly, she fails to give specific context as to what was said, how a person was treated, and what prior interactions lead up to the response which could explain the reaction.  This again leads the reader to believe that the person described is displaying white fragility.

DiAngelo uses these examples as steps to stand upon a soapbox and decry white persons in America as refusing to recognize and own their racism.  Every effort to address the reasons these reactions or incidents as having any validity is seen as yet more proof that she is correct in her assessment and that she must be the one to show the readers the error of their ways.  DiAngelo never allows her readers to believe that there could be reasons that explain or justify what she terms white fragility.  She pounds a steady drum beat in every chapter that each example has no other possible explanation other than a systemic effort to maintain white solidarity and dominance.  The reader is told over and over again they are racist, they must accept their racism, and they can have no reason for their actions except racism.  This is akin to Chinese water torture wherein the reader receives the steady, unnerving drip of the charge of racism page after page. By the end, you either must capitulate to her charges and meet her demands, or you will be outed as the racist you clearly are. This is emotional manipulation on a grand scale, and it is a being peddled in bookstores, schools, governments and churches everywhere.

Ethnic Gnosticism:

The last theme that I wish to discuss is perhaps the one that is most troubling.  I believe it was Voddie Bauchum who coined the term “Ethnic Gnosticism.” Gnostics were heretics that the early church had to contend with.  They taught there was special knowledge they possessed from God and only by adhering to their teachings could one come to gain this knowledge.  Ethnic Gnosticism takes this a step further by ascribing to oppressed ethnic groups a knowledge only they can have, what racism and oppression actually is.  Persons of color are believed to have been oppressed by whites for so long that they have an innate knowledge of racism. This knowledge is almost magically passed down from generation to generation endowing each person of color with the ability to know what is racist in any given circumstance.

This knowledge is not to be questioned in DiAngelo’s book.  She makes it quite clear that if a person of color says something was racist, it is absolutely racist.  She states that it is impact, not intention that matters.  When a person of color feels that a white person said or did something offensive, that offense is real and legitimate.  The white person cannot be allowed to explain their intent, there can be no reason given as to why what was said or done was not actually racist.  The special knowledge possessed by those black persons, or persons of color, prevents them from ever misunderstanding what a white person said, did, or meant.  Thus, there is never a time when the person of color can be held accountable for a false charge of racism, because they can never be wrong.  The white person is always in the wrong (he or she is already motivated by white dominance) and the person of color is always right (as they have an infallible knowledge of racism).

This ethnic gnosticism is the penultimate point of DiAngelo’s book. There can never be a time when a white person is not guilty of racism because there is always an oppressed person who receives the impact of that person’s racism.  Thus, the only hope the racist can find is a never ending treadmill where they chase the ever-elusive goal of anti-racism in hopes divesting themselves of privilege and seeking to reduce offense to the oppressed party.

Conclusion:

Robin DiAngelo has authored a work propaganda for the express purpose of indoctrination.   She makes no effort to prove her primary premise, it is simply assumed and asserted as fact, never to be questioned.  History is reduced to having only one possible motivation, white dominance in Western Culture.  She intentionally ignores and excludes any competing worldview and does not engage critical works which challenge her premise.  Context is often ignored and emotions of the readers are manipulated to a predetermined outcome.  DiAngelo grants special knowledge only available to those of the oppressed group and never allows for her readers to believe that group can ever be wrong.  Readers are expected to take this information as gospel truth and react with appropriate, never-ending penance.  One must accept their guilt and simply now do as they are told.  

Critical thinking is prohibited in DiAngelo’s work. The person who seeks to question and examine the claims of “White Fragility” is written off as asserting their privilege and white dominance.  As such, DiAngelo’s work should be seen for the propaganda it is and rejected wholeheartedly.

 

Math is Not Relative But Critical Theory Is

August 4, 2020 / / 2 Comments

It is a simple math equation, one we all learned in grade school, 2+2=4. It’s pretty much a universal constant, right?  If you take 2 apples and add 2 more apples, you get four apples. It really doesn’t get much more simple than that.  Unless you have an agenda that is.

Since the death of George Floyd, the issue of racism in America, specifically, the charge of systemic racism at all levels of culture, has been at a fever pitch.  Claims of racism in education, government, law enforcement, business, and much more have been levied by everyone with a perceived interest in the discussion.  Simply put, according to the doctrines of Critical Race Theory (CRT), everything in America is guilty of systemic racism.  This is because our nation was built by those who were white European slave owners who believed that white men should always reign supreme, according to the theory. Therefore, according to the theory, everything that the founding fathers established was meant to elevate the white man and never allow the black community to foster.  The argument is that there is nothing in our culture that has not been tainted by white supremacy.  As such, it must all be pulled down and rebuilt if racial equity can ever be established.

Now, we should recognize that cultural biases can exist and can be passed down from generation to generation.  Therefore, it is possible for our national culture today to have ideas and concepts that need self-examination.  Each person should be willing to look at what they believe about others, how they treat them, and why they do it.  For Christians, this really is a no brainer.  We are called to love God and to love others as we already love ourselves.  So treating people disrespectfully, especially due to their ethnic origin, should be foreign to us.  And if we find we are operating on personal biases, we ought to repent of this and make amends to any persons whom we have sinned against.

The problem lies in the fact that CRT assumes that, not only do biases exist but are so ingrained in the very fabric of our existence that any and all white persons in America are de facto racist if they are unwilling to acknowledge they have benefitted from a racist system.  It demands that all persons of Caucasian ethnicity not only admit they are privileged but actively work to divest themselves of said privilege and elevate persons of color to atone for their innate racism.  In order to continue to prove that systemic racism exists at all levels, CRT evangelists have taken to not only claiming government and businesses are infected, but even science, history, and religion are products of white colonialism.

It is important to understand how and why this is being taught.  CRT teaches the entire system is infected with racism and needs to be rebuilt.  For the Christian, however, this is entirely anti-biblical.  Christian doctrine teaches that individuals are responsible for their sin and will be condemned eternally as individuals.  Salvation is a personal matter between a person and God, whom he or she has sinned against.  That person must repent of their sin (of which racism would be included) and trust in the completed work of Christ to be forgiven before God.  As that person is saved, God gives him or her new life and new desires.  That person is a new creation and is free from the power of sin and death.  This means they can live lives of holiness before God and seek to make reconciliation with those whom they have sinned against. As more people come to Christ, they in turn share the gospel with others who get saved and become new creations.  In time, an entire culture can be changed from sinful reprobates to a people who love and care for others.

Historically, we saw this happen as the gospel was preached throughout Europe, and eventually the Americas, post-Reformation.  Missions, hospitals, schools, and churches were planted all around the world.  Christians went forth and not only preached the gospel but loved others to the point of seeking to care for them at every level.  This is the legacy of God’s work and power through the transforming preaching of the gospel.

The gospel does not require Christians to attack cultural biases and demand restructuring of power positions.  What it does demand is to call sinners to repentance and to love neighbors as oneself.  CRT evangelists find themselves at odds with biblical Christians who understand the doctrines of scripture and know that compromise with the world dilutes the gospel message.  Therefore, preachers of CRT seek to redefine what the scriptures teach and say in order to fit their narrative. For example, where the Bible speaks of justice, they redefine justice to mean that all persons must have equality of outcome. Those who repudiate such redefinitions are ridiculed for holding to a white colonialist view and are told they must divest themselves of such thinking in order to hold to a truly biblical view.

What does this have to do with mathematics?  Recently, many Critical Theorists have taken aim at those who claim 2+2 always equals 4.  Why? Because it represents objective truth, something that Critical Theory abhors.  As such, CT proponents have made numerous claims attempting to debunk the idea that math holds rock-solid, objective principals.  They have used examples such as: if two companies have two machines and each has the parts to make half of another machine, if they come together, they can build a third machine, meaning 1+1 = 3; or if you have 2 apples and 2 oranges, you don’t have 4 apples. These examples are meant to show that math isn’t quite so clear cut and allows doubt to be created in the minds of their readers. This is called deconstruction.  Its intended purpose it to break down actual definitions, create doubt in the meaning of things, and introduce new definitions.

But notice what the deconstructionist does.  He states that the actual word problem is two companies added together make three machines, in other words, 1 + 1 = 3.  He has taken two separate equations and mashed them into one, completely disregarding the details, and come to a wrong conclusion.  Yet, for the person who does not think critically, this creates confusion and doubt.  This allows the deconstructionist to redefine how math works and claims that traditional math is a function of a systemically flawed system, i.e. white colonialism.

Let’s look at the second equation: 2 apples plus 2 oranges does not equal 4 apples.  This is correct on the surface. You cannot claim that the two different classes of items added together equal 4 items of one class.  However, if the word problem were written as an actual math problem is traditionally presented, it would read: Billy has 2 apples in his lunchbox. His friend Johnny has 2 oranges.  How many pieces of fruit do Billy and Johnny have?  Of course, the answer is 4 pieces of fruit.  See, the deconstructionist purposely created a math equation that doesn’t exist.  No one with a functioning mind would believe adding apples to oranges makes more apples.  However, adding the number of apples and oranges together does tell us the total amount of fruit present.  The deconstructionist intentionally seeks to obfuscate the actual math problem by asking a question no one had and then uses it to “prove” that math isn’t as objective as we would like to believe.

The goal for attacking math is simple, it is an objective truth that can be tested and proven.  Critical Theorists, especially Critical Race Theorists, in America today cannot abide by having anything that is objectively true.  It destroys the very premise by which they can call for the destruction of our existing culture. In order to rebuild the American culture into something CRT apologists desire, our current way of life must be eradicated.  To do that, Americans must be made to believe that everything they know and believe in is racist and flawed.  But, if even a shred of objective truth exists, Americans can hold to that truth and resist efforts to tear everything down in order to build a Utopia. That is why history, science, math, and even religion must be cast into utter confusion. No truth can be allowed to stand in the path of the CRT agenda.

What can be done? Specifically, for the Christian church, we must resist all temptation to bow to the CRT idol, no matter how castigated we are by the culture at large.  The one true source of objective truth in this world is the Word of God.  It is not a white colonialist construct.  It is the revealed Word of God as given to His people, inspired by the Holy Spirit, through those authors whom He superintended to write what they did.  It is inspired, inerrant, infallible, and all-sufficient. We must stand firmly on His Word and never waiver.  We must preach His truth to the world and never apologize for it.  Additionally, when we look at God’s work in this world through the disciplines of science, mathematics, and even history, we must not waiver and be misled.  Science and math speak to the order and beauty of God’s creation. History, with its good and bad times, show His continued work throughout the ages. It reveals His mercy and kindness to a wicked people and His judgment on nations that refuse His rule over them.  We must never bow to the redefining and rewriting of truth by those who have a stated goal of overturning culture so that they may remake it in their own image.

However, should Western Culture one day fall (and I fear its end is quite near) we must always and forever preach the truth, hold that it is true and never waiver. God is our only sovereign and on His Word, we must always depend.

Can Social Justice and the Church Co-Exist?

July 11, 2018 / / 0 Comments

Social justice outrage is very en vogue these days. So much so, that even the professing church in America is becoming infected by this worldview. Social justice advocates argue that there is inequality in America at various levels (income, race, job opportunities, sexual identity, etc). These inequalities are considered to be unjust as it unfairly allows some groups to advance further in life than others. Furthermore, as our nation was found by white, European males, it guarantees a level of privilege to all men of such an ethnic descent. Because these inequalities exist, it is argued that laws must be enacted that will “level the playing field” in order that disenfranchised persons and groups can be elevated in their social status. Of course, this means that anyone of a white, European male lineage must, by necessity, have their status in society lowered so that no inequality will exist.

In the last decade, American culture has seen a massive growth in the interest in social justice. While primarily championed by the Millennial generation, it is not solely owned by them. There are many people, including Generation X and Baby Boomers, who have argued for decades that government expansion is the solution to the social ills our nation faces. Those who are arguing for social justice causes are often quite sincere in their desires to see other persons or groups benefit from a more compassionate society. They genuinely believe that the inequalities that exist are unfair to those affected by them and want little more than to give aid and comfort to such persons. They see their efforts at social justice as being kind and generous to those legitimately in need.

In like manner, social justice advocates see the persons and groups who are believed to have unfairly advanced in society as being the cause of all inequality. Upper-class citizens, CEOs of corporations, political and religious leaders are believed to be the persons who champion maintaining the status quo. Likewise, average citizens who are unwilling to admit they have benefitted from the privilege of their existence, or who refuse to engage in social justice activism, are the willing pawns of the elite who do not want their way of life negatively impacted. Since these groups are engaged in maintaining a system that propagates inequality, they are viewed as an enemy combatant who must either surrender or be defeated. Social justice is seen as a righteous battle that must be won at all costs if humanity is to be rid of oppression and a social utopia be established.

Perhaps some will argue that I have either oversimplified or misrepresented what social justice advocates believe. That is certainly not my intent. I simply wish to convey the concept of social justice in a manner that will be understood by the broadest possible audience. With that said, it should be noted that social justice has become one of the most divisive issues in our current culture. If one endorses social justice, it is the person’s desire to ensure equality in every area of life, no matter how resistant culture may be to the changes required.

Additionally, the further one embraces the concept of social justice, the more one realizes how broad the landscape is with regard to victims of purported injustice. Race, sexual identity, gender, financial disparity, and more are now believed to be all interconnected issues of oppression. To be supportive of one disenfranchised class means that you must be supportive of all. Under the guise of intersectionality, defeating alleged oppression means that you must support any and all persons who believe they have been denied a place at the table based on their professed identity. If you do not seek to end inequality at all levels, then you are part of the problem. This is a never-ending cycle in which no end can ever be truly achieved. Unfortunately, when the basis of success is based upon the subjective determination of one’s feelings, you cannot objectively determine success.

Continue reading

© 2024 Slave to the King

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑