Voice of Reason Ministries

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

Tag: Racism

A Christian’s Identity is in Christ Alone

February 26, 2025 / / 0 Comments

 

Within professing evangelicalism is the tendency to prefix an adjective to one’s identity as a Christian. While some may seem a bit innocuous by describing the stripe of their faith (Reformed, biblical, or born-again Christian) or their national citizenship (American Christian), others have attached an ethnic modifier (i.e., white-Christian, black-Christian, Asian-Christian, etc.). Still others have added the dubious and sinful marks of identity to their “Christianity” (LGBTQ Christian, Gay Christian, etc). There may be a myriad of reasons a person may feel compelled to affix these titles to the Christian faith; however, it raises the question of whether such modifiers are necessary or even biblical.

There are times when descriptors may be necessary. In some cases, when identifying the doctrinal beliefs under which a Christian may operate, referring to something like Reformed or Progressive Christianity is a short-hand form of telling others what you believe. Likewise, when there is a need to explain how national ideologies have impacted the Christian faith, comparing or contrasting American Christians with Middle Eastern Christians can be appropriate. In other words, adjectives can and do have uses that are helpful in discussions and in no way conflict with how Scripture describes the Christian faith. Yet, not all adjectives are created equal. Other modifiers are used specifically to center on one’s sense of identity upon which they append the Christian faith. Some seek to identify themselves solely by their sinful proclivities (gay, LGBT, trans, etc). They then attempt to legitimize their identities by forcing a connection to Christ by calling themselves Gay or LGBT-Christians. They take that which is patently sinful according to Scripture and attempt to turn it into virtue by affixing it to the name of Christ. This is blasphemous to Christ because it tries to make God, who condemns their sin, their chief cheerleader. It also demonstrates how little they understand the Christian faith as not only do they refuse repentance from sin, but they are also making themselves the center of their faith by using their personal adjective to describe Christianity rather than being transformed by Christ. Such usage is the definition of sin.

While the above examples deal with the far ends of the spectrum of adjective usage, there is a more common yet concerning issue. While it may not be quite as inherently sinful, some attempt to attach their ethnicity to Christianity, and they face a similar problem. Today, there has been a lot of debate surrounding ethnicity and whether or not it is appropriate to have churches, gatherings, or communities that are focused solely on ethnic identity. While very few professing Christians (though they do unfortunately exist) would argue it is appropriate for there to be a “whites only” church, association, or community, there are those who believe other ethnic groups should be afforded such consideration. It is not uncommon to see arguments in favor of Christians who are black, Hispanic, or Asian to be given space and have gatherings with other persons of their shared ethnic heritage. Such places, it is argued, are necessary to be safe to feel in community and separate from the alleged oppressive forces of our current culture. Thus, it is considered normal for one to use the ethnic identifying descriptors as a prefix to their professed faith. However, this places the primary focus on their personal sense of ethnic identity as opposed to their identity in Christ. And that is where the problem lies.

When writing to the Galatian church, the apostle Paul argues that their obsession with returning to the Old Covenant law signifies an abandonment of their New Covenant salvation in Christ. Paul states that their identity in Christ marks their profession of faith, an identity that comes only by faith alone in the completed work of Christ (2:15-16). The law could not save anyone; it could only reveal that every man, woman, and child is guilty of sin before God. While the law was not useless, it was an absolute necessity because it made them aware of sin and their need for Christ. It was given to them so that they might come to Christ (3:21-24). This becomes the lynchpin of Paul’s argument: because the law has led them to Christ, and they have turned to Him in faith, they have now “put on Christ” (3:27). Paul takes this one step further when he writes, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (3:28). In other words, their entire identity is now in Christ. It defines their very being and existence. They did not supernaturally become sexless beings lacking any ethnically identifiable traits; they still retained all the hallmarks of their humanity. Yet, those markers have become secondary, even tertiary, to their identity in Christ. They are a new people entirely, unified as one body across all nations, cultures, and times because they belong to the Savior who has redeemed them all. This is why turning back to the Old Covenant law is such an assault on Christ: it is a rejection of this new identity, a reversion to identifying themselves by their works and attempted obedience to the very law that was meant to lead them to Christ.

Christians today face a similar issue. When Christians seek to add the modification of their biological identity to Christ, they reject the idea that they are defined as a new people or a new creation. When they seek to find community based on the ethnic prefix, they are saying that there is more in common with someone who has common ancestral attributes than with someone who shares their faith in Christ yet lacks similar DNA. The Galatians were called foolish because they were turning from their identity in Christ and were placing their trust in a shared sense of working and earning merit from God. This community was being built upon a false premise that they could be accepted by what they did rather than their common faith in Christ. Likewise, those who argue for adjective-based Christianity seek to establish common ground on what can be seen by the naked eye (ethnic appearance) and like-minded ideologies (i.e., “if you have this particular ethnicity, you must think and act this way”). This is a rejection of the Scriptural truth that our identity is solely defined by our common saving faith in Christ. It is a turning away from Christ and turning back to the works of the world.

Interestingly, when Paul writes to the Galatians about their common identity, he identifies three particular groups: ethnic, sex, and slave/master relationships. Of the three, Scripture only gives us commands for two regarding the roles each must fulfill. Wives are to submit to their husbands and husbands are to love their wives (Ephesians 5:22-33). Slaves are to obey their masters and masters are to treat slaves fairly without threatening them (Ephesians 6:5-9). There are no such commands for those who are Jew or Gentile. However, Paul does address relationships between the two in Romans 11:17-24. He had written of his love for the Jewish people and their rebellion against God, teaching that their removal from their place and the subsequent grafting in of the Gentiles was to provoke them to jealousy that they might one day return. It was here that Paul commanded the Roman believers not to be arrogant, thinking their own inclusion made them better than the Jews. For, just as the Jews were removed and themselves added, they could be removed and the Jews added back. In other words, the ethnic identities of either group meant absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. It was their faith in Christ and their commitment to living in obedience to Him that mattered above all. The only command was not to be haughty about one’s ethnic identity and not to mistreat the other for their own. This is such a blow to the idea that we should ever be concerned with ethnically based adjective Christianity.

The use of adjectives has its place, even within the Christian church, but that use is limited in its scope. We are identified by our union with Christ alone. And, within that union, we are united as one new people (Gal. 3:28), we are commanded to come together regularly to celebrate our union in Christ (Heb. 10:25), and we are given gifts to serve and build one another up in Christ (see 1 Cor. 12). God calls us to be a people unique and set apart from the world, brought together to be the visible example of the gospel at work in this life. When we seek to divide ourselves along these lines of personal identity and add modifiers to our Christianity, we make ourselves the focus, and not Christ. This ought not to be. Let us reject the world’s means of declaring our identity, let us reject divisive descriptors, and let us embrace our one true identity in Christ alone. Let this identify us and drive us to the good works that God has set before us.

Note: This article was also published at X.com.

The Prejudice of Jonah

December 30, 2024 / / 0 Comments

There is a recent bout of antisemitism within professing Reformed circles and there are some things that should be considered. The argument seems to be that Jewish people are somehow more malevolent and destructive within society and even suggests that Scripture supports this. Furthermore, it is argued that, because Talmudic Judaism holds that Jesus is currently being punished by being boiled in a vat of excrement, they are more wicked than other false religions that consider Christ to be a prophet. Therefore, since Judaism is more malevolent, it is acceptable to hold a certain amount of disdain for Jewish persons and to target them specifically as a kind of enemy of society.

First, it must be considered that Judaism is worse because how it views Christ’s current state is hardly “more wicked” than other false religious views. Yes, their rejection of Jesus as their long-awaited Messiah, as God in flesh sent to redeem men from their sins, is highly sinful. However, their view of His punishment because they think He is a false Messiah is consistent with their false religious beliefs. They are holding to what they believe should happen to one who blasphemes God. It is a wicked view because it rejects Scripture’s prophecies and revelations regarding the Christ but it is still consistent.

By comparison, other religious systems, such as Islam, try to reduce Christ to a mortal prophet to which they give “honor.” While some argue that this is better than Judaism’s view, it is actually equivalently evil, if not worse. It is not honorable to deny Christ’s deity and work of salvation in any fashion. It is a complete rejection of all that God revealed in His word regarding the coming and the work of His Son. His sinlessness, His righteousness, and His obedience to all that God commanded are denied by reducing Him to being merely human. There is also the rejection of the hypostatic union of Christ, being fully God and fully man, without which, there can be no hope of salvation. But, lastly, and perhaps even more wickedly, it is not honorable to turn Christ into the mouthpiece of false deities. It is demonic to take the name of Christ and claim He is nothing but a sock puppet for whatever godless idol one has concocted. To suggest that this means other religions have a “better” view of Christ is simply delusional.

With that aside, it must be considered what has been said about Jews being somehow more wicked than other ethnic people groups. One argument suggests that Scripture supports this by pointing to the Jews’ repeated efforts to oppose Christ when He walked this earth and their continuous persecution the Jews perpetrated on Christians following the birth of the church. This argument suggests that the Jews’ efforts to thwart Christ reveal they, as a people, were unique in their sinful attitudes toward Christ and the church. Therefore, it is not wrong to believe that Jews today carry that same uniquely wicked mindset today. However, this is woefully myopic from a Scriptural standpoint.

First off, Scripture clearly reveals that Israel (aka, the Jews) is the ethnic people group through which God chose to reveal Himself to the world. All that God did with the Jews was to establish the types and shadows that would be fully revealed in Jesus Christ. All His promises and prophecies are given to us through this people. Therefore, Scripture spends a great deal of time with Israel, dealing with both her sins and her obedience, showing us God’s character, requirements, and His ultimate plan to deal with sin. When we see the Jews in rebellion, it is not so that we consider them to be a far more wicked people. Rather, they are an example of sin in the world at large. And, given that they received God’s direct revelation and still rebelled, what hope has the rest of the world which was as deeply stained by sin? Israel’s sinfulness was not something for others to look down upon but a picture of how all people are desperately wicked apart from Christ.

Consider all the Gentile nations and their treatment of God’s people. The Egyptians enslaved the Jews and killed their firstborn male children. The Philistines regularly attacked and took captive Israel (yes, by God’s allowance in response to Israel’s rebellion but they were equally punished for their wicked treatment of the Jews during these campaigns). Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Rome all took captive Israel and treated them wickedly. Are any of these people (or any of their descendants) who assaulted the people of God, and brought in false idols that were imposed on the Jews, more wicked or malevolent? Or is that only to be reserved for a particular people group? It reveals one’s personal bias to suggest that Scripture reserves a special designation of sin for only the Jewish people.

It is necessary to suggest one final consideration for people to think about regarding this debate. There was a particular people group in Scripture that God intended to bring judgment on for their malevolent treatment of His people: the Ninevites. The people of Nineveh hated the people of God and took every opportunity to oppose and persecute them. So wicked were these people that God took specific note to send His judgment upon them. Yet, God would not bring this judgment without warning. He called upon the prophet Jonah to give them a message, that in forty days Nineveh would be overthrown. God, in His mercy to a particularly wicked people, would give them notice of their impending doom. He did not need to do so, for His judgment was justified. Still, God desired to give them a warning.

However, Jonah did not want to go. Why? Because Jonah knew God’s heart. He knew that, should the Ninevites receive a warning and chose to repent, God would stay His wrath. Jonah believed that Nineveh was so malevolent and destructive that they should not receive God’s mercy. Jonah’s hatred was so overwhelming for this ethnic group, that he fled in the opposite direction to avoid the possibility they could be spared. God would not be thwarted, however, and he dragged Jonah back kicking and screaming, in the belly of a great fish, to have His message preached. Jonah’s bias would not justify his disobedience, God made sure of this. And, much to Jonah’s utter dismay, the Ninevites repented and were spared for a time. Jonah judged that his anger toward these people was more justified than God’s willingness to show mercy to a repentant people. God revealed that Jonah’s prejudice did not hold a candle to His perfect plans and purposes.

Those Christians today who believe there is something justifiable about holding antisemitic views simply do not have a leg to stand on. Yes, Jews today are outside the covenant of God because they have rejected Jesus as Christ. This is no different from any other ethnic or religious group that is apart from Jesus. They hold wicked views of Jesus for which they will be held accountable. There are many Jews, just as there are many other non-Jewish people, involved in sinful acts and industries around the world. And, just like the non-Jewish people, they will be held accountable for their sins. Not because they are more inherently sinful as a people, but because they are sinful by nature just as is every other human being who walks the earth. If Christians show bias toward Jews as an ethnic people and treat them as uniquely sinful as compared to all others, we commit the same sin as Jonah. No sinner will escape the judgment of God, yet, He has not called us to be a generation of Jonahs deciding who is or is not worthy of God’s warning of impending wrath. He has called Christians to be His kingdom of priests who preach that judgment is certain apart from repentance and faith in Christ alone.

Therefore, I urge my brethren in the faith, to abandon this foolishness. Stop being hard-hearted Jonahs who take pleasure in seeing others as more wicked than yourself. Rather, admit your self-righteous arrogance, repent of it, and submit to God’s calling to proclaim the gospel to all, regardless of their ethnic background.

NOTE: This article was also published on X.comX.com.

Of Blind Guides, Ditches, and Imbalanced Theology

December 6, 2024 / / 0 Comments

The Christian walk requires us to be ever-thoughtful about remaining on the narrow path. The slightest deviation from God’s prescribed direction for our lives can result in falling into ditches we should have clearly seen had we been paying attention. Proverbs 4:25–27 tells us,

“Let your eyes look directly forward, and your gaze be straight before you. Ponder the path of your feet; then all your ways will be sure. Do not swerve to the right or to the left; turn your foot away from evil.”

Solomon gives his son this warning to heed his sayings, the guidance that would keep him on the narrow path and free from evil. The Christian has all he needs to keep him on that path in the Scriptures, as Paul writes to Timothy saying,

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16–17)

To avoid the deep ditches that face us on our walk, we must be diligent students of the Word. We cannot approach this flippantly, looking for passages that we affirm our predispositions either. We need to have a fully orbed understanding of God’s commandments so that we might not misapply them and find ourselves deviating from His design for our lives.

In recent years, one such deviation that led into a deep chasm was the inclusion of Critical Race Theory (CRT) into evangelical churches. Attempting to co-opt Scripture’s teachings on justice, CRT adherents preached a gospel of grievance into the church. They demanded Christians recognize what they called “systemic oppression” of certain ethnic groups, which required a dismantling of “power structures” within the church and society. All of this was taught under the guise that God desired justice in His world and that it could only be accomplished by elevating those oppressed ethnic groups while tearing down others. It was a grievous misuse of Scripture, which purposely ignored the Bible’s use of justice (primarily applied to God’s judgment of sinners for their own wickedness) and redefined it with Marxist ideals of monetary and power redistributions in mind. In refusing to read and apply Scripture accurately, CRT proponents led themselves and their followers into a ditch. There was no gospel, no forgiveness of sins, and no joy in the grace of God. Only a perpetual treadmill of victimhood and guilt from which no person could ever be freed.

One might find such a misuse of Scripture easy to identify because the socio-political agenda behind it all runs counter to our own ideals. We can recognize how oppression, which God hates, has been altered to fit the presupposition that ethnicity is the defining characteristic of who is the oppressed and the oppressor. When one party wholly subscribes to an ideology that is so characteristically different from our own, pointing out their sin of changing God’s Word to fit their agenda feels like child’s play. But what about when the ideologies are more akin to our own? Are we so quick to see the ditch for what it is? Or will we fall in line, ignoring the dangers ahead? Unfortunately, some persons within the Reformed camp of Christian theology have not only ignored the warning signs but have led a host of their followers into a ditch of their own making.

The gospel of grievance is not solely owned by the Marxist-driven CRT movement. Today, ostensibly Reformed pastors and social media influencers are preaching a message that white, male, patriarchal Christians are an oppressed group that must rise up and seize the reins of power in our current culture. Unquestionably, they have recognized that our culture is awash in moral depravity. The proliferation of sexual immorality, infant murder in the womb, child mutilation in conjunction with gender confusion hysteria, and more is a real and present danger. Furthermore, the powers that be have made it their goal to isolate certain ethnicities, genders, and ideologies as the scapegoat for all the world’s ills. If there is an “antichrist” in secularism, it is the white, male, conservative Christian. Secularists have made it their stated goal to denigrate and isolate them from any influence in culture. The question is not if these things be true but how then we should deal with the issue at hand.

Traditionally, the church has taught that the answer to a world drowning in sin is the proclamation of the gospel and discipleship of believers. Christians have recognized that, apart from the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, sinners cannot hope to please God. While we desire and work toward societies that do not flaunt or celebrate sin, we know that hearts must be changed for nations to desire to obey God. And changed hearts can only come through the preaching of the gospel. It is a time-intensive, generational work that has impacted societies around the globe. Many cultural transformations occurred because faithful Christians preached the gospel to the lost and taught them to live in accordance with Scripture. However, as time passes, subsequent generations either are not discipled as they ought to be or reject the teachings of their progenitors, following their sinful hearts to do what is right in their own eyes. Today, we find ourselves at such a point, replaying in our day Scripture’s revelation of how Israel time and again fell into sin and depravity.

Within Reformed Christian circles, there is a desire to achieve the end state of years of discipleship by instituting a Christian government by force. Rather than urging Christians and churches to be engaged in massive evangelistic efforts, they are calling for an immediate overturn of the current national governing system and implementation of Christian laws to be enforced by the church. They preach the grievances of how white Christian men have been maligned and emasculated by our culture and call for Christians to engage in sociopolitical activism to create a new form of nationalism. This may seem to be encouraging until examination of their professed ideology is compared with Scripture as a whole. When viewed in this light, it becomes apparent that there is an imbalance in their theological applications, something that must be righted lest well-meaning brethren continue to be led astray.

Some of the concerning issues revolve around issues of ethnic relations and gender roles. As noted above, there is no question that secular Marxist ideologues target white males today. In response, there have been calls by some professing Christians for white persons to find unity solely within their own ethnicity, claiming that nationalism requires ethnic solidarity as part of its foundation. Some have rebuffed any notion that, as Christians, we are to have closer ties to fellow Christians who have different ethnic backgrounds than unbelievers of the same skin color. While Scripture does recognize that distinct ethnicities are part of the makeup of the church (Rev. 7:9), those distinctions are ultimately irrelevant as part of our identity (Gal. 3:28–29). To call on Christians to establish a nation that focuses on ethnicity as part of our identity is to ignore the totality of Scripture.

When it comes to the roles of men and women, especially in the home, some professing Christians are strict adherents to a patriarchal system. It is clear from passages such as Ephesians 5:22–33 that wives and husbands have unique roles involving submission and authority. However, patriarchy, while biblical, is being stretched to bordering on oppression in the Christian home under their teachings. It is not uncommon for some persons to claim women should always be silent, never questioning their husbands, submitting to every whim (as long as it is not sinful by their definition), and elevate the husband’s authority as ultimate in the home. This is contradictory to passages such as Colossians 3:19, which says to not be harsh with one’s wife, and 1 Peter 3:7, which calls on husbands to live in an understanding way with their wives. Even Ephesians 5:25 describes having a self-sacrificing love for one’s wife. The attitude that any perceived dissension between a wife and husband is a direct result of feminism is nothing more than giving cover fire for blatant misuse of Scripture.

These are only a couple of examples of concerning, imbalanced beliefs within this nationalist framework. Yet, these alone should give every Christian cause for concern. While not every professing Christian who adheres to nationalist ideals is a false teacher driving professing believers astray, it is becoming clear that those enamored with this view are adopting similar strategies to the CRT-driven lunacy. And, in both cases, whether they be deliberately misleading or unintentionally misguided, they are falling off the path into deep, cavernous ditches. It is incumbent upon the Christian church to identify these nationalist teachings as a misuse and misapplication of Scripture. We must desire to do all that we can to teach Scripture in its full context and keep sound biblical truth from being distorted to advance agendas, regardless of any good intention, that will lead Christians off the narrow path. This has and will continue to offend the most vocal of its teachers and adherents. To that, all we can do is echo the words of Christ,

“Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit” (Matt. 15:14).

 

This article was also published on X.com.

Book Review – Christianity and Wokeness

July 20, 2021 / / 0 Comments

I was fortunate to be part of the Launch Team for Owen Strachan’s new book, “Christianity and Wokeness.” As such, I was able to read an early edition of the book sent out to all Launch Team members to read and review prior to the release of the book. I must say that this text is not only an excellent treatment of the subject, but does a fantastic job of equipping Christians and Churches to respond biblically to “Wokeness.”

In “Christianity and Wokeness,” Owen Strachan provides the church with a much-needed resource. Christians are being challenged daily to take up the mantle of “wokeness” and “social justice” as a mandatory requirement of preaching the gospel, but should they be doing so? Owen Strachan pulls back the curtain to help Christians see exactly what “wokeness” is and why it is antithetical to biblical truth.

Strachan spends two chapters explaining what wokeness is and how it has infiltrated society at large and the church specifically. He then takes the time to break down the tenets of wokeness, drawing from the primary sources themselves. Contrasting these teachings with Scripture, he demonstrates that wokeness is an ungodly ideology that is wholly incompatible with the teachings of Scripture.

Strachan then takes his readers through a biblical analysis of identity and ethnicity as it is revealed in God’s Word. He provides the church with biblical answers as to who and what man truly is, the nature of sin (including partiality and ethnic hatred), and points to the only possible solution between God and men, the gospel.

“Christianity and Wokeness” is a great resource for Christians and the church. In a time when so many are trying to use the world’s definitions to explain equality, fairness, justice and love, Christians need to be reminded that God has already defined them in the Scriptures. “Christianity and Wokeness” will equip Christians to not only understand the issues at hand but to respond biblically when the world demands they acquiesce to their demands. I highly recommend this text to Christians and churches everywhere.

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.

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

© 2025 Voice of Reason Ministries

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑