Fault Lines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism's Looming Catastrophe

by Voddie T. Baucham Jr.

It is the truth which is assailed in any age which tests our fidelity. It is to confess we are called, not merely to profess. If I profess, with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity. Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle-field besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point. —Elizabeth Rundle Charles

In order to understand Critical Theory, it is important to understand how the words “critical” and “theory” are used. In the social sciences, “critical” is “geared toward identifying and exposing problems in order to facilitate revolutionary political change.”7 In other words, it implies revolution. It is not interested in reform. Hence, we do not “reform” the police; we “defund” the police or abolish them. “It is more interested in problematizing—that is, finding ways in which the system is imperfect and making noise about them, reasonably or not—than it is in any other identifiable activity, especially building something constructive.”8 This is complicated by the fact that Critical Theory denies objective truth.

In other words, Critical Theory is not just an analytical tool, as some have suggested; it is a philosophy, a worldview.

CRT also rejects the traditions of liberalism and meritocracy. Legal discourse says that the law is neutral and colorblind, however, CRT challenges this legal “truth” by examining liberalism and meritocracy as a vehicle for self-interest, power, and privilege.12

Put simply, Intersectionality is about the multiple layers of oppression minorities suffer. For instance, if a black person has one layer of oppression, a black woman has two, a black lesbian woman has three, etc.

But this fault line is not new. It has been quietly forming underneath our feet for a long time around the area of social justice, and the Church must be awake and aware of what it means and where it comes from. Otherwise, we will fall victim to it—as many leading Christian voices already have.

Growing ethnic tension is a problem—but it is not the main problem. While troubling, it is no match for the truth of the Gospel and the unity it creates among those who embrace it. In fact, such tensions represent an opportunity for Christ’s followers to demonstrate the truth of Paul’s words: For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. (Ephesians 2:13–16) Ethnic tensions are only a problem for Christians who forget this truth or subordinate it to a competing ideology (whether that be on the left or the right). When that happens, a fault line appears: those on one side “press the text” of the Bible, while those on the other see that approach as short-sighted and insensitive. The problem is not ethnic tension, but the fundamental assumptions that drive our assessment of and subsequent approaches to it. Our Problem Is Not Political Divisions Friends in the U.S. have half-jokingly asked if I moved my family to Zambia in 2015 to escape “Trump’s America.” I may not have been present for the 2016 election, but I was definitely connected and aware. I started writing and speaking on political issues in 2008, during Barack Obama’s first run for the White House. At that tim...

I have pursued justice my entire Christian life. Yet I am about as “anti–social justice” as they come—not because I have abandoned my obligation to “strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14), but because I believe the current concept of social justice is incompatible with biblical Christianity.

However, as much as I love and want the best for America, I am far more concerned about the precarious moment facing evangelicals. I am not a pessimist. I believe the Lord’s Church will survive until He comes, and this moment is no exception. God’s people have faced other—and I would argue more significant—obstacles in the past. I don’t think anyone would say that what we are dealing with here rises to the level of the Spanish Inquisition or the Protestant Reformation in terms of threatening our unity. There is nothing like the drowning of the Anabaptist martyr Felix Manz on our current radar screen. Nevertheless, there is trouble afoot.

Black people often take offense when they hear me speak about the importance of family and personal responsibility.

The Gospel is not something that merely sits on top of our identity. When we come to Christ, our identity is transformed completely.

I am not a Christian because I was raised to be one. (I wasn’t.) Nor am I a Christian because I was smart enough to figure it out, good enough to find my way, or lucky enough to meet the right people. I am a Christian because the grace of God found me when I wasn’t even looking. I am a Christian because of God’s miraculous intervention in my life.

Every conversion is a miraculous event. Scripture makes it clear that every man is dead in sin, prone to pursue the passions of his flesh, and under satanic influence (Ephesians 2:1–3). As a result, men, in and of themselves, do not turn to God and obey Him. In fact, man is incapable of doing so (Romans 8:8); the Bible tells us, “No one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” (Romans 3:11–12). This goes beyond mere ignorance. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that men are in fact “hostile to God” (Romans 8:7). As the prophet Isaiah says, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way” (Isaiah 53:6).

I don’t take this truth as an invitation to simply sit and wait for God to “do something” for the widow, the orphan, or the poor. In fact, I have pursued advocacy work because I recognize that God uses His people to deliver the oppressed. I point this out because at the heart of the current debate over racism lies a false dichotomy that says, “Either you are on the side of the oppressed” (read: an SJW), or you are 1) shutting down the conversation about racial injustice, 2) ignoring minority voices, and 3) upholding (or internalizing) white supremacy. One pastor friend put it this way in a private email: “I cannot help but feel that much of the dispute… comes down not to a disagreement on principles, but to a disagreement on historical judgments. [One] crowd doesn’t see race in America as a significant problem worth addressing, while the [other] does.” There is, however, an alternative explanation—one I will present more fully hereafter. But first, back to my story.

They treated me exactly the way they treated white Southern Baptists who held positions they considered contrary to the Convention’s best interests. I saw things the way one of the first black head coaches in the NFL did: it’s not when they hire one of us, he said, but when they fire one of us that you know we’re being treated as equals.

2) I have come to realize that culture does matter, that not all cultures are equal, that Christian culture has produced the highest levels of freedom and prosperity and the lowest levels of corruption and oppression in the world, and that transforming culture is a laudable and worthwhile goal.

My first book, The Ever-Loving Truth: Can Faith Thrive in a Post-Christian Culture?, is rife with references to cultural, sociological, and philosophical ideas from the perspective of cultural apologetics.

Falsehood and lies are reprehensible because they not only harm those to and/or about whom they are told, but they also blaspheme the very character and nature of the God Who is truth (John 14:6), whose very Word is truth (Psalm 119:43, 160; John 17:17), and whose very essence is that of “the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17). Moreover, God is clear about His attitude toward falsehood and its implications: There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers. (Proverbs 6:16–19) There are falsehoods in the current cultural moment that tick every one of these boxes. As such, these falsehoods must be confronted.

Today, people are rioting and demanding justice before knowing the facts, and in most cases, without ever considering the aforementioned principles. And here is the key: People are ignoring these principles because the standard of justice upon which their pleas are built does not come from the God of the Scriptures. While that may be fine for others, those of us who claim to know Christ are held to a different standard.

One is that the facts of these cases are not identical. The other is appealing to America’s “racist past.” I am actually encouraged by the first objection as it puts the discussion on what I consider proper ground based on biblical principles. I am more than happy to argue the merits of each of these cases. In fact, I see that as real progress. Most people hear about one of these high-profile killings of a black person and immediately go into “the facts of the case are irrelevant” mode. To them, the number of black people killed by police is all that matters. Hence, if there are ten shootings of unarmed black men and nine of them are later deemed justified, that is irrelevant. The tally still comes up as “ten killed,” the mantra remains “Justice for So-and-So,” and the narrative marches on. So if someone disagrees with my assessment of the dissimilarities in these cases, then we are already on proper footing, and whenever and wherever true injustice (i.e., illegality) is found, we can join hands and advocate for justice when necessary.

The objection goes like this: “I see what you are saying, and I agree. However, you have to consider the history of racism in this country.” This asserts that the only way to judge whether or not police killings of black people are acts of racism is to look at them through the lens of… racism.

Those questions drove me deeper into what had already become an apologetics-oriented pursuit of Christian theology. I wanted to know what I believed, why I believed it, and to be able to defend it against legitimate objections. I also wanted to be sure that what I believed was rooted in Scripture and historic Christian orthodoxy. That same passion has driven me to explore, analyze, and warn against yet another cult: the cult of antiracism.

The antiracist movement has many of the hallmarks of a cult, including staying close enough to the Bible to avoid immediate detection and hiding the fact that it has a new theology and a new glossary of terms that diverge ever-so-slightly from Christian orthodoxy. At least at first. In classic cult fashion, they borrow from the familiar and accepted, then infuse it with new meaning. This allows the cult to appeal to the faithful within the dominant, orthodox religions from which it draws its converts.

In case you’re wondering about its soteriology, there isn’t one. Antiracism offers no salvation—only perpetual penance in an effort to battle an incurable disease. And all of it begins with pouring new meaning into well-known words.

He describes practitioners of grievance studies as “resentful specialists in subversion who treat literature and philosophy, and indeed language itself, as tools to be used for political purposes.”

Just as Christians cannot and do not conceive of anything in their worldview apart from the reality that there is a God who created the world, the cult of antiracism roots every aspect of its worldview in the assertion that everything begins with the creation of whiteness. More specifically, the creation of whiteness with the express purpose of establishing white people as the dominant, hegemonic oppressors and all non-white people as the objects of that oppression. This is the sine qua non of the antiracist metanarrative.

Critical race theory (CRT), the view that the law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour.8

In the end, CSJ proponents believe white people can only respond appropriately to an accusation of racism by acknowledging, admitting, repenting of, and working to undo the racism. Anything other than that is evidence of white fragility. In fact, DiAngelo’s book is replete with definitions of various forms of racism, including colorblind racism, aversive racism, cultural racism, and more. In the end, she defines racism in so many ways that the reader is left with no choice but to agree with her statement that our “racial socialization sets us up to repeat racist behavior, regardless of our intentions or self-image.” Therefore, “We must continue to ask how our racism manifests, not if.”28 Of course, all of this is related to the ultimate reality that grows out of the antiracist cosmology: the new original sin, which ironically, also happens to be the new unpardonable sin.

“Hurling the damning label ‘racist’ at people and systems that don’t deserve it in order to incite revolutionary outrage is exactly the kind of subversive linguistic manipulation prescribed in [the grievance studies] playbook,” writes Aaron Preston.

For the antiracist, the goal is equitable outcomes. A goal that, as we will see, is neither biblical, reasonable, nor achievable. In fact, at no time in the history of the world has the kind of equity Kendi seeks existed. But this also explains so many things we have seen, and will see as we go forward.

For them, the only relevant fact is proportionality. If blacks are shot by police at a disproportionate rate, it is de facto racism. Moreover, any attempt to explain the disparity as anything other than racism is, according to DiAngelo, another form of racism called “aversive racism.” This is why antiracists also cry foul when issues like out-of-wedlock birthrates, criminality, and cultural norms enter into the discussion. Furthermore, as we will see, it also explains why the mere reliance on things like facts, statistics, or the scientific method are actually seen as racist.

In other words, if you do not accept this worldview, you are inevitably engaging in racism.

Because the goal is fixing sin, the staffers’ training is based in antiracism, and their power is meant to be wielded “against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.” This is not just law-work; it is heart-work. This is inside-out, top-down transformation. This is the work of a new class of priests. The words of Milton Friedman serve as a fitting caveat: A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.

“Ethnic Gnosticism” is a term I coined several years ago to explain what I see as a dangerous and growing phenomenon in the culture that is creeping into the church. Gnosticism is derived from the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) and is based on the idea that truth can be accessed through special, mystical knowledge. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia calls it “a heresy far more subtle and dangerous than any that had appeared during the early years of the church.”2 Ethnic Gnosticism, then, is the idea that people have special knowledge based solely on their ethnicity. This is a hallmark of both Critical Race Theory and its predecessor, Critical Theory.

according to CRT, “Minority status… brings with it a presumed competence to speak about race and racism.”5 This makes sense, since “Critical Race Theory builds on the insights of two previous movements, critical legal studies and radical feminism, to both of which it owes a large debt.” Specifically, the debt CRT owes to radical feminism is the towering influence of standpoint epistemology, the hallmark of Ethnic Gnosticism.

This Marxist thread runs through all the grievance studies, such as radical feminism, queer studies, whiteness studies, etc. Delgado confirms this when he writes that CRT “also draws from certain European philosophers and theorists, such as Antonio Gramsci, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, as well as… the Black Power and Chicano movements of the sixties and early seventies.”

Ethnic Gnosticism has three basic manifestations. First, it assumes there is a black perspective all black people share (unless they are broken). Of course, no one will admit this since it is obviously racist. However, this is exactly what Ethnic Gnosticism advocates. Second, it argues that white people’s only access to this perspective comes from elevating and heeding black voices. Finally, it essentially argues that narrative is an alternative, and ultimately superior, truth. Again, most Christians will find this idea offensive, as well they should. Nevertheless, this is undeniably the perspective from which CRT and thus CSJ operate, and thus why they represent a fault line. Christians simply must reject this worldview.

Notice how Green mentions none of us? For her, the statement repudiating social justice in the Church cannot be associated with black voices because it does not fit her narrative. The idea that white pastors “aggressively enforce” boundaries of conversations on racism and “weaponize” any they dislike by labeling them “social justice” and “cultural Marxism” is a convenient way to frame the discussion in an “us versus them” false dichotomy. That only works if disparate black “voices” are dismissed.

Moreover, any black person who does not agree with our gnosis is broken, so our job is not to examine the evidence of the case, but the evidence of his life—since that is the only possible explanation.

Ethnic Gnosticism argues that white people’s only access to the singular black perspective comes from elevating and listening to black voices. This is why I refer to it as “the new priesthood.” Of course, as the previous discussion shows, this only includes black voices that speak “the singular black truth” rooted in “the experience of black oppression.”

The third and final plank in the Ethnic Gnosticism platform is the idea that narrative is an alternative and ultimately superior truth. One of CRT’s hallmarks is storytelling—particularly, as its architects define it, legal storytelling and counterstorytelling. Legal storytelling is “using stories, parables, and first-person accounts to understand and analyze racial issues,”29 while counterstorytelling is “writing that aims to cast doubt on the validity of accepted premises or myths, especially ones held by the majority.”30 The practice “has enjoyed considerable vogue, and has spread to other disciplines.”31 Essentially, CRT uses storytelling as an alternative truth.

But the Bible also admonishes us to do things that fly in the face of Ethnic Gnosticism and its assumptions. The very idea of dividing people up by ethnicity, then declaring some of them wicked oppressors and others the oppressed, is inconsistent with the biblical doctrine of universal guilt: What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Romans 3:9–18) This is not the state of white men; it is the state of all men. As such, the idea that there is special knowledge or revelation available to some and hidden from others by virtue of their race or position in the oppressor/oppressed scheme is unthinkable—and unbiblical. If it doesn’t come from the Bible, where is it coming from?

In a September 2020 article for Commentary, Executive Editor Abe Greenwald wrote, “The revolutionaries have deemed American customs, culture, habits, and ideas racist. And instead of Mao’s Little Red Book to guide them in the ways of the proletariat, they have Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility, which shows them all the hidden places where racism is to be found and rooted out.”

If you find this odd, you probably haven’t had a conversation with a Christian millennial recently. If you have, it probably involved you trying to have a biblically based theological discussion about current issues and the millennial rolling his eyes and telling you to “do your homework” to get a more informed, nuanced approach. That person may even have rattled off a list of sociology, political science, and history books you need to read, plus a few by Christian authors who, having read the aforementioned books, now see the issues through new lenses that either don’t include, completely misinterpret, or misapply the Bible in an effort to achieve their goal.

I believe that it is important for Christians to be well-informed. In fact, one of the reasons we are so committed to home education is the flexibility it gives us in terms of curricular choices.

It requires real poverty of the imagination to think that this can come to a Negro only through the example of other Negroes, especially after the performance of the slaves in re-creating themselves, in good part, out of the images and myths of the Old Testament Jews.”

that you really don’t get what the Bible is trying to say about social justice until you read social science and history.

It is that he is outside the bounds of Scripture, theology, and Church history. The social sciences may be useful tools, but they are far from necessary. “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 Timothy 3:16–17). In no area does God require me to walk in a level of righteousness for which the Scriptures do not equip me—including any and all aspects of justice.

“His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire” (2 Peter 1:3–4). What could possibly be beyond the scope of “all things that pertain to life and godliness”? Moreover, what could a social science text give me that would be better or more sufficient than partaking in “the divine nature” or “having escaped the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire”? Christians have understood this from the beginning. The orthodox understanding of the nature and sufficiency of Scripture, as outlined in historic confessions, makes it clear that what John O. proposes is beyond the pale.

The Authority of the Holy Scripture for which it ought to be believed dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth it self) the Author thereof; therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. (WCF, 1.1., 2LBC 1.1)