Jun
26
Evangelicals and the New Original Sin of Racism
Now that I’ve completed Voddie Baucham’s Fault Lines, I decided to share a few more excerpts that struck me as particularly instructive (and quotable). What follows is taken from the chapter titled, “A New Religion”.
— — —
“‘I am a racist. If you think the worst thing somebody can call you is a racist then you’re not thinking biblically…. I am going to struggle with racism and white supremacy until the day I die and get my glorified body and a completely renewed and sanctified mind because I am immersed in a culture where I benefit from racism all the time.’
What if I told you that statement was made by a leading evangelical? What if I told you he was the provost of the flagship seminary of the Southern Baptist Convention? What if I also told you that this statement was made in a public forum? … The scandal here is not the sin this person admitted, but how an evangelical leader capitulated to the theology of the cult of antiracism and the complicity of the institution he represents.
You may think you know what racism is. However, you are almost certainly wrong — at least when it comes to the antiracist definition of racism. In fact, confusion and disagreement over this idea lie at the root of much of the disagreements among evangelicals about race, racism, and racial reconciliation. When most Christians speak of racism, we are referring to the traditional, historic definition like that offered by Merriam-Webster: ‘A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.’ Nor is Webster’s definition unique. The Oxford English Dictionary defines racism as:
‘A belief that one’s own racial or ethnic group is superior, or that other such groups represent a threat to one’s cultural identity, racial integrity, or economic well-being; (also) a belief that the members of different racial or ethnic groups possess specific characteristics, abilities, or qualities, which can be compared and evaluated. Hence: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against people of other racial or ethnic groups (or, more widely, of other nationalities), esp. based on such beliefs.’
However, it is important to note that for the antiracist, these definitions no longer suffice. In fact, there is a serious movement afoot to change the definitions found in English dictionaries to suit the theology of antiracism. But what is the definition of racism that Critical Social Justice (CSJ) is striving for? Robin DiAngelo’s work is quite informative here:
‘Given the dominant conceptualization of racism as individual acts of cruelty, it follows that only terrible people who consciously don’t like people of color can enact racism. Though this conceptualization is misinformed, it is not benign. In fact, it functions beautifully to make it nearly impossible to engage in the necessary dialogue and self-reflection that can lead to change. Outrage at the suggestion of racism is often followed by righteous indignation about the manner in which the feedback was given.’
Note that DiAngelo sees this individualistic view of racism — the view we find in every reputable English dictionary — to be ‘misinformed.’ Consequently, notes Aaron Preston, ‘as this bit of specialized nomenclature has migrated beyond its native habitat in left-leaning academic circles in the humanities and social sciences, it has entered the vocabulary of the average English speaker without a single, clear meaning.’ How then shall we understand the term?
The most popular antiracist curriculum among conservative evangelicals is Latasha Morrison’s Be the Bridge: Pursuing God’s Heart for Racial Reconciliation. In the accompanying curriculum, Whiteness 101: Foundational Principles Every White Bridge Builder Needs to Understand, Morrison defines racism as ‘a system of advantage based on race, involving cultural messages, misuse of power, and institutional bias, in addition to the racist beliefs and actions of individuals.’ It is important to note that this redefinition of racism, among other things, changes the location and therefore the nature of the sin. We are no longer dealing with the hearts of men; we are addressing institutions and structures. ‘For as long as America exists with its current institutions,’ write DiAngelo, ‘it will also need to be in group therapy where our turn begins with: “Hi. I’m America, and I’m racist.”‘
The implications of this statement are myriad. However, one bears mentioning here.
If DiAngelo and Morrison are right and 1) racism is corporate as opposed to individual, 2) racism is America’s sin, and 3) racism is connected only to whiteness, then it follows that as a black man, I am not only exempt from racism, but I am also not an American. At least not in any real sense. I am an ontological ‘other’ who is a victim of America’s sin, while not participating in it.
Imagine if we thought this way about other issues. If America goes to war, are black Americans not called to arms? If America is guilty of a crime or an atrocity, are black Americans absolved of that guilt as well? This may seem like an esoteric point. However, I assure you, it is as relevant as anything else discussed in this book. If America owes a debt and I am excluded from that debt, then the implication is that I am less than American. (The same is true if American Christianity is the subject, as it often is.)
In an antiracist handout for educators, DiAngelo gives the following list to help participants understand the concept:
‘Racism exists today, in both traditional and modern forms.
All members of this society have been socialized to participate in it.
All white people benefit from racism, regardless of intentions; intentions are irrelevant.’Much could be said about each of these points. However, my goal here is to help the reader see that these ideas are part of a system, a theology. Christians have been using these terms regularly of late, and in most cases, using them the same way the secular antiracists use them. Then, when called on it, the response (if the interlocutor is white) is some version of this: ‘That’s your white fragility speaking.’ If the interlocutor is a ‘person of color,’ the accusation is: ‘That’s your internalized racism.’ But in both instances, the ultimate accusation is: ‘You are just trying to “shut down the conversation” about racial justice.’ Or ‘You just haven’t done your homework (i.e., reading Ibram X. Kendi, Robin DiAngelo, Latasha Morrison, Michelle Alexander, Jemar Tisby, Daniel Hill, Richard Delgado, Kimberlé Crenshaw, W.E.B. Du Bois, etc.), so you don’t know any better.’ According to Critical Social Justice, without social science, the Bible doesn’t make sense.
At the heart of the ‘woke’ movement lies the idea that the sin of racism is no longer to be understood as an individual sin. Instead, the term now incorporates the idea of ‘institutional/structural racism’ and its implications. Hence, America has sinned, and certain Americans have inherited that sin whether they know it or not. ‘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. And leading evangelicals are following along. ‘[W]e have to address racism as a corporate problem,’ wrote Criswell College President Barry Creamer for the (Dallas Morning News*. ‘In that light, we have to make sure we’re asking the right question.’ Then Cameron [sic] taps his inner DiAngelo and states that the question is ‘not “how do I fix systemic racism in America?” But: “In light of systemic racism’s reality, what actions on my part are right?”‘
… I appreciate Kendi’s candor as it helps to identify the competing worldview more clearly. For example, he offers a concrete example of racism, as he defines it, that leaves no doubt as to the antiracist perspective.
First, Kendi defines the sin of racial inequity as being ‘when two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing.’ He goes on to offer a concrete example: ’71 percent of White families lived in owner-occupied homes in 2014, compared to 45 percent of Latinx families and 41 percent of Black families.’ Having provided a definition and an example, Kendi closes the loop with something one almost never finds in CSJ literature or sermons: a solution. Or at least, a description of what the results will look like once the solution (antiracist policies) is applied: ‘An example of racial equity would be if there were relatively equitable percentages of all three racial groups living in owner-occupied homes in the forties, seventies, or better, nineties.’
This is as clear as it gets! It is also critical to any analysis of the antiracist worldview and its compatibility with biblical truth. How, for example, would we apply the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25 to this kind of thinking? 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 example, this definition of racism explains why antiracists are not moved by the evidence in individual police shootings. 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. (That is, unless Kendi is using facts, statistics, and the scientific method to prove the existence of inequities.) In other words, if you do not accept this worldview, you are inevitably engaging in racism.
If you think this definition is limited to academics in grievance studies, you are sorely mistaken. For example, David Platt, in a momentous sermon delivered at Together for the Gospel in 2018, defined racism as ‘a system… in which race, and specifically white and black skin colors, profoundly affects people’s economic, political, and social experiences.’ This is unmistakenly taken from the antiracist lexicon. But lest you think it lets individuals off the hook, Jarvis Williams claims that ‘race and racial reconciliation are soteriological issues.’ Thus, not only are white Christians who fail to adopt antiracist theology and repent of racism in jeopardy of being alienated from God, but those who fail to elevate the preaching of the antiracist message to the same level as the preaching of the Gospel are apparently preaching another gospel — which, according to Williams, is no gospel at all. Ironically, it is the antiracists who have abandoned the Gospel since, in their view, there is no good news of grace. There is only law.”
— — —
Well, I’d say that that’s more than enough to chew on. If you hadn’t before, I hope you are beginning to grasp what the “antiracism” of CRT/CSJ is really about, as well as the insidiousness of its growing influence in evangelical circles. Truly ridiculous, yet simultaneously frightening at the way the terms and concepts have crept into the minds of even highly-educated and once-orthodox pastors and professors.
I’ll share more from Fault Lines in a couple weeks…
