Lies, Lies Everywhere With Plenty For One To Use

Justin Giboney (click here for a brief bio) has written an article posted on the Gospel Coalition website about the lies we tell ourselves about racism. In that article, he has two groups he wants to target: those who deny or minimize racism in America's past and/or present and those overstate the case of racism in America as exemplified by theories such as Critical Race Theory (CRT). In particular, the ties that critical theories like Critical Theory and CRT have to Post Modernism and Marxism are highlighted, but perhaps not always as one might expect (Click here to read the article).

What Giboney has in mind is to draw attention to the lies that the above mentioned groups tell themselves and others about racism in America to serve their agenda. For the group that minimizes racism in America's past and/or present, lies include the following:

• Racism is plays a very minimal part in the story of America
• Racism was eradicated with events like the end of slavery or Jim Crow laws or with reconstruction, and I could add the Civil Rights Movement
• That those who bring up racism are Marxists
• That 'Marxist barbarians' are waiting in the wings to bring destruction

The lies that some progressives who are battling racism in America include:

• Whiteness is the cause of all sins and pathologies
• One's class or race can tell us about a given person's character

Though Giboney pays more attention to the lies of those who minimize racism in America, we should note the issue about CRT. It's issue is whether or not it overstates its case against racism in America. And here we should note that CRT's working definition of racism is different than that of most people. For while most people, especially conservatives, think of racism as to be confided to the attitudes and actions of a given individual, CRT says something different. CRT acknowledges that the racial prejudice of an individual is involved in racism; but it adds to that structural and social components to the definition of racism. As a result, racism in America can only be by White against people of color because whites much have more say in determining the structure and cultural aspects of society than any other group does. Thus, though CRT acknowledges that blacks can have personal prejudice against whites, because the structural and social components of society are, for the most part, controlled by and favor whites, there are no structural and social components in society that oppress whites and thus the personal prejudice that any black person might have against whites does not qualify as racism. And thus, in America, CRT states that racism can only be exercised by whites against people of color despite the fact that people of color can have racial prejudice against whites (click here and there).

That point might show the claim that all sin is due to whiteness, a view attributed to some progressives by Giboney, might not be a valid claim. Regardless of the validity of the claim, Giboney failure to draw attention to the different working definition of racism by CRT is a serious flaw in his article.

What we might want to do here is to apply the same test to Giboney as he applies to those who minimize racism in America and those who hold to the critical theories. That is does Giboney hold to lies that bolster his views of the world. And here, we might want to check his view on Marxism because he makes several negative references to it.

Why would lying to himself about Marxism serve his interests? If we look at his associations with the And Campaign (see his bio and click here) and the Gospel Coalition, there seems to be a consistent denouncing of Marxism in the critical theories and an implied warning that one doesn't need to read Marxist materials to learn from them. That is because some from the Gospel Coalition, and possibly the And Campaign, have claimed that any good that Marxism has said social justice has already been said better by certain Christians and so there is no need to read it. 

I would invite people to read what Martin Luther King Jr. said about Marxism to see if it has anything valid for us to learn. Now here we should first note that King merged Marxism with the Communism practiced in the Soviet Union, something that many Marxists or those leaning toward Marx disagree with. Examples of those who disagree with that conflation would include Mikhail Gorbachev would object to regarding Stalin and his successors as socialists and Noam Chomsky would object to regarding Lenin as having ruled as a Marxist. 

Anyway, King regarded Marxism/Communism as evil. And yet, he acknowledged that it attempted to speak for justice. In fact, King believed that truth could not be found in neither Capitalism nor Communism, but that we need the best elements of both ideologies in order to better arrive at truth (click here, King's comments on Marxism begin on pg 92). We don't see Giboney treat Marxism as King did though his treatment of Marxism is certainly not as bad as others have treated it. So perhaps when Giboney describes Marxism as a 'real threat to truth and moral order,' Giboney is holding to at least a partial lie so that he can direct people to read from Christian sources only. Also, Giboney claims that Marxism tells lies to strengthen its position. But what lies is he referring to? 

The final point I would like to make here is that Giboney is too easily prone to call flaws in reasoning 'lies.' Such does not ask us to look for rational explanations for why an ideology or movement takes the approach it does. 

Here we should note that it is not uncommon for people who are reacting to longterm social injustices to respond to those injustices with a phobic reaction. By that I mean that in order not just to undo longterm social injustices, but to also try to prevent those injustices from occurring again respond phonically  And thus there is a fear in being able to distinguish between factors and variables that are coincidentally associated with a given injustice from those factors and variables that contribute to the injustice being addressed. The phobic reaction here is like the irrational fear a person who has been bitten by a dog might have to all dogs. Rather than learning to distinguish a dangerous dog from a dog that is not, those who have a phobic reaction to dogs fear all dogs and thus avoid taking chances on distinguishing threatening dogs from friendly dogs. 

Such an explanation for why ideologies and movements believe what Giboney might call lies gives those ideologies and movements some benefit of the doubt without having to agree with questionable beliefs.

Giboney has several valid points to make here and is worth reading. But it doesn't really provide an accurate description of CRT before examining whatever lies it might hold to. And that is a significant flaw in Giboney's article.