Another Christian Conservative Denial Of Racism

 Conservatives tend to share this one trait: they tend to depend too much on selected parts of past to understand and respond to the present. On the other hand, non-conservatives tend not to depend enough on the past to understand and respond to the present. That is especially true with narcissists. 

But considering that weakness among conservatives, then we might have a partial understanding of why religiously conservative Christian have so much trouble in understanding racism as views like CRT portray it. Racism is no longer just personal prejudice. Rather racism involves, as Thaddeus Williams (click here for a bio) protests against, power and prejudice. Williams recently wrote against this new definition of racism in an article posted by World Magazine (click here for the article). BTW, when you read the article, you'll find that the title assigned to the article by World Magazine is a hyperbole in terms of what the article could support.

Most religiously conservative Christian leaders have opposed this new definition of racism. Part of the opposition is due to the normal conservative resistance to change and the, perhaps, obsession with relying too heavily on selected parts of the past to understand and respond to the present. 

There are exceptions among religiously conservative Christian leaders who talk about racism. Tim Keller, for example, talks about systemic racism that exists in society. And though he won't go the way of CRT, at least he acknowledges systemic racism.

Perhaps other reasons why most religiously conservative Christian leaders have opposed this new definition of racism is that that this new definition has included corporate sins, such as sins by institutions and societies systems, and they oppose the new definition because they believe that the Bible only sees sin as practiced by the individual. Or perhaps, this new definition of racism starts to tip some conservative state and societal sacred cows.

But Williams's objections to the new definition of racism seems to be more emotional than anything else. This is indicated by the emotional content of the word 'racism' vs. the emotional content of the term 'prejudice.' For Williams does understand that this new definition of racism doesn't let anyone of the hook who is racially prejudiced. Perhaps Williams doesn't think of being racially prejudiced doesn't sound as being seriously sinful as being a racist. And if so, perhaps he misunderstands this new definition of racism as implying that whites are more sinful than blacks.

Regardless of the reason, what Williams fails to adequately appreciate here is how racism is experienced by blacks and other people of color in America. Though the new definition of racism was developed by a white person, those of us who are white must understand that for the whole history of when blacks first landed on our nation's shores and even a little before, our nation has been racist in terms of the new definition of racism. I won't go as far as what the 1619 Project says about slavery being a major cause of the the Revolutionary War. But one doesn't have to go that far to acknowledge that our nation has been racist according to the new definition of racism almost since the very beginning when European settlers set foot on the land we call America. For when blacks were not a target of that racism, Native Americans were.

We should note that most, if not all of us, white Americans will never understand racism as blacks do. Why is that? It is because to have such an understanding, we would have to experience racism as they do. And that is why instead of angrily protesting this new definition of racism, we need to listen to and read people like Baldwin, Dyson, Kendi, and Tisby, as well as pay attention to BLM, and CRT to understand the many ways blacks have experienced and still experience racism in America. We should note here that those newer sources continue to advance much of what Martin Luther King Jr. taught and worked for. We should also note that not all blacks have experienced racism in identical ways and to the same degree, but those sources are telling us whites something that is invisible to our naked eyes because of the positions that whites generally have in society vs. the position that blacks generally have.

Thaddeus Williams's Call For Social Justice Is A Call To Do What Causes Injustices

 Ever since the Obergefell decision, conservative Christian leaders have been in near panic mode because of what appears to be confirmation that Christianity's, also their own, status has dropped in terms of being an influential source in society. From this came their lament that Christianity has lost the "Culture Wars."

What followed was Rob Dreher's proposal called the Benedict Option (click here for book info). That option called for Christians to circle the wagons in order to stay pure from an increasingly anti-Christian culture and society until what was lost was won again. As a result, topics that are broader than what the Church is concerned about were presented with an even more Christian edge than before. The edge was so strong that what was presented were proposals on subjects that affected all of society but could only be promoted by Bible believing Christians. And that becomes problematic in a society with a fair percentage of unbelievers. Social Justice has been the topic of those Christian proposals.

What is implied by such an approach has been to encourage an all-or-nothing approach to responding to the issues brought up by subjects that affect all of society. By an all-or-nothing approach what is meant here is what Christian leaders are promoting regarding these subjects in ways that demand that Christians must either lead (a.k.a., dominate) how society deals with these subjects or abstain from participating in or with groups led by unbelievers. To participate with groups led by unbelievers would likely lead one to significantly compromise one's faith. This is especially true should a Christian see the world even in part how Marx saw the world.

This charge to lead, or dominate, gives us two problems: any other approach to Social Justice which are not based on the Scriptures is no longer society's approach to Social Justice but the Christian approach to the same, and that Christians have now put themselves into the position of dominating society with its Social Justices proposals and solution while not facing the fact that domination is the root of oppression.

So what is being reviewed here? It is Thaddeus Williams's (click here for a brief bio) perspective on Social Justice as portrayed in an interview with Fred Zaspel and posted on the Books At A Glance website. And one could either read the rest of the review or read the interview to see how much the above analysis accurately portray's Williams's perspective on the subject of Social Justice (click here for the interview).

The interview is about Williams's recent book on Social Justice called Confronting Injustices Without Compromising Truth: 12 Questions Christians Should Ask About Social Justice (click here for a link to the book).

In the beginning of the interview Williams talks about growing up in a generation where one's feeling should determine what one should do. Then he starts comparing today's Leftist approach to Social Justice with Christianity because, he claims that both are addressing the same set of existential questions revolving around how does one become justified. This kind of answer shows a disconnect between Williams's understanding about what Social Justice is about and Social Justice itself. Social Justice is really about our horizontal relationships as we exist in our groups; it is not about our vertical relationship with God. And so perhaps Williams is trying to Christianize the subject here.

In answering the next question, Williams claims that Leftists, Marxists in particular, have co-opted Social Justice issues. BTW, his criticisms of Marxists in this article beg the question that they have nothing to contribute to the subject of Social Justice. He then lists examples of Christians who worked for Social Justice starting with the early Church and proceeding through Wilberforce, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Bonhoeffer, and Martin Luther King Jr. The trouble with his answer here is that he fails to address the vast number of examples of Christians visiting injustices on others. Examples could be taken from Europe's conquests of the New World to the Church's support for wealth in power during the pre-revolutionary times in France, Russia, and Spain as well as prior to the military coup in Chile. We see the same here with the Evangelical support for the Republican Party. In America, those injustices have often resulted from Christian support for white supremacy seen in slavery, Jim Crow, systemic racism, and the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land all of which received the support from many Christians.

At this point Williams start mentioning the differences he finds between Social Justice A and Social Justice B. Social Justice A is the Christian approach to Social Justice while Social Justice B is the Leftist approach. To take the Social Justice A approach to Social Justice, one must start with the Christian beliefs in the godhead of God. At this point, we see that unbelievers cannot take the Social Justice A approach. And so what becomes of the impact of that approach? 

In saying that the Christian's pursuit of social justice, he cites Martin Luther King Jr in saying that unjust laws are those that do not reflect the transcendent laws of God. Now what Williams doesn't know is that King related this to how the law interacts with the human character.

Then Williams talks about the need for Social Justice to coincide with human nature. Here, Williams refers to our commonality found in our faith in Christ. Of course, this leaves many people out of that unity because there are so many unbelievers. But Williams later on includes our common humanity found in our relationship to Adam. But unbelievers don't need to believe in what the Scriptures say to understand our common humanity.

Williams then criticizes Social Justice B for being divisive. It is divisive, according to Williams because it strongly divides people into 2 kinds of groups and identity groups: those who are oppressed and those who oppress others. Such, according to Williams, causes endless divisions. Williams goes on to say that Social Justice B groups portray whites as oppressors. He gives two examples of people he knew who were caught up in identity groups who found their deliverance through the Christian faith. But are those divisions really caused by the Social Justice B approach or merely pointed out by the Social Justice B approach?

Williams then talks about his 12 questions for Christians to answer about Social Justice. Here, again, Williams tries to center the quest for Social Justice on the godhead of God in his first set of questions. In his second set of questions Williams asks legitimate questions about whether our different group identities are more important than our what we have in common with others through our relationship to Adam and our faith in Christ.

In the third set of questions, Williams, perhaps without knowing it, revisits the Social Justice debates between the Reagan Republicans and those who have been working for Social Justice from Martin Luther King Jr. to those promoting Critical Race Theory. For Williams looks at injustices as merely resulting from unjust laws resulting in, and these were not his words in the interview, equality of process. Such conservatives believe that because of the legislation that was inspired and passed by the Civil Rights Movement, the only substantial expressions of racism are practiced by individuals. Does Williams go that far in his analysis? He doesn't address that directly. But he does seem to believe his view of social injustices being a result of unjust laws.

However, he rejects the notion, used by Leftists, that social injustices could be also detected by 'disparate outcomes,' or what some have called the 'equality of results.' Kimberly Crenshaw defended using the equality of results to detect racism because without using results, businesses could just claim that they do not practice racism without having to show any evidence. But more importantly, Martin Luther King Jr, whom Williams cited as providing a Christian approach to Social Justice, also saw that the inequality in results is evidence of racism (click here to an King interview). Here, King included closing the wealth gap between the races as part of establishing true equality. As for what was accomplished before with the Civil Rights legislation, King thought of that as a quest for dignity, not 'genuine equality.'

In his last set of questions, Williams asks about the blaming of Christians for the injustices that have existed and still do. Again, our history provides quite bit of evidence pointing to the Christian participation in practicing social injustices.

Eventually, Williams closes with saying that justice outside of Gospel justice is a counterfeit justice. 

So the question becomes whether what was said at the beginning of this article which described the current Christian approach to Social Justice is seen in Williams's approach to Social Justice. Perhaps the problem here is that while using the term 'Social Justice,' Williams is really referring to Biblical justice. Thus, it seems that Williams is conflating the two. And is such a conflation something that is neither helpful nor Biblical.

There is at least one other question we could ask. With what Williams says about the quest for Social Justice starting with the godhead of God, and thus with the Christian faith, does he not create a permanent and deep division between Christians who thus have come to believe that they have everything to teach unbelievers about Social Justice and nothing to learn from them, to adapt a Martin Luther King Jr. saying,  and all others who follow other approaches? And if so, doesn't he do so despite criticizing Social Justice B for being divisive?

Is Choosing Between Christianity And Social Justice A False Dichotomy

 I happen to have two leanings that some find to be paradoxical if not contradictory: Reformed Theology and Marxism. To say that I lean to either one includes the idea that I have both agreements and disagreements with each ideology--counting theology as a religious ideology. I am use to those unbelievers who share my political and activist leanings thinking that to get Christians to become allies in social justice movements, they must first be deconverted and I have argued against such an belief (click here for an article).

Thaddeous Williams (click here for a very brief bio) of Biola University argues against the same point but to a different audience (click here for the article). Whereas I was addressing my fellow activists and those who held to a political ideology that was roughly similar to mine, Williams is addressing my fellow Christians who are considering leaving the Church because of the disparity between their concern for social justice and that of the churches they belong to.

In his article, Williams makes a distinction between two social justice camps: Social Justice A and Social Justice B. The former one is a view of social justice based on what God says while the latter one is not. Williams is worried that some Christians will leave the faith because of their dissatisfaction with the Church to head to the Social Justice B camp. He strongly disapproves of that camp because of its views on Christianity. He would rather have these disgruntled Christians join the Social Justice A group and thus remain in the Church though they might have to change their individual church membership.

Williams wants Christians who are considering leaving the Church because of what the Social Justice B groups says about Christianity to consider 5 questions. Those questions are listed below and will along with my attempt to represent how Williams's commentary on those questions along with my own responses.

1. As I seek social justice, have I distinguished a breakup from a breakthrough?
   
   Williams wants disgruntled Christians to consider that their dissatisfaction with their church's lack of stance on social justice issues as a sign that they have broken through their church's barriers to working for social justice. He characterizes all such churches to be neo-gnostic or, as Francis Schaeffer called them, 'super spiritual.' And right there we have a problem with social justice.
   
   After all, social justice includes battling against all kinds of prejudices. And to describe those Christians who disagree with us on social justice as a monolithic group is at the heart of prejudice. For myself, my own church is terribly deficient in addressing social justice issues. But for me to respond to that lack in the same way that Williams does not only promotes bigotry, it also  strongly indicates that I believe myself to be a better Christian than those who don't share my views on social justice. In Biblical terms using the parable of the two men praying (see Luke 18:9-14), Williams is telling these Christians to think of themselves as the Pharisee from that parable and to think of those neo-gnostic Christians as the tax collector about whom the Pharisee thanked God that he was not like him.
   
   Sure, I believe that my views on social justice are better and more biblical than that of the leadership of my own church. But my Christian faith can't be reduced to my views on social justice. And where I might be stronger on social justice than many, but not all, in my church, I have many faults where they have strengths. In addition, it isn't the person who bragged about his spiritual superiority who was justified before God in that parable, it was the person who could only ask for mercy because he was too aware of his own sins who received mercy.
   
   
2. As I seek social justice, am I breaking from a one-sided stereotype of Christianity?
   
   Here, Williams is asking social justice conscious Christians if they are breaking the mold of what Social Justice B people say about Christianity. To do this, while acknowledging some major sins committed by Christians in the past, he painted a picture of Christians as leading the charge in social justice. He said that it was Christians who rescued unwanted babies in the Roman Empire. It was Christians who founded the more hospitals and orphanages than any other group. It was Christians who started major universities, drove up literacy rates and led the way in abolishing slavery in the UK, US, India and other places in the world.
   
   But in listing those accomplishments by Christians, Williams forgets to mention that Western Civilization was dominated by Christianity and so some of those accomplishments are due to that place of supremacy that Christianity had. But with its place in supremacy in Western Civilization, came religious wars, harsh anti-semitism, imperialism, colonialism, and white supremacy. In addition, yes, some Christians opposed slavery but some other Christians not only supported slavery, they also supported Jim Crow and white supremacy.
   
   Also, Christianity has had its intellectual struggles with science over heliocentrism, verified parts of evolution, and climate change. And in teaching people from other continents how to read in English, French, and German, Christians were, in part, replacing the cultures of many indigenous people with a European culture.
   
   
3. As I seek social justice, am I taking the deconversion stories of other Christians seriously?
   
   Williams addresses this question by citing Monique Duson who had been battling evil systems. Then she came to realize that while she was battling evil systems, she was forgetting about the evil in her own heart.
   
   I've seen many protesters who are very angry and self-righteously indignant against evil systems and elites. And the way Williams answers this question is very biblical and needed. On the other hand, we should be reluctant to think that all unbelievers are unaware of their own faults or who are protesting out of hate and anger. The true Christian faith is about Jesus's followers who recognize their own sinfulness and are told to forgive others as they have been forgiven. That is what Jesus taught as well such as in His parable of the man who was forgiven a great debt but could not forgive a person who owed him a small debt (Matthew 18:21-36).
   
   We could also include the previously mentioned parable of the 2 men praying and ask ourselves whether we want to protest against the injustices of the world as the Pharisee prayed or having the same mind as the tax collector had who begged God for mercy.
   
   But we should note here that quite often, long standing social injustices are initially corrected with a phobic mindset so that everything that could be merely associated with a given injustice is lumped together with those factors that  contributed to a given injustice. That is because there is a fear that we can't distinguish between the two. This kind of thinking also produces the anger and self-righteousness that Williams mentions in his question.
   
   
4. As I seek social justice, am I replacing the fruit of the Spirit with resentment, self-righteousness, and rage?
   
   Here, Williams has a legitimate concern. And that concern is addressed by the parables mentioned in the commentary on the previous question.
   
   
5. As I seek social justice, am I heeding the grandfatherly wisdom of John Perkins?
   
   What did Perkins teach? Perkins taught that to pursue justice, one must start with God. He also said that we can't pursue justice if we replace the Gospel with a human agenda.
   
   These are disturbing points because they seem to imply that only Christians can promote social justice. And thus, Christians must take the lead in promoting social justice because unbelievers cannot promote social justice because of their unbelief. Thus, there is no working with unbelievers as equals when pursuing social justice.
   
   Williams makes a similar point when citing Abraham Kuyper. It was Kuyper who said that 'every square inch of human experience' is under the lordship of Christ. But how does that work in nation and society in which there is religious freedom. What does that imply for all Christians who live in a multi-religious nation and society?
   
   Though there are problems with some of the other things Williams has said, it is his answer to the last question that is disturbing. Shouldn't the work for social justice be a collaborative effort between Christians and non-Christians as equal partners. And if we take Perkins's statements seriously, what we should consider social justice to be for those in the LGBT community?
   
   Overall, Williams's article is lacking. It does make a some good points and express some legitimate concerns. But the overall tenor of the article strongly suggests, if not implies, a Christian place of supremacy in both working for social justice and in society in general. And history teaches us that that is not a good idea