You may be wondering how issues like social justice and critical race theory (CRT) affect you personally. Do they matter to your family, the work of the kingdom, and the gospel? Although you may be unfamiliar with these topics, this article is designed to make these subjects and their importance understandable in light of the Scripture and the gospel. You will see how they affect not only your life but your children and their children as well.
I intend to define and explain in an understandable manner how issues such as critical theory,[1] critical race theory,[2] and intersectionality,[3] which are part of what is known as cultural Marxism, do affect us and the gospel of our Savior.[4] We must work toward understanding these deadly concepts because they have moved from secular academia, our government entities,[5] and the identity politics of Democrats to evangelicalism and the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).[6]
Since cultural Marxism and social justice have substantial similarities, they can often be used interchangeably.[7] For example, both advocate anarchist tactics, both advocate socialism or communism, and are against capitalism; their view of justice conflicts with biblical justice, and they believe in the redistribution of wealth, privilege, and power by force in order to usher in a socialist utopia. Since social justice is the most well-known term, I will use it whenever it is unnecessary to mention cultural Marxism or there is a need to clarify a particular trait of critical theory, critical race theory, or intersectionality.[8]
Here are a couple of emphases and outcomes of these ideas that will highlight their importance to all of us. Cultural Marxism says the world is made up of oppressors and the oppressed. Critical race theory teaches that all white people are privileged white supremacists and oppressors because they are the majority and white. Black people, being the minority, are oppressed. The whites need to repent of privilege and racism. But they cannot effectively repent and change since they are the majority who created widespread racism, and they will always be white. Blacks do not need to repent because, being a minority, they cannot be racist.[9]
According to critical theory, this same prescription applies to various social groups with majorities and minorities. Heterosexuals, the majority, are the oppressors of homosexuals, the minority and the oppressed. Cisgenders (people who identify with their biological birth sex) are the majority and, therefore, the oppressors of transgender people, the minority.
Intersectionality teaches that a person can experience multilevel discrimination. Consequently, a black woman could experience discrimination on two levels (being a woman and being black). Identifying with more minority groups increases discrimination. For example, a black lesbian could experience discrimination on three levels. The more levels of discrimination a person experiences, the more authoritative and believable their understanding, claims, and opinions become.
Intersectionality is, by its nature, divisive since it creates multiple identities for people based on their understanding of discrimination against them and their minority status; consequently, intersectionality, by its nature, separates people into small groups. Communication between groups is hindered because the ability to know or grasp the truth depends on how many intersecting discriminations the individual believes he has suffered; thus, it is the basis of identity politics.
In contrast, white people, especially white men, are privileged, and therefore, their truth claims have little or no merit or authority. That is to say, truth claims by the oppressors are suspect until proven true. In contrast, the truth claims by the oppressed are reliable until proven wrong, which intersectionality makes almost impossible since only the oppressed can understand the real truth; the majority, who are the oppressors, cannot.
I experienced this very dynamic in 2024, when I presented a paper on the connection between Marxism and CRT. The first person to respond was a woman of color (two supposed levels of discrimination). She basically asked me, “How could you know anything about CRT, or intersectionality since you are a white man living in America–meaning I was the privileged majority, and, therefore, I could not understand the subjects nor speak to them with any authority. Whereas, she could. Even though I quoted primary sources and quoted Kimberlé Crenshaw, who coined and defined the term intersectionality, and was present at the meeting she helped arrange, where the Critical Race Theory Movement was established and defined. Nevertheless, her lived experience was believed to carry more weight in the discussion than quoting the words of the founders; therefore, their subjective experience is supreme over the objective facts.
Essential to keep in mind is that in social justice (cultural Marxism), oppression by the majority is not tyrannically imposed or something done by force. Instead, it exists in the common-sense ideas of liberal culture, which, in America, includes concepts taught in Christianity. This may include objectivity, a strong work ethic, personal responsibility, meritocracy, and understanding the family to be composed of monogamous heterosexual marriage with children unless providentially hindered.
Antonio Francesco Gramsci was a significant Italian Marxist philosopher.[10] He is considered a key neo-Marxist. Both Marx and Gramsci grappled with the question of why the proletariat (workers) did not rise in rebellion against the bourgeoisie (the people with capital, businesses, or land). Although there are various components in the failure of Marxism, we can say not enough of the proletariat bought into his theory, and they actually adopted the standards of the bourgeoisie, which created the middle class.[11]
Gramsci’s theory is called cultural hegemony (hegemony means predominance or domination), which is the domination by one group over other groups in society. Cultural hegemony contends that rather than using violence or force to maintain the bourgeoisie’s dominance (majority’s oppression), the dominant ruling class oppresses by making their values the common sense and accepted norm of the culture. That is, the dominant group promotes its values as true, natural, and inevitable.
Applying Gramsci’s cultural hegemony to America would seem to provide two primary responses to this hegemony (predominance of the majority white culture) that perpetuates the standards of the majority, the status quo. One, the oppressed believe the norms of the dominant group, such as meritocracy, are natural and adopt them. They conclude they remain oppressed because they do not deserve to have more. After all, they are neither as accomplished nor contribute as much to society as their oppressors. If this group gains a true consciousness or is awakened (becomes woke) to their oppressed state being the result of artificial, socially constructed norms, the revolution can begin; otherwise, they continue to accept their impoverished condition.
Two, some of the oppressed adopt the norms of the majority, take advantage of them and succeed. They prosper in society just as those who are in the dominant group. Both responses are considered wrong because they are built on the hegemonic idea that the dominant group’s values are natural and inevitable when they are actually, according to Gramsci, a social construct that needs to be resisted, overthrown, and replaced with a natural and equitable system such as socialism or communism.[12]
Understanding this dynamic helps to shed light on the victim culture in America, which derives its validity and vitality from promoting victimhood as the result of a social construct hegemony rather than a natural and moral one. To wit, they are victims of an unnatural and biased set of norms. This victimhood is also the mentality that results in the ones that adopt victim status rejecting those from their group who succeed and thrive under the dominant cultural system, which results in them (black men and women) being called Uncle Tom or said to be acting white.
People like Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, and Thomas Sowell serve as stellar examples of successful blacks being called Uncle Tom and rejected by the victim mentality as not even being considered black. Additionally, there are countless black people who equal or surpass their white counterparts all across America who receive the same disrespect from the victim culture such as John Sibley Butler, Wilford Reilly, Leroy D Clark, Walter Williams, Craig Frisby, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Robert L. Woodson Sr., John McWhorter, Coleman Hughes, Jason Riley, Glenn Loury, Ian Howe, Dr. Wanjiru Njoya, and Star Parker to name a few. See also the Old Parkland Conference https://www.aei.org/old-parkland-conference/.
Because rather than adopting a correct set of values (rights and wrongs), they are said to have adopted the white man’s standards, which are unnatural and oppressive; therefore, they are not really black. Essential to keep in mind is that social justice’s use of black and white includes more than skin color, although that is a part of what being black or white means. Being black or white consists of a mindset, a cultural identity.
Accordingly, blacks who succeed have become white, thereby perpetuating the majority’s artificial domination. The oppressed group that does not thrive must reject those from their group who succeed in order to sustain the narrative of their victimhood and that the present system is systemically unjust—racist. The rejection of those blacks who succeed must happen in order to maintain the viability of the claim of being a victim, which is essential for fueling the necessary revolution that will overthrow the present capitalistic (and, in the case of the USA, Christian) system of values. People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have existed to promote and by promoting victimhood.
The revolution, through protests, riots, and anarchy, supposedly will usher in a just system of socialism and communism (equal outcomes for all groups regardless of whether or not everyone exercises personal responsibility). If the oppressed group that rejects the dominant morals and standards did not discredit the successful blacks, who liberate themselves from being oppressed and succeed by exercising personal responsibility and adopting the standards of the dominant culture, which is best understood as being an American, the claim of victimhood could not survive. Because the mere acknowledgment that black people can rise out of their lowly estate and remain black discredits the essential claim of victimhood and systemic and structural racism.
Thus, the actual failure on the part of the supposedly oppressed is that, in America, they see the path to success as forsaking their blackness and becoming white rather than seeing themselves as Americans adopting the American path to success—something all people have to do to succeed in America regardless of their race. We should all note that Gramsci does the same thing he accuses the capitalist of doing; he promotes his socialism and communism as natural.
Here is the biblical response: biblically, anyone can be a racist or commit any other sin that humans can commit and then be forgiven and given a new life (John 3:1–4; Rom 10:9–19). Racism is not determined by one’s past, group size, or skin color, but by their heart, as reflected in their actions (Matt 15:18–20). For example, murder and adultery are sinful desires of the heart, even if there is no physical murder or adultery (Mark 7:21; Matt 5:27–32).
All are privileged in some way over other people. All people have some opportunities that others do not. Privilege does not equal oppression or make a person an oppressor. Having less privilege or opportunity does not necessarily mean a person or group is oppressed by the ones who have more. Abraham was wealthy (Gen 24:35), Israel was privileged in being God’s chosen nation (Rom 3:1–2), and Paul was privileged as a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37–38; 22:28).[13] Thus, everyone experiences privilege in comparison to someone else. Privilege is not a sin and, therefore, does not require a sense of guilt or repentance; it requires only faithfulness and good stewardship.
Opportunities (privilege) can be accepted and only require that the recipients be faithful as good stewards of the opportunity, which involves being thankful (Eph 5:20). That is the theme of the parable of the talents (Matt 25:14–30). The one who was given more talents did not have to repent of privilege, nor were the ones who received fewer considered victims. They were judged only on whether they were faithful stewards of what they had. This same truth is evident when the Jews were slaves in Egypt and Babylonian captivity (Exodus and Daniel, respectively).
Additionally, this parable, as well as history and the rest of Scripture, demonstrate that opportunity or privilege does not equal achievement. Many are given privileges or opportunities only to squander them. Privilege grants an opportunity for development, but it does not grant success. Achievement comes about by capitalizing on the opportunity. We also know that while we can give someone an opportunity, we cannot guarantee a probability of success because the opportunity is not the agent for success; that belongs to the individual. For example, we can give someone the chance to get an education or experience salvation through hearing the gospel. Still, we cannot guarantee they will be a good steward of that opportunity.
The most significant privilege and call to stewardship and faithfulness is the call to receive the gospel unto salvation (Prov 10:5; Ps 95:6–8; Isa 55:6; John 12:35–36; 2 Cor 6:2). In eternity, what the individual did with that opportunity will matter more than all others combined. Every person who hears the gospel is more privileged than if he were a billionaire and did not hear, although I believe every person hears the gospel.[14] Therefore, praise and thanksgiving should flow from every life who hears the gospel.
It should be noted that the very nature of social justice, critical race theory, and intersectionality are to divide. They divide individuals, groups, and even Christians. Christians who advocate any of these are dividing non-Christians as well as Christians. Creating such divisions is antithetical to the gospel and Christianity (Eph 4:4–7). Rather than confronting individuals with their own sin and need of repentance lest they die and perish in hell (Luke 5:32; 13:3; Rev 22:7–8), cultural Marxism and intersectionality provide an excuse to blame other people.
[1] Both critical race theory and cultural Marxism are a part of critical theory. Critical theory seeks to change society rather than just explain it like other social theories. When someone uses critical theory, they presume there are oppressors and those that are oppressed. James Bohman says, “A theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery” and acts as a “liberating . . . influence” (Horkheimer 1972, 246) . . . such theories aim to explain and transform all the circumstances that enslave human beings.” James Bohman, “Critical Theory,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, March 8, 2005, edited by Edward N. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/critical-theory/.
[2] Critical race theory is “the view that race, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is socially constructed and that race, as a socially constructed concept, functions as a means to maintain the interests of the white population that constructed it.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Critical Race Theory,” Tommy Curry, https://www.brittanica.com/topic/critical-race-theory.
[3] Intersectionality is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “The interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage” See “Intersectionality,” https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/intersectionality. Consequently, minorities can suffer from varying degrees of discrimination.
[4] Cultural Marxism broadly encompasses better-known terms like critical race theory, intersectionality, social justice, and is the fountainhead of identity politics. Cultural Marxism proposes a clash between the oppressed (minorities) and the oppressor (majority). The “majority groups are typically defined as privileged and oppressive, with minority groups accordingly labeled underprivileged and oppressed.” Thenewcalvinist, “Stain of Mohler 3,” YouTube, November 25, 2019, 9:36–44, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIlnLU-vt_g.
[5] Christopher F. Rufo, “Summary of Critical Race Theory Investigations,” September 5, 2020, https://christopherrufo.com/summary-of-critical-race-theory-investigations/.
[6] See my book, A Corruption of Consequence: Adding Social Justice to the Gospel.
[7] Although they are not synonymous.
[8] Some of the questions regarding social justice are what is included in the term, what are its historical and present connections, and how is the term commonly used? Some ideas under the social justice umbrella are not in and of themselves inherently problematic. For example, concepts like equality and the common good are not necessarily problematic. The problem arises when people begin to define these terms and explain how they achieve them. A wide array of social justice proponents promote socialism, if not Marxism, under the banner of social justice. The few who seek to separate social justice from its Marxian nature seek to explain the term more narrowly than can be legitimately done.
[9] Some would disagree that minorities cannot be racist, but, generally, that is not the position of cultural Marxism.
[10] Antonio Francesco Gramsci, January 22, 1891–April 27, 1937
[11] There are other theories why the revolution did not happen.
[12] Of course, Gramsci notwithstanding, the acceptance of a set of norms need not be proven to be natural or inevitable to be legitimate. The only thing needed is that they can be demonstrated to be the morally superior and economically best for the highest number of citizens and the country as a whole; for a Christian, this would mean a set of norms that are consistent with and reflective of biblical teaching and principles.
[13] Jews were also privileged in that salvation was of the Jew first, Rom 1:16, they were God’s chosen (his) people (Rom 11:1), custodians of God’s Word (Rom 3:2), and the people through whom Christ came (Rom 9:5), “Salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22). In Paul’s ministry he sought out the Jews first in every new city (Acts 13:5, 14; 14:1; 17:2, 10, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8).
[14] See my book Does God Love All or Some?
