Critical Race Theory, Social Justice, BLM and Marxism: The Connection

Here is the path to better understand the Marxist nature of these ideologies. Neo-Marxist Herbert Marcuse and Antonio Gramsci laid the foundation of what is known as cultural Marxism. Mike Gonzalez has written a book, The Plot to Change America: How Identity Politics is Dividing the Land of the Free. He is also a policy expert at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. He explains that Marcuse taught critical race theorist Angela Davis at Brandeis University.[1] Significant as well, Angela Davis was the Communist Party’s candidate for Vice President in 1980 and 1984.[2]

Gonzales further explains that Angela Davis had a profound impact and was the inspiration behind the theory of Patrisse Cullors, who co-founded Black Lives Matter.[3] Gonzalez also says Alicia Garza, another Black Lives Matter co-founder, also admits on a video by Democracy Now! that she owed everything to Angela Davis.[4]

Additionally, many of us have watched the video where Patrisse Cullors and Alicia Garza claimed to be trained Marxists, although it has now been taken down. On another occasion, Davis explained her journey with Marcuse and The Frankfurt School; Marcuse and Davis also spoke together in her defense at Berkely. Thus, we have the link from the Neo-Marxist Herbert Marcuse who trained Angela Davis, who in turn trained the co-founders of Black Lives Matter, Patrisse Cullors and Alicia Garza, and their well-known claim to being trained Marxists. Thus, it is easy to see that Black Lives Matter is neo-Marxist to its core.

What lies at the base of the Critical Social Justice movement (CSJ), Critical Legal Theory (CLT), Critical Race Theory (CRT), Intersectionality (INT), and other critical emphases is what is known as Critical Theory (CT). CT was developed by neo-Marxists Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. Horkheimer was also the former president of The Institute of Social Research, which is best known as the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School was established by neo-Marxists as a place to determine why the Marxist revolution failed to spread to other western countries; having determined why, they developed a plan to avoid a future repeat in their plan to spread Marxism. Unlike traditional social theories, which seek to explain society, CT seeks to change society by liberating the oppressed.

CT assumes capitalism, America, is made up of oppressors and oppressed–the majority and minority–and it seeks to deliver the oppressed by deconstructing the present capitalistic system and replacing it with socialism, which will ultimately lead to communism and the communist utopia. The process of deconstructing the US is to overemphasize and exaggerate the flaws in America and de-emphasize or even totally neglect the good. They constantly compare America, Capitalism, with a Utopic vision that does not exist. This is done to present America as irredeemably oppressive. That is to say, racism is in its very DNA, and people should hate America.

This contrast of America with their Marxian utopic vision is in spite of the fact that Marxism has never produced such a utopia nor can they even lay it out beyond the state of a dream so that people can examine it; for example, Marxism’s utopic vision of a Marxist society promises a society in which people have more leisure time than work time. All worries are taken care of, no fear, war, disparities, racism, or poverty exists.

Yet, they admit there’s no historical example of such a utopia,[5] and Marcuse says, we are at present . . . utterly incapable to draft anything, like a blueprint of such a society. Consequently, real America is contrasted with a society that only exists in the state of a dream. Even worse, in every instance that Marxian socialism has been tried it results in millions being deprived and impoverished and millions and even tens of millions of innocent human beings being exterminated with unparalleled brutality.

This vision is in absolute contradiction to civil rights leaders like Fredrick Douglas, Booker T. Washington, and Martin Luther King, who actually loved America but thought (and rightly so) America had a blind spot. They did not seek to destroy America, but rather they called on America to live up to her full potential as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.

Thus, critical theories like CRT and INT are not designed to unify, make America better, but ultimately destroy it and replace it with socialism/communism. The Marxian perspective is that capitalism and private property are inherently evil and oppressive, and from which flow the evils of the world–racism, war, poverty, and all forms of oppression. Only a Marxian, socialism/communism/ utopia is liberating. A serious study of the founding writings, founders, and leading thinkers of CLT, CRT, CSJ reveal that they are permeated by Marxian ideology. This permeation is evident in their explicit claims and that their ideas emanate from neo-Marxist writings.

Therefore, it is impossible to separate CLT, CRT, CSJ, INT, or BLM from Marxism because, without Marxist ideology, they would not exist.

[1] para 12, accessed 3/12/21.
[2] para 13, accessed 3/12/21.
[3] para 14, accessed 3/12/21.
[4] para 15, accessed 3/12/21.
[5] Max Horkheimer, Critical Theory: Selected Essays, 241.

In Advocacy of the Color-Blind Principle

The color-blind principle does not mean we do not see a person’s skin color or detect that others are different from us (also referred to as color-indifference). Our church has about ten different ethnicities at any given time, although the particular ethnicities have varied over the years. I assure you that everyone can tell whether we are talking to a Chinese, Indian, black, white, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Korean, or another ethnic person.

The color-blind principle means we see color, but it does not matter. Skin color tells us only a person’s skin color, but it does not, nor can it, nor should it, tell us who a person is, what kind of person an individual is, nor does it affect God’s love for them, which is what the color-blind principle calls us to as well, to see people as God does. It is to see people who are created in the image of God, loved by God, and for whom Christ died, who happen to have different colored skin (Gen 1:26-28; John 3:16). It emphasizes our shared humanity.

In contrast, critical race theory makes everything about race (known as race- consciousness), and we are to judge others based on their skin color. It deemphasizes our shared humanity. The color-blind principle is often used when speaking legally, and I agree it should be followed in legal and policy matters; however, as a Christian, it must also be on a personal level, with individual human beings interacting with other individual human beings; this belief has nothing to do with concepts like equity.

Additionally, believing in the color-blind principle does not mean we must follow it perfectly (although that should be our intent and goal) for it to be reflective of biblical truth and, therefore, the right thing to do. For example, we are to be holy (1 Pet 1:15), love our neighbor as ourselves (Matt 22:39), and only be speaking the truth in love (Eph 4: 15). But our failure to practice these perfectly makes them no less true, nor does our imperfection signify that we do not genuinely believe them and seek to live them perfectly. The same is true with the color-blind principle. Of course, not actually believing in any of these ideas coupled with not really trying to practice them is hypocrisy, which is not the same as a sinner failing and repenting.

Frederick Douglass, the 19th century’s greatest abolitionist and civil rights advocate, [had] an abiding faith in reason, in truth and justice [which] sustained an expectation that the color line . . . will cease to have any civil, political, or moral significance in America.[1]

Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan, in Plessy v. Ferguson, wrote, Our constitution is color-blind . . . The law regards man as man, and takes no account . . . of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.[2]

Martin Luther King’s I Have a Dream speech immortalized the color-blind principle saying, I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.[3] King believed and said that is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.[4]

In his brief for the plaintiffs in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, Thurgood Marshall argued, distinctions . . . based upon race or color alone . . . [are] the epitome of that arbitrariness and capriciousness constitutionally impermissive under our system of government.[5]

Critical race theorists either ignore or actually disdain the color-blind principle. For example, in his best-selling book, How to Be an Antiracist, Ibram X. Kendi, says, “The language of colorblindness . . .is a mask to hide racism.”[6]

In her best-selling book, White Fragility, Robin DiAngelo speaks of the idea of color blindness as simplistic and something seized upon by the white public because the words were seen to provide a simple and immediate solution to racial tensions: pretend that we don’t see race, and racism will end.[7] Her perspective is a blanket derogation toward the character and sincerity of white people, and, maybe even more startling, it seems exceptionally dismissive of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

According to Kendi, Manhattan Institute fellow Tamar Jacoby said in 1998, Like many whites who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, I had always thought the ultimate goal of better race relations was integration. The very word had a kind of magic to it but now few of us talk about it anymore. We are not pursuing Martin Luther King’s color-blind dream of a more or less race-neutral America.[8]

Kimberlé Crenshaw, who supported Derrick Bell and others in founding critical race theory, rejects emphasizing our universal humanity with statements like, I am a person who happens to be black. Instead, she divides by emphasizing the statement I am black as a resistance statement.[9]

Crenshaw’s first statement would reflect the color-blind principle, whereas the latter reflects the race-consciousness perspective. Color blindness has a goal for people to become individuals where race does not matter, and for the United States to be a country where race does not matter, where all races are treated equally before the law and between each other. It does not require the total elimination of every racist to be considered successful any more than to be a safe neighborhood requires the absolute elimination of every troublemaker and crime, which takes place only in heaven. There will always be criminals, troublemakers, immoralists, racists (according to true racism in which no race is exempt from having its own racists), and idiots on earth.

In contrast, the race-conscious perspective aims to make race matter preeminently in everything, and it seeks to make sure that races are not treated equally before the law and between each other. One race is given preference while another is punished. Color blindness has the potential of unifying all races as Americans. In contrast, race consciousness via critical race theory and intersectionality divides us into an endless array of groups who will forever be divided and embittered toward each other.

The race-conscious advocates focus their energies on the evilness of America, casting all blacks as victims of white oppressors, which virtually all (or all in some systems of thought by CR theorists) white people are. In contrast, the advocates of color blindness focus their energies on the progress of race relations already made and the grand opportunities and blessings of being an American. The color-blind focus is not a naive or blind loyalty to America, but rather color-blind advocates see huge societal problems to still be addressed. However, we do so by recognizing how far we have come, the progress made, and the confidence that we can continue to make progress of working toward more perfect union, as stated in the preamble of our Constitution.

Martin Luther King and previous civil rights advocates loved America and desired to be a part of the American dream, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, they fought for equal assimilation as citizens, human beings, under America’s law and full freedoms. In contrast, assimilation is seen as a racist problem by critical race theorists like Ibram Kendi.[10]

There is no denying that racism existed structurally before the 1964 civil rights act and supporting acts passed later and that racism exists today. But I do not believe systemic racism, which existed in the past, exists today. While I believe racism can still be an obstacle to overcome (similar to others who have non-race obstacles to overcome to participate in America’s dream), I do not believe it is the biggest obstacle for non-whites in America.

I do not believe virtually every disparity in society can be justifiably attributed to racism, as critical race theorists advocate. I think this is demonstrated every day by black and brown people who excel and succeed in America, and yes, quite often surpass their white counterparts. Many of the reasons black people fail in our day are the very same reasons so many white people fail in America today; they are human reasons, not racist reasons.

We choose what we focus on, the failures or the successes. This is not to say racism does not exist or is not a problem blacks have to face because racism does exist, and I suspect there will always be actual racists (not as defined by CRT). But it is to say, the structural racism that prohibited blacks from having opportunities by law no longer exists. The existing problems can be overcome in large measure in the same way others overcome different obstacles. But black people cannot justify blaming the past or blaming whites. I mean this in the same sense that whites cannot blame their upbringing or difficult history for what kind of person they become. The past carries influence, but it is not determinative of what kind of person we become. To look for blame is to overlook the decisive role of personal responsibility in determining what kind of person we become and our successes or failures in life.

For example, the black scholar Shelby Steele contends that racist oppression is no longer the primary problem blacks face. He says, It must be acknowledged that blacks are no longer oppressed in America.[11] Another black scholar, Thomas Sowell, says, The causal question is whether racism is either the cause or one of the major causes of poverty and other social problems among black Americans today. Many might consider the obvious answer to be yes. Yet some incontrovertible facts undermine that conclusion.[12]

Although I could give a virtually unlimited list of successful blacks, I offer two as examples. I draw from an interview with Dr. Carol Swain and Dr. Ben Carson in which they discuss the origins, impact, and response to critical race theory.[13]

Dr. Carson said, The thing that really determines who a person is, as Dr. MLK emphasized so strongly I suspect that he would be quite disappointed with critical race theory it’s the character that makes a person, not the color of their skin, He went on to say, Critical race theory turns that completely upside down and says that the color of their skin makes an enormous difference in terms of who you are and what you should think.[14]

Dr. Swain reflected on her own experiences of becoming an outspoken opponent of critical race theory. She recounted the difficulties of her own beginnings and how she became a conservative. She was one of twelve children raised in rural poverty who dropped out of school after the 8th grade, got married at 16, and had three children by age 21. At that point, Dr. Swain got her high school equivalency and went to college, where she earned the first of five degrees. As Dr. Swain moved into academia, first at Princeton University, then Vanderbilt University. She shared that she enjoyed her work. Everything changed, however, the moment she became a Christian. Dr. Swain shared that she became more conservative after that.[15]

Dr. Swain is firmly against critical race theory. She said, What I see taking place today with critical race theory, I believe it is the civil rights challenge of our time.[16] Like the previous quotes by Steele and Sowell, Dr. Swain asserted that systemic racism no longer exists because [I] watched it fail and observed its downfall through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Open Housing of 1968.[17]

She speaks as one who actually lived in genuine structural and systemic racism. She says, I was born into systemic racism. I watched it crumble.[18] Swain provides a very different perspective about the progress that has been made when compared to critical race theorists who blame everything on past and present systemic racism. Speaking about what followed the civil rights advances of the sixties, Swain said, What I saw develop and evolve [after that] was a system of opportunities for people like me, and I can tell you many of my mentors most were white.[19]

Dr. Carson speaks reminiscently of Martin Luther King and, I believe, congruent with Scripture and wisdom. He said, “Your race is not something you can control. Your character is something that you can control.” Carson further stated, “Why would you judge someone based on something they can’t control versus something they can control?”[20]

The choice between embracing the color-blind principle or the race-conscious perspective hinges on two considerations.

First, the color-blind principle is perfectly consistent with and reflective of Scripture beginning in creation (Gen 1:26,27). God is the creator of every human being, and there is actually one human race, even though there are superficial differences within groups within the human race. The color-blind principle seeks to guide us back to the unity we had in the mind, heart, and creation of God. It also reflects the unity believers will have in heaven.

Second, the race-conscious perspective is not consistent with or reflective of the Bible. It generally judges people based on their skin color, makes only one group susceptible to the sin of racism, and makes everything about our skin color rather than our character and shared humanity. The race-conscious principle embedded in critical race theory and intersectionality seeks to guide us into more and more groups leading to greater and greater disunity and inhumanity. It does not reflect the mind and heart of God about his creation, nor does it even have the potential to grow in being more reflective of heaven.

Leroy D. Clark, in his critique of Derrick Bell’s argument that racism is permanent and no real progress has been made, makes an argument in support of the civil rights movement, which of course, embodied the color-blind principle. He said, “The genius of that movement was its openness to involvement by as broad a spectrum of the black and white public as wished to make a contribution. Its message of mutually beneficial racial harmony changed public attitudes and the way institutions functioned.”[21] That message of mutually beneficial racial harmony is existent in the color-blind approach, but it is excluded in the race-conscious perspective.

Neither approach is perfect, and each course is doomed to imperfection because each is filled with sinful people. But that does not mean that one approach is not better than the other. I believe the better of the two is, without a doubt, the color-blind approach.

“And they sang a new song, saying, Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth” (Rev 5:9,10).

[1] Peter C. Myers, The Case for Color-Blindness, The Heritage Foundation, September 6, 2019,, para 3, accessed 6/23/21.
[2] Peter C. Myers, The Case for Color-Blindness, The Heritage Foundation, September 6, 2019,, para 3, accessed 6/23/21.
[3] Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have a Dream, August 28, 1963,, para 20.
[4] Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have a Dream, August 28, 1963,, para 16.
[5] Mark Tushnet, ed., Thurgood Marshall: Speeches, Writings, Arguments (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 2001), 21 as quoted by Peter C. Myers, The Case for Color-Blindness, The Heritage Foundation, September 6, 2019,, para 3, accessed 6/23/21.
[6] Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Antiracist (New York: One World, 2019), 10.
[7] Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility (Boston: Beacon, 2018), 41.
[8] Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Antiracist (New York: One World, 2019), p 178-179. What Became of Integration, The Washington Post, June 28, 1998.
[9] Kimberlé Crenshaw says, We all can recognize the distinction between the claims I am Black and the claim I am a person who happens to be Black. . . . I am Black becomes not simply a statement of resistance, but also a positive discourse of self-identification. . . . I am a person who happens to be Black, on the other hand, achieves self-identification by straining for a certain universality (in effect, I am first a person’). Kimberlé Crenshaw, Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color, 1297, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 6 (Jul., 1991), 1241,1299.
[10] Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Antiracist (New York: One World, 2019), 30–31, 33, 83.
[11] Shelby Steele, White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era, (New York: Harper Perennial, 2007), 67.
[12] Thomas Sowell, Discrimination and Disparities (New York: Basic, 2019), 116.
[13] Corinne Murdock, Dr. Carol Swain and Dr. Ben Carson Discuss the Origins, Impact, and Response to Critical Race Theory, Be The People News, June 11, 2021,, accessed 6/21/21.
[14] Corinne Murdock, Dr. Carol Swain and Dr. Ben Carson Discuss the Origins, Impact, and Response to Critical Race Theory, Be The People News, June 11, 2021,, para. 4, accessed 6/21/21.
[15] Corinne Murdock, Dr. Carol Swain and Dr. Ben Carson Discuss the Origins, Impact, and Response to Critical Race Theory, Be The People News, June 11, 2021,, para. 5,6, accessed 6/21/21.
[16] Corinne Murdock, Dr. Carol Swain and Dr. Ben Carson Discuss the Origins, Impact, and Response to Critical Race Theory, Be The People News, June 11, 2021,, para. 10, accessed 6/21/21.
[17] Corinne Murdock, Dr. Carol Swain and Dr. Ben Carson Discuss the Origins, Impact, and Response to Critical Race Theory, Be The People News, June 11, 2021,, para. 12, accessed 6/21/21.
[18] Corinne Murdock, Dr. Carol Swain and Dr. Ben Carson Discuss the Origins, Impact, and Response to Critical Race Theory, Be The People News, June 11, 2021,, para. 13, accessed 6/21/21.
[19] Corinne Murdock, Dr. Carol Swain and Dr. Ben Carson Discuss the Origins, Impact, and Response to Critical Race Theory, Be The People News, June 11, 2021,, para. 13, accessed 6/21/21.
[20] Corinne Murdock, Dr. Carol Swain and Dr. Ben Carson Discuss the Origins, Impact, and Response to Critical Race Theory, Be The People News, June 11, 2021,, para. 22, accessed 6/21/21.
[21] Leroy D. Clark A Critique of Professor Derrick A. Bell’s Thesis of the Permanence of Racism and His Strategy of Confrontation, 73 Denv. U. L. Rev. 23 (1995). “A Critique of Professor Derrick A. Bell’s Thesis of the Permanence of ” by Leroy D. Clark ( accessed 7/3/21.

Critical Race Theory, The Military, And Your Unredeemable Family

Robin DiAngelo’s best-selling book, White Fragility, is used in educational, corporate, and government sensitivity training to advance so-called social justice. White children in schools and white adults in government and businesses are told they are racists because they are white, and they must work at becoming less white. She tells white people to get over their white fragility (unwillingness to admit they are racists) and says, “I strive to be ‘less white.’ To be less white is to be less racially oppressive.”[1] To make it clearer that white people are inherently and, therefore, irredeemably white supremacists, DiAngelo says, “A positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist.”[2] The racism of white people being inherent means it cannot be overcome. Continue reading →

Resolution on the Incompatibility of Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality with The Baptist Faith and Message

Presidential candidate Mike Stone, along with fifty other original signers, will jointly present the following Resolution against the use of critical race theory and intersectionality (CRT/I) at the Southern Baptist Convention, June 13-16, Nashville, Tenn. This Resolution is to be presented in order to repudiate and lessen the damage done by the 2019 Resolution 9, which affirmed CRT/I as supplemental and helpful “analytical tools” to be used along with the Bible in dealing with the race issues of our day.

I am thankful to have been one of the original signatories of this Resolution, and I am grateful for Mike Stone’s biblical, clear, and courageous leadership.

Continue reading →

How I Know Social Justice Is Cultural Marxism

I want to set the record straight on the appropriateness of using cultural Marxism and social justice interchangeably. Below is a list of thirty brief reasons why we not only can use the two terms interchangeably but, for clarity’s sake regarding the nature of social justice as presently promoted, we should do so. To fail to expose the true nature of Social Justice is to fail to speak the truth.

Additionally, it is worth noting that scholars like Peter W. Wood, President of the National Association of Scholars, uses the term “cultural Marxist”[1] to refer to Marxists and social justice advocates that support the 1619 Project.

  • Both look to Karl Marx’s ideologies and the teachings of Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, and Antonio Gramsci, who were Neo-Marxists and founders of cultural Marxism.
  • Both advocate revolutionary and anarchist tactics.
  • Both agree classical Marxism failed to include the essential aspect of culture, hence the name cultural Marxism.
  • Both advocate socialism/communism.
  • Both are opposed to capitalism.
  • Both their views of justice conflict with biblical justice.
  • Both are connected to and employ critical theory.
  • Both believe the Marxian model can usher in utopia.
  • Both seek a redistribution of wealth and power by force to usher in a socialistic utopia.
  • Both divide the world into oppressors (whites and majorities) and the oppressed (blacks and minorities).
  • Both are composed of a disparate group of minorities such as women, blacks, homosexuals, transgenders, and other minority groups who are said to be oppressed by their majority counterparts.
  • Both are advanced by favoring one group (the oppressed/minority/non-sinners) and punishing the other group (the oppressors/majority/sinners) through the redistribution of wealth and power.
  • Both advance a form of social determinism.
  • Both believe the majority is racist regardless of an individual’s belief, in contrast to biblical racism, which teaches that a person is racist if he views his ethnicity as inherently superior to another.[2]
  • Both believe the minority cannot be racists oppressors.
  • Both believe the majority (oppressors) must repent and be changed to usher in the utopia, but the minority (oppressed) do not need to repent or change.
  • Both advocate a clash between the oppressed (minorities) and the oppressor (majority).
  • Both typically define majority groups as privileged and oppressive, while minority groups are labeled as underprivileged and oppressed.
  • Both fail to sufficiently distinguish between being an American and being white.
  • Both fail to distinguish between American values (which all can share and contribute to) and white values.[3]
  • Both promote identity politics identity measures status, merit, access to truth, and worth.
  • Both promote racial, sexual, group identity over our universal human identity.[4]
  • Both define people by their experience rather than their humanity.
  • Both diminish the place of personal responsibility and elevate group identity.
  • Both seek justice for one group by punishing another group even if individuals in the groups are not personally deserving.
  • Both promote disparity as indicative of racism/injustice.
  • Both are worldviews.
  • Virtually all speakers who seek to explain the most notable aspects of social justice (critical/conflict theory) refer back to Marxism and cultural Marxism.
  • Marx may generally be considered the first critical theorist.
  • Social justice is based on cultural Marxism and neo-Marxism.

[1] Peter W. Wood, 1620 A Critical Response to the 1619 Project (New York: Encounter Books, 2020), 106-107.
[2] “A belief that race is the fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” “Racism,” accessed 3/4/21. See also a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. “Racism,”, accessed 2/4/21. I reject that America today is systemically racist (also called structural or institutional racism), which is not to deny the existence of racism, even significantly so in some areas. Systemic, or structural racism, is policy, system of government, etc. that is associated with or originated in such a doctrine, and that favors members of the dominant racial or ethnic group, or has a neutral effect on their life experiences, while discriminating against or harming members of other groups, ultimately serving to preserve the social status, economic advantage, or political power of the dominant group. “Racism,”, accessed 2/4/21.
[3] America was founded on a pioneering attitude of men and women, settled by those who broke from the most powerful empire, courageous men who went to war with the most powerful empire, encapsulated in sayings like Go West, young man. American values are accessible to anyone, which is undeniably demonstrated by people from all over the world coming to America and succeeding. Some of these values used to be more reflective of Christianity (marriage, family, view of God, Christianity), and included such things as meritocracy, hard work, no one owes me anything, personal responsibility, free will, and the inspiring words of our founding documents that all men are created equal.
[4] Crenshaw says, We all can recognize the distinction between the claims I am Black and the claim I am a person who happens to be Black. I am Black becomes not simply a statement of resistance, but also a positive discourse of self-identification . . . I am a person who happens to be Black, on the other hand, achieves self-identification by straining for a certain universality (in effect, I am first a person). Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics and Violence Against Women of Color, Women, Gender & Research 2 (2006), 7,20,, accessed 2/4/21.

JD Greear and Transgenderism Contradict Scripture and Objective Biological Evidence

Our culture has descended from recognizing the biblical understanding of man, woman, and marriage (Gen 1:26-28; 2:18-25; Matt 19:4). We have seen for many years the advancement of the normalization of homosexuality. Then on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that all states are required to grant and recognize same-sex marriages.

Still, further, we have, as a culture, descended in pursuing the idea that people can be transgender, which is a term that signifies the person does not identify with the sex they were assigned at birth, which assignment was based upon possessing the biological anatomy of a boy or girl. Further complicating this, is that gender identity can be fluid. That is to say, it can change from time to time or even from one day to the next.

This ever-changing sexual identity is because, unlike the sexual identity of a male and female, transgenderism is not based on objective biology. Whereas male and female designations are evidenced by objective unchanging biology, transgenderism is totally determined by the person, subjectively, and can change when they feel differently. As Christians, here are a few things we can remember when we consider such cultural changes.

The belief in transgender and gender fluidity is a product of the fall and not God’s creation (Gen 1:26-28)

The belief in gender fluidity or being non-cisgender (not identifying with the sex assigned at birth based on biology) is not based only on a person’s subjective experience or wish, but it is a choice that is contradicted by all hard biological and biblical evidence. Therefore, it is no more credible than someone who believes he is a cat or giraffe.

Their subjective claim could be wrong; they could be confused, and I think they are. I can have compassion for them without accepting their claim. To accept their claim requires the denial of Scripture, objective biology, and the loss of any rational means to evaluate other subjective claims by anyone about anything. This includes claiming to be some particular animal since Darwinism has taught us that humans are not different from animals in kind but only in degree.

The discussions to justify transgenderism normally focus on changing only some obvious objective anatomical features like those that are most well known and most associated with a woman or a man. The thinking seems to be, if we can change those, the evidence for male and female disappears. But that is not the whole story

Regarding some twin studies, Dr. Michelle Cretella, head of the American College of Pediatricians says, “Studies like this one prove that the belief in innate gender identity the idea that feminized or masculinized brains can be trapped in the wrong body from before birth is a myth that has no basis in science.”[1]

Cretella also says, “Biological sex is not assigned. Sex is determined at conception by our DNA and is stamped into every cell of our bodies. Human sexuality is binary. You either have a normal Y chromosome, and develop into a male, or you don’t, and you will develop into a female. There are at least 6,500 genetic differences between men and women. Hormones and surgery cannot change this”[2] (italics added).

Dr. JD Greear serves as pastor of The Summit Church in Durham, North Carolina, and as president of the Southern Baptist Convention. Greear promotes the use of transgender preferred pronouns. He said, “When we apply Paul’s linguistic approach to the pronouns we use about transgender people, I believe we arrive at a posture of pronoun hospitality: a willingness to accommodate the pronouns of our transgender neighbors regardless of our own views about the Christian ethics of gender identity.”[3] He based this on Acts 17.

We should not adopt Greear’s promotion of using “transgender pronouns” because that exchanges clear creational biblical language for culturally loaded and biblically antithetical language (transgender language). That exchange necessarily undermines the gospel because he fails to speak the truth of what God says about one’s sex and sin. And he fails to use words of biblical creation when they are needed most.

The Bible, beginning in Genesis, speaks clearly about God as creator, and his created order as certain, particularly as it addresses marriage, sexual identity, adultery, fornication, and homosexuality. The New Testament refers to God as creator and his creation in four different places when speaking of his witness so that people have an opportunity to know their sin, repent, and know him (Rom 1:19-20; Acts 14:15-17; Acts 17:22-33; Rev 14:6-7).[4] Greear’s “pronoun hospitality” camouflages God’s truth from the transgender.

Therefore, it is not hospitable to adopt terms and language that accommodate a distortion of God’s created order and a person’s sin, which masks their deep need for repentance and forgiveness. His “pronoun hospitality” displaces truth and thereby exchanges the message of the gospel for words that leave no need nor place for the gospel.

We fail God and do a great disservice to truth and those who suffer from sexual identity confusion when we fail to speak the truth in love to them (Eph 4:15). Jesus said, “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth” (John 17:17).

[1], accessed 5/4/20.
[2], accessed 5/4/20.
[3] , accessed 2/21/20.
[4] While creation is insufficient alone to result in salvation, if they receive the light of creation, God will get the gospel to them

Why Christian Involvement in Politics is Essential to World Missions

Some say conservative Christians should not be involved in politics because it distracts from the gospel. We will offend some with our stand on issues or our support of candidates. Because of that, some will be unwilling to listen to the gospel. I do not believe this is reflective of the nature of Scripture, and I consider it a dangerous idea which can hinder the propagation of the truth and the gospel so long as our positions and character are reflective of Scripture. Continue reading →

Dr. Russell Moore and The Homosexual Compromise: Dangerously Accommodating the Homosexual Community, Part 3

This is the third article in this series. You may see the first on Revoice here and second on Beth Moore here.

Dr. Russell Moore is the head of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Moore’s accommodation of the homosexual community is related to reparative therapy (RT). RT is a term for various therapies Continue reading →