Overview of Critical Race Theory & Intersectionality

Recently the Cripplegate did a post giving recommended resources on the issue of Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality (CRT/I). Since then, some have been asking questions about the issue; others mentioning never having heard of it.

Today’s post is an attempt to provide an overview and evaluation of CRT/I from a synthesis of all five recommended resources: Engaging Critical Theory and the Social Justice Movement by Neil Shenvi and Patrick Sawyer; The Trojan Horse, by Michael O’Fallon, James Lindsay, and Peter Boghossian; Just Thinking Podcast on Woke Worship, by Darrell Harrison and Virgil Walker; Critical Race Theory by Owen Strachan; By What Standard? by Tom Ascol and Founders Ministries.

Again, let me say that the issue of CRT/I is both complex and emerging inside and outside of evangelicalism. This is an attempt to provide a written synthesis of the aforementioned resources in order to give an introduction to CRT/I as it relates to biblical Christianity and is by no means an exhaustive treatment. Throughout the summary, I will attempt to provide a variety of quotes from various individuals on CRT/I. If a writer’s work is not referenced, then the reader should assume it is from one of the five aforementioned resources.

As I began studying CRT/I, I was intrigued by the commentary from old-school, academic atheists, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay. Commenting on the embracing of CRT/I by the SBC 2019 Resolution Committee, they remark:

If this were at the height of the New Atheist movement; if I were to design a plan to bring all of Christendom down, how would [I] do it? Make them woke. It will eat itself from the inside. If I were the old-school angry atheist—’let’s just throw rocks at the cathedral until it comes down’—I would start making woke pastors and sending them in. They are going to tear everything apart because they are going to make everything about identity, and that’s all they talk about.

Like many ideologies in secular culture (i.e. Modernism, Liberalism), CRT/I seems to be making significant in-roads into American evangelicalism. Neil Shenvi observes, “[Some evangelicals] deny that critical theory is influencing evangelical thought. Instead they see accusations of ‘critical theory’ (or, more commonly, ‘cultural Marxism’) as disingenuous attempts to shut down important conversations about race and justice. In their view, ‘critical theory’ is a bogeyman used by critics to silence evangelicals who are broaching difficult subjects.” ❲1❳ However, as will be shown below, it does seem that CRT/I is in fact influencing evangelical thought, and not for the better.

This synthesis will propose the following:

CRT/I clash with fundamental Christian doctrines;
therefore, CRT/I must not be embraced into the Christian faith,
yet some prominent evangelicals embrace and even promote CRT/I.

To get there, we will be reminded briefly of the issue as it arose in the 2019 SBC Convention, then look at definitions, commentaries, and implications of CRT/I. Finally, we will briefly compare the worldview of CRT/I to Scripture.

The 2019 Southern Baptist Convention

At the 2019 Southern Baptist Convention, a resolution was adopted, called, “Resolution /#9_on_Critical_Race_Theory_and_Intersectionality.”_❲2❳ CRT/I was adopted as acceptable anthropological, sociological, and hamartiological analytical tools.

On the adoption of the resolution, James Lindsay commented, “You have a lovely wooden horse sitting outside your gate. What’s inside is a hot mess. It is letting something in that is…parasitic and…designed to be divisive, and to increase focus upon issues that have a political nature tied to race politics for the purposes of pushing identity politics into whatever it’s being inserted into.”

One SBC leader objected to the resolution, proposing that the majority of SBC leaders in attendance at the convention did not understand what CRT and Intersectionality meant. Tom Buck objected, stating:

The 3rd WHEREAS reads, ‘Critical race theory and intersectionality have been appropriated by individuals with worldviews that are contrary to the Christian faith…’ The truth is, that they were not merely appropriated, but originated with those who hold unbiblical worldviews. It’s fundamentally flawed, that worldview.

Buck again objected, “The 7th WHEREAS states, ‘Critical race theory and intersectionality alone are insufficient to diagnose and redress the root causes of the social ills that they identify’… They are not merely insufficient, they are incapable of addressing man’s problem and incompatible with the biblical gospel.”

Tom Ascol proposed the following amendment, saying:

Resolved, that we remind Southern Baptists that critical race theory and intersectionality emerged from a secular worldview and are rooted in ideologies that are incompatible with Christianity. And be it further resolved, that we repudiate all forms of identity politics and any ideology that establishes human identity in anything other than the divine creation in the image of God, and for all redeemed humanity, our common identity, together eternally, united to Christ.

However, the SBC resolutions committee rejected the proposed modification and adopted Resolution #9.

Definitions

Caleb Yarbrough writes that, “CRT is derived from Critical Theory, which originated in the infamous Frankfurt School.” In the early 20th century Frankfurt was a school of Marxist sociological and philosophical thought associated with the Institute for Social Research in what is today Frankfurt, Germany. Critical Theory is thought to be essentially synonymous with the Frankfurt School.

James Lindsay (paraphrasing) summarizes CRT. “Critical” means analyzing the use of language, history, etc. in order to make problems related to oppression more visible so that people will want to enact a revolution to overturn the power dynamics alleged to be a part of it. Then there is the theory side. This is not a theory in the sense of theorizing about science, but in the sense of social philosophy. The idea is that knowledge is produced within various communities, unique to a community, which cannot be evaluated outside of that community. In the case of CRT, people of a certain race roughly have the same experiences of life, or of dominance. Thus, they roughly have the same view of oppression, which gives them special insight that is not available to anyone else. So, one must defer to them as though it is true. One may not doubt or demand another level of analysis. That identity group has knowledge that is not available outside of that group, nor can be questioned. Thus, one has no option but to embrace that knowledge.

Yarbrough observes from brittanica.com that CRT is the view that race, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is socially constructed. Race, as a socially constructed concept, functions as a means to maintain the interests of the white population that constructed it.

Thus, James Lindsay argues that CRT is a tool, but not of construction to a system, religion, or idea. Instead, it is a tool of deconstruction. It is a “tool” in the same way that a jackhammer or a powerful solvent is a tool.

This definition of CRT supports the criticisms of some, like Buck and Ascol above regarding Resolution #9. CRT cannot be understood as an analytical tool that is subservient to Scripture because the basic nature of it proposes an unbiblical dichotomy of social categories in which “white” people are innate oppressors and all others are victims.

Critical theorists insist that our individual identity is inseparable from our group identity as members of oppressed or oppressor groups. Consequently, there is an inherent moral asymmetry between individuals from different groups. Neil Shenvi quotes Stephanie Wildman and Adrienne David, who write, “All whites are racist in this use of the term because we benefit from systemic white privilege.”

Shenvi quotes CRTs Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic write, “Many critical race theorists and social scientists hold that racism is pervasive, systemic, and deeply ingrained. If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent.”

CRT claims that a generally-defined group, “white” people, are inherently evil, or at a minimum unethical, by nature of their congenital ethnic and ancestral makeup. All non-whites are therefore considered victims of whites.

Shenvi observes that intersectionality flows from CRT. Coined by feminist legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in a 1989 essay on intersectionality, it is a term used to define the compounded oppression of certain peoples based on the original concepts and paradigms outlined in the study of CRT.

And the oppression does not stop at whiteness. The more one is distanced from male, white, and heterosexual, the greater they are inherently of the oppressed category. In her essay, Crenshaw argued that “Because the intersectional experience is greater than the sum of racism and sexism, any analysis that does not take intersectionality into account cannot sufficiently address the particular manner in which Black women are subordinated.”

James Lindsay observes then, that intersectionality is the sub-division of identity groups. An individual is a combination of the various identity groups you are in (e.g. Asian, female, upper-middle class, sexual preference, etc.). Each of these groups has an essential experience of oppression which gives them a lived experience. This experience then confers knowledge upon them that is not available outside of those experiences. This gives them unique experience and insight into the world that those outside cannot criticize.

The argument within CRT/I is that there are tools used by the dominant (e.g. white, etc.) to exclude the knowledges of those outside that dominant group. What are these “tools” used by the dominant? Logic, reason, exegesis, evidence, and science, for example. CRT/I argues that those who invented the methods (e.g. logic, reason, exegesis) of legitimizing knowledge (often white, straight males) built this system of understanding for the purpose of excluding the oppressed groups and their “knowledges.” Those knowledges are claimed to be equally true. However, the dominant group is incapable of understanding these equally-true “knowledges” by virtue of being innate oppressors.

Thus, identity groups in the oppressed categories have knowledge that cannot be accessed by those in the oppressor category. Lindsay and Boghossian refer to this as “standpoint epistemology.” Epistemology refers to how we can know what we know. One must inherently exist in those various standpoints of ethnicity, gender, and sexuality in order to inherently operate in a superior epistemology. Identity group privilege forbids you from the ability to have the true knowledges. Thus, your access to true knowledge is determined by your ethnicity, gender, and sexuality.

CRT places all people in one of two camps: oppressor or oppressed, largely based on their ethnicity. Intersectionality takes this concept a few steps further by accepting CRT’s general duality of oppressor and oppressed but claiming that certain oppressed people are more oppressed than others based on their various identities. Lindsay and Boghossian observe that a black woman, therefore, is more oppressed than a white woman. But a black woman who also identifies herself as a lesbian might be more oppressed than a heterosexual black woman. Therefore, white heterosexual males are complicit in the sin of racism simply by the fact of being white and male.

Tom Ascol observes that though the SBC resolutions committee adopted CRT/I on the premise that they are merely tools, the average philosophy or sociology professor will not tell you that they are merely analytical tools. Rather, they are ideologies and a worldview that divide all people and things into power structures of the oppressed and the oppressors. This is where critical theory came from.

3.Commentaries on CRT and Intersectionality

Robin DiAngelo: “The challenge I want to offer my fellow white people is changing the question from ‘if’ to ‘how?’ I want to change the question to, ‘How is racism manifesting in my life?’ None of us can be and none of us are exempt from its forces.” ❲3❳
Matthew Hall (Provost of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary): “I am a racist. If you think the worst thing someone can call you is a racist, then you aren’t thinking biblically. I’m going to struggle with racism and white supremacy until the day I die and get a glorified body and a sanctified mind, because I am immersed in a culture where I benefit from racism all the time.” ❲5❳
Robin DiAngelo: “As a result of being raised as a white person in this society, I have a racist worldview. I have a deep racist bias. I have developed deep racist patterns. I have investments in the system of racism because it has served me really well.” ❲6❳
Ekemini Uwan ( Sparrow Women, Dallas Evangelical Conference): “The reality is that whiteness is rooted in plunder, in theft, in enslavement of Africans, in genocide of Native Americans.” ❲7❳
Anthony Bradley (Chair & Professor of Theological Studies, King’s College): “Black people in America have relied on God’s word to help them survive white people. When you’re white and in the dominant culture, you’ve never needed the Old Testament covenant-keeping Redemptive God. Yours became a Christianity of moralism and your kids walked. Evangelicals will be confused by the black church because they’ve never needed the God who acts through miracles to redeem them from something that’s not their fault. So of course, they will eventually question the reliability and veracity of text. Life’s been pretty easy. One of the privileges of being white in America is never needing God to stop a society from trying to destroy you and your family. So, the Bible is a book for evangelicalism, disciple-making, and teaching morals. Not a book for personal and social, cosmic survival, so your kids walk. As such, Great Commission Christianity doesn’t know what to do with they [sic] Old Testament. They have to make Jesus (& Paul) appear in the OT in order for the text to have meaning. The traditional black church is far more Trinitarian about the whole counsel of God than evangelicals.” ❲8❳
Ally Henny ( The Witness Black Christian Collective ): “The cult of personality that has developed around certain theologians is evidence that white people don’t believe anything that hasn’t been thoroughly whitesplained by a white man.” ❲9❳
Jim Wallis (President and founder, Sojourners): “Without confession to the sin of white racism, white supremacy, white privilege, people who call themselves white Christians will never be free — free from the bondage of a lie, a myth, an ideology, and an idol. White Christians, since the founding of America have been living a lie. What does that do to your soul — to live a lie?” ❲10❳
Lisa Sharon Harper ( Truth Table ): “Tim Keller has no authority to teach on justice—none… how incredulously privileged for Keller—a rich white man whose ministry targets rich people—to fashion himself as the judge of whether or not injustice rises to the level of oppression!!! No!!!! The only ones with divine authority to define the bounds of oppression are the oppressed themselves! Oppressed and colonized people wrote every single word of the Bible. The Jewish people were colonized people. Jesus, himself, was a brown, indigenous, colonized man. Not one person who the scripture was written by or originally written for sat in the social location of Tim Keller… No!!!! Keller has NO authority to speak or teach on justice. His silence when called on to speak helped pave America’s path to White Nationalism.” ❲11❳
James Cone (Professor of Systematic Theology, Union Theological Seminary): “[Martin Luther] King interpreted the gospel in such a way in which the blackness of his identity was not at the center. Malcolm [X], a Muslim, rejected Christianity because it did not address his blackness. So, I wanted to bring the blackness of my identity together with the faith I had learned in the church. And it was there that brought me to want to interpret the Christian gospel. So, in black theology, which I developed, the blackness comes from Malcolm X. The theology in it comes from Martin King. So, I bring Martin and Malcolm together, the civil rights movement and the black power movement together, in order to develop a black theology of liberation.” ❲12❳
James Cone: “The cross is God taking the side of the victim; God making ultimate identification with the powerless. If the powerful in our society, the white people, want to become Christians, they have to give up that power and become identified with the powerless if they’re going to become a Christian. You can’t be identified with the powerful and also a Christian at the same time. That’s a contradiction in terms. How do I know you are really identifying with the victim? If you want to identify with the victim, you not only have to feel good about it, you have to pay back what you took. You don’t just say, ‘Please forgive me.’ The only way in which your repentance and your forgiveness can be authentic is that you give back what you took. White people took a lot from black people.” ❲13❳
Curtis Wood (Professor of Applied Theology and Biblical Spirituality at SBTS): “For every one book you read by an anglo, you need to read two by a non-anglo.” ❲14❳

Implications of CRT/I

Neil Shenvi observes:

One of the most dangerous aspects of critical theory is its insistence that…oppressor groups claim to be appealing to “reason” or ”evidence” but these claims are merely attempts to justify their privilege and oppression. Moreover, people from oppressor groups are blinded by their privilege and need to defer to, learn from, and accept the claims of oppressed people, who have special access to truth.

Along those lines, Margaret Anderson and Patricia Hill Collins write, “The idea that objectivity is best reached only through rational thought is a specifically Western and masculine way of thinking – one that we will challenge throughout this book.” ❲15❳

Thus, gender, for example, disqualifies someone from engaging in rational discourse and interaction on sociological-spiritual issues. Only those from outside of the “oppressor” category are qualified to speak on sociological-spiritual issues involving sin and righteousness. White heterosexual males would be less qualified from giving input into CRT/I and issues involving ethnic sociology, and, thus, less qualified, if not disqualified, from teaching on spiritual matters concerning Christianity.

Biblical Analysis

Racism is defined as “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” (merriam-webster.com). This, of course, is sin. It is hating a person based upon melanin level. However, CRT/I seems to muddy the waters on what does and does not constitute the sin of racism.

CRT/I proposes that individuals are complicit in racism by virtue of ethnicity, ironically. However, the question must be asked: can a demographic of people be guilty of sin by virtue of things like ethnicity, gender, or income? Does God hold individuals guilty of sin for such things? Biblically, the answer is no. God holds individuals accountable for sin on two accounts: guilt in Adam ( Rom. 5:12

, 1 Cor. 15:22

) and guilt by disobedience to his word ( Ezek. 18:20

). Neither are individuals held guilty of sin by proxy. Ezekiel 18:20

clarifies this: “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.” God never holds an individual guilty based upon melanin, gender, or socio-economic class.

Perhaps some propagating CRT/I, ironically, are not thinking deeply enough about sin. Individuals are inherently guilty of sin. In fact, the entire human race is naturally guilty, not by virtue of ethnicity, but race; the single human race. “In Adam all die” ( 1 Cor. 15:22

). Every human born enters the world utterly depraved, hostile towards God, and condemned in sin by nature, with no ability or desire to please and honor him ( Rom. 8:7-8

, Eph. 2:1-3

). This is the case, not with a particular ethnicity, but the entire human race.

Furthermore, CRT/I deviates on the issue of biblical identity. The view proposes additional identity markers inherent to one’s demographic such as, “oppressor,” and, “oppressed.” Ethnicity is elevated and our standing in Christ is lowered. But what does God major on in terms of the Christian’s identity? Scripture speaks of our identity as “a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all” ( Col. 3:11

). In Christ, “from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. 17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” ( 2 Cor. 5:16-17

). Ironically, CRT/I erects barriers which the gospel tears down.

CRT/I seems to divide people into primarily two groups; the oppressed and oppressor. Is that the lens through which we are to view humanity? Scripture, on the other hand, primarily sees the human race divided into two categories, which synonymously are referred to as those “perishing” and “being saved” ( 1 Cor. 1:18

); those “in Adam” and “in Christ” ( 1 Cor. 15:22

); those “dead in our transgressions” and “alive together with Christ” ( Eph. 2:5

). Thus, CRT/I creates identity markers which Scripture does not.

Neil Shenvi writes, “Sin cannot be reduced to ‘oppression’ ( Mk. 7:20-23

). Human solidarity is primarily found not in a common experience of oppression, but in being made in God’s image, being fallen in sin, and -for Christians- being redeemed by Jesus.” ❲16❳

CRT/I seems to view individuals as less qualified, or unqualified, to teach on issues pertaining to things like anthropology and hamartiology (to name a few) on ethnic-gender grounds. Scripture, however, affirms individuals qualified to teach on spiritual-sociological issues solely on the ground of spiritual qualifications. For example, those ordained to biblical eldership are considered qualified by God to teach on such matters ( 1 Tim 3:1-7

, 4:13

; 2 Tim 4:2

; Titus 1:9

, 2:1

, 2:15

).

CRT/I also confuses the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ. When an ideology proposes an anthropological-hamartiological problem that deviates from Scripture, the solution to that problem will likely differ from the solution of Scripture. Specifically, if humanity’s great problem is not universal depravity and enmity with God, then the solution will not correspond—the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ. CRT/I speaks of the great problem of humanity in terms other than our equally guilty standing as depraved sinners and enemies of God. Instead, humanity has two other primary problems. First, certain individuals are victims of sociological ills and oppression from which salvation-rescue is needed. Second, individuals need salvation-rescue from the inherent guilt of racism and oppression due to their ethnicity, gender, and, at times, sexuality. Thus, the CRT/I gospel becomes one, not of salvation from the wrath of God and the presence and power of sin, but from the oppression/oppressor categories. Consequently, CRT/I becomes a different gospel than that of the substitutionary atoning work of Jesus Christ (cf. Gal. 1:6-9

).

Conclusion

Finally, it should be observed that CRT/I cannot be considered a mere tool alongside the biblical worldview. CRT/I is its own worldview, as demonstrated by its differing views of anthropology, hamartiology, and even soteriology. Even more, it is a competing worldview with biblical Christianity. Therefore, eventually, it will be untenable for an institution to embrace both biblical Christianity and CRT/I. In the end, we must embrace one or the other.

More could be said regarding the complex and evolving issue of CRT/I. Where racism exists, it must be repented of. Where any kind of hate exists, one must confess, repent, and turn to Christ for forgiveness. Forgiveness must be sought from those against whom the biblical sin is committed. However, as CRT/I continues into evangelicalism, it is appearing that, notwithstanding the embracing of the view by many prominent evangelicals, it clashes with fundamental Christian doctrines. Therefore, it must not, and cannot, be embraced by the Christian faith.

❲1❳ https://shenviapologetics.com/critical-theory-within-evangelicalism/

❲2❳ http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/2308/resolution-9–on-critical-race-theory-and-intersectionality

❲3❳ https://founders.org/cinedoc/

❲4❳ https://www.worldviewweekend.com/news/article/article-refuting-lies-matt-chandler-s-white-privilege-propaganda?page=5

❲5❳ https://founders.org/cinedoc/

❲6❳ https://founders.org/cinedoc/

❲7❳ https://founders.org/cinedoc/

❲8❳ https://shenviapologetics.com/critical-theory-within-evangelicalism/

❲9❳ https://twitter.com/thearmchaircom/status/1106578320584527872

❲10❳ https://sojo.net/articles/50th-anniversary-dr-kings-assassination-confessing-churchs-complicity-racial-division

❲11❳ https://shenviapologetics.com/critical-theory-within-evangelicalism/

❲12❳ https://founders.org/cinedoc/