A New Original Sin: Racism
You may think you know what racism is. However, you are almost certainly wrong—at least when it comes to the antiracist definition of racism. In fact, confusion and disagreement over this idea lie at the root of much of the disagreements among evangelicals about race, racism, and racial reconciliation. When most Christians speak of racism, we are referring to the traditional, historic definition like that offered by Merriam-Webster:
“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.”
Nor is Webster’s definition unique. The Oxford English Dictionary defines racism as:
A belief that one’s own racial or ethnic group is superior, or that other such groups represent a threat to one’s cultural identity, racial integrity, or economic well-being; (also) a belief that the members of different racial or ethnic groups possess specific characteristics, abilities, or qualities, which can be compared and evaluated. Hence: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against people of other racial or ethnic groups (or, more widely, of other nationalities), esp. based on such beliefs.[1]
1. Oxford English Dictionary.
However, it is important to note that for the antiracist, these definitions no longer suffice. In fact, there is a serious movement afoot to change the definitions found in English dictionaries to suit the theology of antiracism. But what is the definition of racism that CSJ [Critical Social Justice] is striving for? Robin DiAngelo’s work is quite informative here:
Given the dominant conceptualization of racism as individual acts of cruelty, it follows that only terrible people who consciously don’t like people of color can enact racism. Though this conceptualization is misinformed, it is not benign. In fact, it functions beautifully to make it nearly impossible to engage in the necessary dialogue and self-reflection that can lead to change. Outrage at the suggestion of racism is often followed by righteous indignation about the manner in which the feedback was given.[2]
2. DiAngelo, White Fragility, 123.
Note that DiAngelo sees this individualistic view of racism—the view we find in every reputable English dictionary—to be “misinformed.” Consequently, notes Aaron Preston, “as this bit of specialized nomenclature has migrated beyond its native habitat in left-leaning academic circles in the humanities and social sciences, it has entered the vocabulary of the average English speaker without a single, clear meaning.”[3] How then shall we understand the term?
3. Preston, “Redefining ‘Racism’: Against Activist Lexicography.”
The most popular antiracist curriculum among conservative evangelicals is Latasha Morrison’s Be the Bridge: Pursuing God’s Heart for Racial Reconciliation. In the accompanying curriculum, Whiteness 101: Foundational Principles Every White Bridge Builder Needs to Understand, Morrison defines racism as “a system of advantage based on race, involving cultural messages, misuse of power, and institutional bias, in addition to the racist beliefs and actions of individuals.” It is important to note that this redefinition of racism, among other things, changes the location and therefore the nature of the sin. We are no longer dealing with the hearts of men; we are addressing institutions and structures. “For as long as America exists with its current institutions,” writes DiAngelo, “it will also need to be in group therapy where our turn begins with: ‘Hi. I’m America, and I’m racist.’ ”[4]
4. DiAngelo, White Fragility, 30.
The implications of this statement are myriad. However, one bears mentioning here.
If DiAngelo and Morrison are right and 1) racism is corporate as opposed to individual, 2) racism is America’s sin, and 3) racism is connected only to whiteness, then it follows that as a black man, I am not only exempt from racism, but I am also not an American. At least not in any real sense. I am an ontological “other” who is a victim of America’s sin, while not participating in it.
Imagine if we thought this way about other issues. If America goes to war, are black Americans not called to arms? If America is guilty of a crime or an atrocity, are black Americans absolved of that guilt as well? This may seem like an esoteric point. However, I assure you, it is as relevant as anything else discussed in this book. If America owes a debt and I am excluded from that debt, then the implication is that I am less than American. (The same is true if American Christianity is the subject, as it often is.)
In an antiracist handout for educators, DiAngelo gives the following list to help participants understand the concept:
Racism exists today, in both traditional and modern forms.
All members of this society have been socialized to participate in it.
All white people benefit from racism, regardless of intentions; intentions are irrelevant.[5]
5. Robin J. DiAngelo, “Anti-Racism Handout,” robindiangelo.com, June 2016.
Much could be said about each of these points. However, my goal here is to help the reader see that these ideas are part of a system, a theology. Christians have been using these terms regularly of late, and in most cases, using them the same way the secular antiracists use them. Then, when called on it, the response (if the interlocutor is white) is some version of this: “That’s your white fragility speaking.” If the interlocutor is a “person of color,” the accusation is: “That’s your internalized racism.” But in both instances, the ultimate accusation is: “You are just trying to ‘shut down the conversation’ about racial justice.” Or “You just haven’t done your homework (i.e., reading Ibram X. Kendi, Robin DiAngelo, Latasha Morrison, Michelle Alexander, Jemar Tisby, Daniel Hill, Richard Delgado, Kimberlé Crenshaw, W.E.B. Du Bois, etc.), so you don’t know any better.” According to Critical Social Justice, without social science, the Bible doesn’t make sense.
6. Preston, “Redefining ‘Racism’: Against Activist Lexicography.”
Systemic Sin
7. Barry Creamer, “Our Faith and Ethics Must Challenge Our Norms on Race,” Dallas Morning News, August 9, 2020.
At the heart of the “woke” movement lies the idea that the sin of racism is no longer to be understood as an individual sin. Instead, the term now incorporates the idea of “institutional/structural racism” and its implications. Hence, America has sinned, and certain Americans have inherited that sin whether they know it or not. “Hurling the damning label ‘racist’ at people and systems that don’t deserve it in order to incite revolutionary outrage is exactly the kind of subversive linguistic manipulation prescribed in [the grievance studies] playbook,” writes Aaron Preston.[6] And leading evangelicals are following along. “[W]e have to address racism as a corporate problem,” wrote Criswell College President Barry Creamer for the Dallas Morning News. “In that light, we have to make sure we’re asking the right question.” Then Creamer taps his inner DiAngelo and states that the question is “not ‘how do I fix systemic racism in America?’ But: ‘In light of systemic racism’s reality, what actions on my part are right?’ ”[7]
8. DiAngelo, White Fragility, 13.
In one of the approved canonical writings of the antiracism cult, DiAngelo explains, “In the post–civil rights era, we have been taught that racists are mean people who intentionally dislike others because of their race; racists are immoral.”[8] However, she explains that this antiquated definition is no longer acceptable. For her and other leaders of the antiracist cult, the definition of racism is much broader. Today’s definition eschews the individualistic proscriptions of the past, arguing instead that racism is this: “A far-reaching system that functions independently from the intentions or self-images of individual actors.”[9] In other words, today we have “racism without racists.”
9. DiAngelo, White Fragility, 20.
10. Kendi, How to Be an Antiracist, 17.
This is why those inside and outside the cult of antiracism can use the same word while missing one another completely. What’s worse, antiracists see the mention of individual guilt as evidence that one is not only an outsider, but… a racist. “Racism is a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalizes racial inequities,”[10] notes Ibram X. Kendi. Therefore, it follows that “institutional racism” and “structural racism” and “systemic racism” are redundant, when, according to the new definition, “Racism itself is institutional, structural, and systemic.”[11] I appreciate Kendi’s candor as it helps to identify the competing worldview more clearly. For example, he offers a concrete example of racism, as he defines it, that leaves no doubt as to the antiracist perspective.
11. Ibid, 18.
12. Ibid.
First, Kendi defines the sin of racial inequity as being “when two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing.”[12] He goes on to offer a concrete example: “71 percent of White families lived in owner-occupied homes in 2014, compared to 45 percent of Latinx families and 41 percent of Black families.”[13] Having provided a definition and an example, Kendi closes the loop with something one almost never finds in CSJ literature or sermons: a solution. Or at least, a description of what the results will look like once the solution (antiracist policies) is applied: “An example of racial equity would be if there were relatively equitable percentages of all three racial groups living in owner-occupied homes in the forties, seventies, or, better, nineties.”[14]
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
This is as clear as it gets! It is also critical to any analysis of the antiracist worldview and its compatibility with biblical truth. How, for example, would we apply the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25 to this kind of thinking? For the antiracist, the goal is equitable outcomes. A goal that, as we will see, is neither biblical, reasonable, nor achievable. In fact, at no time in the history of the world has the kind of equity Kendi seeks existed. But this also explains so many things we have seen, and will see as we go forward.
For example, this definition of racism explains why antiracists are not moved by the evidence in individual police shootings. For them, the only relevant fact is proportionality. If blacks are shot by police at a disproportionate rate, it is de facto racism. Moreover, any attempt to explain the disparity as anything other than racism is, according to DiAngelo, another form of racism called “aversive racism.” This is why antiracists also cry foul when issues like out-of-wedlock birthrates, criminality, and cultural norms enter into the discussion. Furthermore, as we will see, it also explains why the mere reliance on things like facts, statistics, or the scientific method are actually seen as racist.[15] (That is, unless Kendi is using facts, statistics, and the scientific method to prove the existence of inequities.) In other words, if you do not accept this worldview, you are inevitably engaging in racism.
15. The idea that the scientific method is inherently racist is a hallmark of CRT. In one of the seminal academic papers on the topic, Tara Yosso, one of the most-cited CRT academics, lists five key elements of the ideology. Among them, she identifies “the challenge to dominant ideology. CRT challenges White privilege and refutes the claims that educational institutions make toward objectivity, meritocracy, color-blindness, race neutrality and equal opportunity. CRT challenges notions of ‘neutral’ research or ‘objective’ researchers and exposes deficit-informed research that silences, ignores and distorts epistemologies of People of Color. CRT argues that these traditional claims act as a camouflage for the self-interest, power, and privilege of dominant groups in US society.” See San Jose State University’s “Critical Race Theory in Chicana/O Education,” April 1, 2001. Also, a flier at the Smithsonian’s Museum of African American History included the Scientific Method as “an element of whiteness.” The document specified that this includes objective, rational, linear thinking; cause-and-effect relationships; and quantitative emphasis.
If you think this definition is limited to academics in grievance studies, you are sorely mistaken. For example, David Platt, in a momentous sermon delivered at Together for the Gospel in 2018, defined racism as “a system . . . in which race, and specifically white and black skin colors, profoundly affects people’s economic, political, and social experiences.” This is unmistakably taken from the antiracist lexicon. But lest you think it lets individuals off the hook, Jarvis Williams claims that “race and racial reconciliation are soteriological issues.” Thus, not only are white Christians who fail to adopt antiracist theology and repent of racism in jeopardy of being alienated from God, but those who fail to elevate the preaching of the antiracist message to the same level as the preaching of the Gospel are apparently preaching another gospel—which, according to Williams, is no gospel at all. Ironically, it is the antiracists who have abandoned the Gospel since, in their view, there is no good news of grace. There is only law.
