By Davis Carlton

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! – Isaiah 5:20

Our age is rapidly becoming one of mass apostasy in which any profession of Christian faith is being abandoned. Characteristic of apostasy is how many Christian leaders have adopted the egalitarian principles of anti-Christian “justice” while attempting to couch these concepts in Christian terminology. What is interesting is the extent to which many Christians seem perfectly unaware that they have adopted radical, anti-Christian meanings given to formerly Biblical concepts like justice. This is particularly pervasive among the many outwardly conservative Christians who constitute what is affectionately known as “Big Eva” or the evangelical establishment. This is striking considering that evangelicals are supposed to be committed to a Biblical worldview, which necessarily requires understanding the meaning of words and concepts used in the Bible in their original historical context in order to understand the actual meaning of what the Bible says.

Imagine a hundred years from now when ostensibly conservative Christians are trying to grapple with references to men and women in the Bible when the meaning has been distorted to mean a mere social construct of self-identification? All of the sudden the clause “neither male nor female” from Gal. 3:28 takes on a whole new meaning. The same has already happened with the concept of justice, which has been distorted for generations since the French Revolution and the abolitionist movement to mean equality. That which contributes to greater equality between classes, races, genders (real or imagined), and individuals is just, while that which contributes to inequality is unjust.

A good example of this is to listen to John Piper’s recent “critique” of Critical Race Theory (CRT). In Part 1 Piper pleads for unity with those accused of promoting CRT. This is after Piper, without a hint of irony, begins by insisting that CRT needs to be accurately defined because precision in defining terms is essential in a world filled with deceit, and then proceeds to say that he will not be defining CRT until part 2! Part 1 is all about providing cover for those who are utilizing the concepts of CRT in how they assess injustice in the world. Do you think that a particular pop Christian is afflicted with the CRT virus? What if one of the symptoms of the CRT virus is excessive perspiration, but the perspiration that you see on the one you suspect of being infected with CRT thinking is actually perspiration from laboring in a worthy cause asks a perplexed Piper.

Piper also expresses abundant concern that promoters of “racial justice” are being unjustly smeared by the label of CRT, to which any reasonable person would respond that they ought to wear the shoe if it fits. All of this demonstrates that Piper’s objections to CRT are not substantive and that he believes that those who are rightly accused of being influenced by CRT and its underlying Marxist ideology are on the right track, even if their methodology isn’t always ideal. Piper would have us believe that those who protest CRT are being unnecessarily divisive and critical of those fighting for justice.

In Part 2 Piper delves into CRT and gives a token objection by stating that it will not bring about the unity that its proponents desire. This is true of course, but Piper isn’t able to adequately distinguish his understanding of justice from CRT, because he isn’t aware of how his own presuppositions about justice are developed from CRT. Earlier in Part 1 Piper mentions the death of George Floyd as an obvious case of racial injustice, without providing any evidence for his claim or considering evidence that undermines the claim that Floyd’s death is a manifestation of ubiquitous “racism.”

Piper’s worldview doesn’t allow him to consider such evidence because in his CRT-influenced mind, a black man being killed by a white man, even if it is unintentional, is a direct manifestation of racism and injustice no matter the circumstances. No amount of evidence could ever change the narrative of white oppression of non-whites. Piper can object all he wants to being labelled a CRT proponent, but this is simply because Piper doesn’t realize the extent to which he has internalized Far Left influences into his own thinking. Piper sets out to determine the “root problem” with CRT. It is interesting that Piper’s critique of CRT doesn’t really focus upon the racial component, but rather notes that CRT proponents also advocate for homosexuality and transgenderism. Piper’s diagnosis is that the problem at the heart of critical theory in general is an attitude of autonomy and self-determination that rejects God-ordained categories. This is of course a central problem of critical theory, but I submit that Piper has missed the problem that is actually at the heart of critical theory.

The kind of man-centered autonomy that Piper condemns is rooted in equality. For the races and biological sexes to be considered interchangeable they must first be esteemed as equal. Once men and women are considered absolutely equal then any functional differences can be dismissed as mere inherited roles assigned to people by society and enforced by inculcated prejudices. Once men and women become functionally equal, there is no good reason as to why they cannot be interchangeable as well. If society cannot expect women to pursue the vocation of being wives and mothers, then why should society expect women to even identify as biologically female in any meaningful sense?

Piper’s halfhearted critique leaves one with the impression that CRT proponents are honestly pursuing justice even if CRT is a flawed method for achieving the honorable goal of “racial justice.” After listening to Piper’s podcasts it is unclear that he disagrees with Marxist pastor Tim Keller who prattles on about how white people are unjustly advantaged by nothing more than their white skin due to generational domination by their white ancestors of non-whites. To Marxists like Keller who are unwaveringly committed to equality, the fact that whites collectively experience a higher standard of living than non-whites can have no explanation other than white oppression. Equality is taken as a given and no amount of evidence can overturn this presupposition. This strong commitment to equality has no roots in divine revelation and only manages to distort the genuinely Biblical notion of justice.

We can see where this false notion of egalitarian “justice” will lead by looking no further than Pope Francis. Recently the Pope was quoted in a documentary saying that “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it…What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered…I stood up for that.”

Some might object of my comparison to social justice evangelicals to a Pope who demonstrates virtually no knowledge or attachment to traditional Christian doctrine, but I believe that Francis and those like him have taken the equality-based conception of justice to its logical conclusion. It’s only a matter of time until people who abuse the phrase “neither Jew nor Greek” in Galatians 3:28 will begin to treat “neither male nor female” in the same way. The full endorsement of homosexuality and transsexuality is bound to follow with the understanding that people have a “right” to form homosexual “families.” Can I get an Amen…and how about an Awomen while we’re at it for good measure?

Christians like John Piper and Tim Keller might still be able to see the problems with subverting the most basic reality of sexuality, but this is exactly where their anti-Christian egalitarian understanding of justice is bound to lead. We are already seeing how social justice warriors in the pulpit are unwilling to speak out in a meaningful way against the new sexual revolution but are entirely willing to pile on with the world when “racial justice” is concerned. John Piper’s commitment to equality has rendered him unable to offer substantive criticism of CRT because he shares its underlying presupposition of white guilt and non-white victimhood.