Introduction
With the charge of racism in the USA as prevalent as
that of being ‘enemies of the people’ in the French Revolution, we might also
ask whether the former term is in as much want of definition as the latter
phrase. Terms vaguely defined are
powerful weapons on the tongues of revolutionaries. In an effort to achieve greater clarity, I
would suggest that at least some of us might be helped first by defining our
terms. A clearer analysis of
demographics and statistics in US cities and other cities in the world would
also be of help to diagnose the problems of our times. This would lead to real solutions to urban
problems that get behind the simplistic rhetoric of racism. This essay, however, is not about that
research.[1] (It can be done by anyone, since the
statistics are online, but it also has been done and is often ignored by people
whose political agenda depends on a racial narrative that will not be belabored,
let alone undermined, by facts and research.)
In this essay, I focus instead on how the discussion of
racism is more a factor of a larger social movement that uses racial unrest to
bring about social change—change sought by social Marxists. I also intend to consider the Bible and the
Church in the discussion of racism, taking issue with the inadequate analyses
and ‘easy solutions’ of so many Evangelical spokespersons at this time. My conclusions are that we need to have a
better understanding of ‘racism’, we need to redirect our focus on the Church
as itself the counter-cultural community of Christ, rather than throwing our
efforts into support of political and social justice struggles that have no
need of the Church. And we need to refocus
our attention on the Church’s missional theology and practice.
Definitions and Distinctions
I suggest that we distinguish three very different types
of racism and, perhaps, use related but different terms for each. Taxonomy and diagnosis are equally important
for social distinctions as for medical.
A wrong analysis will lead to a wrong treatment. All three types of racism share the view that
individuals should be seen in terms of their race. This would be the broadest definition of
racism. Racists do not see individuals for
who they are as individuals but for the racial group to which they belong or
are believed to belong. This is
different from stereo-typing individuals, which can be along a variety of lines
other than race and which can be done as an initial analysis that is then
subjected to further enquiry. In the
case of all three types of racism, there is no further analysis to get to the
individual’s identity apart from the group.
We might use the term ‘racism’ more narrowly than the
broad definition, and this would then be the first sub-type. In this case, people view certain other
individuals negatively because of their belonging to a particular race. Germans might view Poles negatively, the
British might view the Dutch in South Africa negatively, or white Americans
might view black Americans negatively.
In Africa, tribalism includes a racism that usually does not involve
considerations of skin colour. If a Luhya
thinks of an individual Kamba in terms of his group that used to practice cannibalism,
there is a racist view at work—the individual is seen in terms of the
group—even though both tribes are black and Kenyan, and the Kamba are no longer cannibalistic. What makes these examples racist is when
individuals are defined by their race and that definition includes a negative
assessment of a whole group for one or more reasons. This may or may not result
in how the person is treated—racism can refer simply to attitudes. Persons holding this perspective would be
called ‘racists’. It should be noted
that some racists can be kind and helpful, just as a master could be so to a
slave in ancient Rome. There are also degrees
of racism that have to do with attitudes and actions.
The second term that we might put forward for more
clarity is ‘racialism’. In this case,
people again see individuals in terms of their race, but they do not
necessarily look down on a different race or the individual. ‘Racialists’ tend to see politics, social
issues, economics, and so forth in terms of race. This can extend to religion if a particular
race is thought to go necessarily along with a particular religion. On this view, culture is usually considered
to be static, and racialists treat race as something worth preserving in
itself: they might be opposed to evangelizing a jungle tribe, for example,
because the tribal members’ conversion would mean changes in the culture. Racialists look at the lower income of inner-city
blacks in America and claim that race, not other, urban issues and government
policies, are the cause. In South
Africa, the Nationalist Party came to power in 1948 and combined a racist and
racialist social and political agenda, Apartheid, that was finally repealed in
1991.[2]
Also, if American, urban, black youths have higher
incidents of crime, the fact that they overwhelmingly come from broken homes
with an absent father is passed over by racialists, who would rather see the
reason as how ‘whites’ treat ‘blacks’. Any political social policies are equally
ignored, such as the effect of social programs creating a dependency on
government rather than an independence and responsibility. ‘Racialists’ have the same problems of
racists in that they see the world and its problems in terms of race and see
individuals in terms of their race.
Their perspective also suffers from over-simplification at best and may
be an entirely erroneous analysis.
The third term is ‘reverse racism’. ‘Reverse racists’ respond to the initial
group—to racists—by trying to reverse racism in the first definition by seeing individuals in terms of their race. Unlike the first group, they
tend to view the disparaged group positively or as needing positive affirmation
and activism to reverse the discrimination they have allegedly or in reality
received. They identify groups in terms
of race and see the minority groups as victims that need to be assisted,
promoted, and empowered over against other groups. A reverse
racist might insist that a candidate for a job should be from the racial group
that had been disempowered or mistreated.
Or, a reverse racist might call for economic or land
redistribution based on race.
There is a distinction that needs to be made between giving underprivileged people an equal opportunity to succeed and insisting on equal outcomes. Equality of opportunity can be a way to oppose racism, but insisting on equal outcomes, now called 'equity', or even preferential outcomes is a form of racism when races are involved. Equity as reverse racism advances people in a variety of ways merely because of their race and not their merits. Soft examples of this are in the form of insisting on putting people into bibliographies or research papers merely because of their ethnicity or using certain authors for textbooks solely because they service a value of diversity. Harder examples of this involve promoting people and giving them jobs because of their race--and denying others the same because of theirs. This is reverse discrimination that is racist in showing favour to some and disfavour to others because of their race.
Further Distinctions, and ‘Is the Bible “Racist”?’
More needs to be said about these definitions, and a
look at the Bible can help in this regard.
As we ask the question, ‘Is the Bible racist?’, we can see the
importance of defining terms more carefully.
In the Old Testament, for example, we see a distinction between the Jews
and all other nations, the Gentiles. The Jews viewed Gentiles as sinners both
in the sense of being idolaters who did not acknowledge God and in the sense of
their immorality. The Jews sought to
separate themselves from other nations, and when they did not, they themselves
were led into sin by the other nations.
Individuals who were not Jews were viewed in terms of the identity of
their group.
Does this make the Jews of the Old Testament racists? It could, if it were not for three rather
important additional points that figure into the definition of racism. Jews may or may not have held to these, but
the Biblical perspective does introduce these additional perspectives. First, the narrative of Israel is not about
righteous Israelites over against unrighteous Gentiles. The narrative of Israel is about how Israel
failed to be righteous despite all that God had done for them; they behaved
like the unrighteous Gentiles. This
perspective is very helpful. Those who
think of themselves as not racist do not work from a narrative of their own
failings but from a perspective of their superiority over the others that they
view as racist. Perhaps they are
superior, at least in this respect, but the Jew who distinguished himself from
the Gentiles did not have a narrative of his own superiority but of God’s
favour.
Second, the narrative of the Jews was redemptive. The three views of racism, racialism, and
reverse racism do not work with notions of repentance, forgiveness, and
redemption. They locate people in their
racial grouping and determine everything around that identity. The racial
identity is the primary identity of the individual (rather than, e.g., religion),
and it is immutable. The Biblical view
is dynamic: things can change and, most importantly, God does bring change.
Third, the Biblical narrative of Israel is
missional. The distinction of Israel
from the nations might involve separation from their idolatry and sinfulness,
but Israel’s existence as God’s treasured possession is so that they would be
the means by which God extended His grace to the nations. Israel was to be God’s missionary nation to
the nations. Their own sinfulness
subverted the fulfillment of this mission.
Their restoration would mean the reinstitution of this mission to the
Gentiles.
In the New Testament, the people of God are the Church. The Jew/Gentile
distinction no longer pertains as both groupings of humanity are now included
in the Church. Passages such as
Galatians 3.28 do not celebrate diversity, as some have mistakenly suggested,
but unity—unity in Christ. The Church is
distinguished from those outside the Church because the Church is made up of
those who have been baptized into Christ.
This is no longer a racial distinction—or potentially racial. Nor is it a distinction between men and
women—an even more fundamental distinction in nature than race. Nor is it a distinction between masters and
slaves. If Galatians 3.28 was
celebrating diversity, then we would have to read the passage as encouraging a
continuation of slavery; instead, the passage makes the identity of masters and
slaves irrelevant because of their unity in Christ. Texts like Galatians 3.28 are phrased in the negative for a reason: they make these characteristics irrelevant rather than celebrate them. This keeps the agenda from being about us: what counts is being in Christ.
Second, the New Testament understands the narrative of Israel’s
sin in the Old Testament in terms of Jesus’ death on the cross for our
sins. In other words, the members of the
Church—those in Christ—are those who acknowledge their need for Jesus’
sacrificial death. Christians do not
believe that they are a privileged group because of the identity they bring into the Church but
because of the identity of Jesus in whom they now live—they make His death and
life their own. They also recognize
that, just as they came to Christ, all others can as well. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory
of God (Romans 3.23), but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus
(Romans 6.23). Everyone is equally in
need of God’s provision of salvation, and everyone can receive this salvation
when they acknowledge Jesus Christ as the one who, through His death, brought
this salvation.
Third, the New Testament extends God’s mission of Jesus
to Israel to a mission of the Church to all nations. The death and
resurrection and ascension of Jesus mark the beginning of the mission to the
Gentiles. The Church’s history is a history
of mission to the nations of the world.
Christians are not racists, looking down on particular races. They have taken the Gospel of salvation
throughout the world, translated Scripture into hundreds of languages, and
rejoiced to see others come to the same faith that they have come to by God’s
grace. Christians are not racialists,
seeing the world in terms of race. This
is where multiculturalism fails, for it upholds culture as though it is
something unchanging and to be celebrated.
The Christian faith has various views on culture—it is positive,
negative, and neutral. That is, it is to
be evaluated on the basis of something else, not culture in itself. To focus on it and/or to see it only as
positive is to take the focus off of Christ.
Thus, Christians are not anti-racists, in my definition of it, because
they do not privilege one group over another.
They see every individual needing to come to Christ to save him or her
from sin. People do not come to Christ
as members of a race, and the Church should not see itself as promoting racial
groups but promoting the Church as a people—a third race, as the Early Church
preferred to say. They were neither Jew
nor Gentile but the people of God. The
focus in the vision of John in Revelation 7.9-10 is not on multiculturalism,
with a great multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language. This passage is a reversal of the Tower of Babel (Genesis
11), where people of the world were divided into multicultural groups. The passage is not a celebration of human identities. It is not a celebration
of multiculturalism. Rather, the passage
assumes this diversity due to human sinfulness and puts the emphasis rather on
reconciliation to God and one another by those who cry with a loud voice,
‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’ (Rev.
7.10). The passage is Christ-centred, not human-centred. These are they who have washed
their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 7.14). The identity that is cherished is not that of
the tribes and nations of the earth but the identity sinners from throughout the earth have gained in the saving blood of the Lamb, Jesus Christ.
Peripheral and Central Vision
Too many Evangelicals have a truncated understanding of
ecclesiology. They reduce ‘Church’ to
small ‘c’—unaware of and perhaps disinterested in the historic Church and the
wider orthodox Church of today—and they reduce their understanding of this
local church, for the most part, to a worship service. Thus, when they think of ‘church’ and race,
they tend to think of the worship service being either monocultural/homogeneous
or multicultural/heterogenous. Without a
liturgical service, this worship service comes down to trying to blend music
and preaching styles with a multicultural group of individual worshipers.
Where a deeper understanding of ‘church’ may come into
focus is around the concept and practice of community. A focus on community is like trying to see at
night. If a person looks straight at an
object in the night, using the eyes’ cones, the person will not see it as well
as when he or she looks with his or her peripheral vision, using the eyes’ rods
on the side of the eye. In dim light,
one sees better with the rods than with the cones. Valuing community, we might think that
focusing directly on community is the best thing. The church might focus on community worship and
fellowship (from tea and coffee after the service to potlucks to multiculturalism). If a church really wants to build community,
however, the church should focus on something else to the side, such as truth and actions. People who are not likely
drawn to one another through interests in sermons, music, and fellowship can be
drawn together around the truth that they hold and the actions that they plan as a community.
‘Race’ is something that straddles the line between community
and ideal. It is, of course,
a communal term. It can, however, be
treated as an ideal. Thus, when put into
straight-on vision, the community may achieve what it wants, such as a
multicultural church worship service in an urban mega-church (reflecting the
demographics of the city). The issue
that arises with this focus, however, is whether this becomes the defining
ideal—a multicultural church (or seminary or mission agency)—or whether it is the result in that context of
some other ideals. While uncomfortable
using the term ‘ideal’ here, it has been helpful because what is being
suggested does not only apply to the church/Church. It could apply, e.g., to revolutionary
movements. Applied to the Church,
however, we would replace the word ‘ideal’ with the truth that is the person of Jesus
Christ--who he is and what he has done. What draws people together in a
better way—not with better numbers, necessarily, but in what is truly
better? A focus on Christ. If the focus is on being the city’s
multicultural church, this ideal may replace a focus on Christ alone. Thus, if communal concerns, including race,
are put into peripheral vision and Christ is put into the straight-on vision,
any community that is built—and it will be—will be built around the centrality
of Jesus Christ as Lord.
The ‘welcoming church’ makes the point. In the age of Western culture’s fixation on
sexuality and gender, some communities have taken to advertising themselves as
‘welcoming’ churches; churches, that is, that will not call for a Biblical or
historic Christian teaching on sexuality and gender. Rather, they will focus on community and push
Scripture and the historic Church into the periphery (even being critical of
it). This is, actually, the definition
of a cult: a community that shifts the focus from Christ, his person and his
work, to something peripheral, even extraneous to the Christian faith. A cult shifts to a new standard (e.g., not Scripture but some ideology) and a new centre (e.g., not Christ but some activist agenda). The racial focus in some Christian
communities raises the same concern. Are
people drawn into fellowship from different groups because they are baptized
into Christ or because they want to be multi-cultural?
If I have here focussed on the dangers of a community
emphasis that is not Christ-centred, there is more to say about a community
focus on activism over faith. A brief
consideration of politics is necessary since the discussion of race easily
turns political.
Politics
It is one thing to have a particular understanding of
race and a particular ethic regarding race, it is yet another thing to think
politically about race. Different
political arrangements will interact differently with views on race. A laissez-faire political perspective and
practice will be quite the opposite of a totalitarian enforcement of certain
views. A more totalitarian approach to
government and race may take on the form of a ‘racist government’, such as the
fascist-leaning Apartheid government of the Nationalist Party in South Africa,
or a reverse racism movement, such as has developed in South Africa post-Apartheid or now in America. The politics of race has taken a decidedly
Marxist turn, sometimes expressed as ‘critical race theory’. The theory is based in several thinkers
associated with the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism and now extended to
race.
A totalitarian political approach looks for ways to use
the power of government to enforce certain views. This requires an institution—government—with
enough power to enforce the vision for society, somewhere along the lines of
socialism, communism, and fascism. The
strong arm of the state uses its power to reform society (as in Plato’s Republic,
Friedrich Engels’ and Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto and Das
Kapital, Mao Zedong’s The Little Red Book, or Adolf Hitler’s Mein
Kampf—the last being openly racist).
Alternatively, when the state is not prepared to act or
act radically or quickly enough, certain people still turn to the use of power
by forming a movement. Movements that
focus not so much on ideals but on action are less defined in terms of their
ideals: they are more focused on present action to reshape society. When movements use power rather than
influence or invitation, and when they exist to topple a culture, they might be
called totalitarian movements. They
typically pay more attention to tearing down than to what they will build in
the wake of their destruction. They may
embrace other movements with which they share little in common if they, too,
want to tear down the present society—they will leave their disagreements to
the side until later. The toppling of
statues of persons who owned slaves or fought for the South in the American
Civil War or of Cecil Rhodes in South Africa, and so forth, has a selective
focus and appears somewhat virtuous, except for the unsettling facts that there
is some violence, there is an undemocratic approach to the process, the actions are not only symbolic attacks on racism but also on culture, and there is little realistic vision for the future. In other words, all the elements of a
totalitarian, cultural Marxism are on display but ostensibly around a single
cause that seems so virtuous. Those who
think the issue really is simply about racism are strongly deluded.
What is really going on is a post-Christian
deconstruction of Western society through a Marxist movement, This is evident not only
on the streets but in the legislature, judiciary, educational system—every
institutional pillar of Western society—including the Church. To understand this, consider the Marxist
movement advocated by the Italian, Antonio Gramsci, in the early part of the 20th
century. His vision for revolution is
being played out in the West, particularly in America, at this time.
In ‘Our Marx’, Gramsci rejects Marxism as an ideology to
follow and sees it as a movement. He
reduces Marx to the call, ‘Workers of the world, unite!’[3] In ‘The Revolution against Capital,’
he explains that the thinking of Marx involved a programmatic unfolding that
the Bolsheviks of Russia have superseded:
The Bolsheviks reject Karl Marx,
and their explicit actions and conquests bear witness that the canons of
historical materialism are not so rigid as one might have thought and has been
believed.[4]
In other words, activism supersedes theory or ideals--utopia. (Similarly, the liberation theologian,
Gustavo Gutiérrez, said that theology is something to do after sundown—it is
for a reflective moment after a day’s activism.)[5] A progressive development of change is only
for normal times. Also, since ‘men are
lazy, they need to be organized.’[6] Gramsci’s thought is less a theory
than a call to action. Under normal
conditions, the source of social unrest begins with a drive for improvement and
acceleration of production that results in (1) persons who ‘fall by the
wayside’, creating an (2) urgency, such that the ‘masses are forever in a state
of turmoil.’ This chaos then leads to
(3) some order of thoughts, people become aware of their own potential to
‘shoulder social responsibility and become the arbiters of their own destiny.’[7] The Russian Revolution, however, ‘galvanized
the people’s will…almost overnight’[8]
because they were facing hunger and imminent death. Gramsci then focusses on the need to create a
crisis to move development along immediately, noting that this will cause
hardships, but ones the people will have to bear. (December 2021 Note: This tactic is being used by the Left in America with unregulated immigration, a self-inflicted energy crisis, lockdowns due to Covid, proliferation of unchecked crime, freeing of prisoners, defunding the police, fomenting of racial tensions, measures undermining the economy, supply chain problems, etc. The greater the hardships, the more governmental power can grow and the people become dependent, needing if not desiring big government socialism.)
We see today that American totalitarian
movements are using a racial narrative as a means to effect social change. They are doing so by action in the streets,
breaking laws rather than depending on government and its forces (the police)
to bring about worthy change. They have
less focus on what they wish to build than on what they wish to tear down. Most importantly, they are willing to use
violence to bring about social instability as a means to bring about social
reform. The official movement, Black
Lives Matter, has a racial focus, but its statement of beliefs has a much more
radical agenda for social reform. As a
movement, it has shown itself to be open to violence. By focusing on race in its public slogan, it
has pulled in numerous people for support who would not be supportive of their
broader social agenda that involves reforming sex and gender, family, and
economics and, most likely, everything in society. Disinformation about the movement and
vagueness as to their means and agendas allow them to carry on the present
work of ‘cancelling’ culture.
In ‘Discipline,’ Gramsci says, ‘Bourgeois discipline is
mechanical and authoritarian,’ whereas ‘socialist discipline is autonomous and
spontaneous.’[9] This is simply a distinction between institutional
and operational means of reform. He
calls for autonomous discipline—a rejection of external and a following of
self- or internal discipline. Thus,
the discipline of the Socialist
Party makes the subject into a citizen: a citizen who is now rebellious,
precisely because he has become conscious of his personality and feels it is
shackled and cannot freely express itself in the world.[10]
The goal is the aggressive conquest, undermining of
privilege, and preparation for the final struggle.[11] The fight is against the state, which
represents the ‘economic-political organization of the bourgeois class.’[12] The Socialist Party understands its ultimate
purpose to organize production and exchange, not to be a different voice in the
same mode of government of the bourgeoisie.[13] Before entering into this role, it seeks to
undermine the political system, dominated by the bourgeois government, through
class struggle. The goal is control, not
the free competition of all social forces that capitalism wants. In the latter,
Merchants compete for markets,
bourgeois groupings compete for the government, the two classes compete for the
state. Merchants seek to create
monopolies behind protective legislation.[14]
Gramsci criticizes utopianism, with its understanding of
history as a natural evolution over time.
Instead, history should be made through action, with freedom its tool to
bring about the deconstruction of past and present forces: ‘freedom is the
inner force in history, exploding every preestablished schema.’[15] This actionism requires a transitional
dictatorship to oversee the process, but it is one of spontaneity, not utopia,
and involves continual development in which true freedom lives.[16]
By considering Gramsci’s activist Marxism, we can better
understand the current cultural movements that seek to bring about cultural
revolution and their use of race as a catalyst to accomplish a grand, albeit
undefined, social change. One might
further consider the purposes of the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism and critical
theory, especially where it is applied to race.
Sadly, many Evangelicals in America at this time have simply jumped onto
the wagons carting the present culture to the guillotines in central
square. Their ignorance, if that is what
it is, is astounding. Little do they
know that the Marxist movements on the street have Christians on their lists of
‘enemies of the state’. They are far too
eager to identify themselves as ‘anti-racist’ without understanding what this
fully means in the current political movements.
‘Anti-racist’ does not mean being against racism, it means, at best,
reverse racism—which is a version of racism, as we can see in the charge of
‘white privilege’ and 'white fragility' and the intersectionality that is promoted. (We hear, ‘You
need more non-white authors on your syllabus’; ‘You need to hire a person of
colour;’ etc. This is what happens when
Evangelicals lose connection to theological traditions, no longer think
denominationally, lack an ecclesiology, and replace missions with identity politics).
They sign up to ‘black lives matter’ without any awareness of what the
official movement intends, not sure if they should capitalize the slogan or
not.[17] They want to virtue signal by denouncing
racism, unaware that denouncing racism in the Marxist movement of today itself
involves a racist agenda that is deconstructive, attacking culture outright and
promoting a racist ‘intersectionalism’ (promoting certain groups over others,
including denouncing the white race and culture and requiring of it a perpetual
obeisance). It is a significant step on
the road to cultural Marxism; it will be followed by others and soon include
personal denunciations, if the French Revolution or Bolshevik Revolution are any precedent. Instead of
realizing how these movements are setting themselves up for the persecution of
the Church, they identify with them in order to appear virtuous in
society. And who wants to be a racist in
the first place? Yet their ignorance of
political theory and cultural will land them squarely in the racism of
tomorrow, with its persecution of Christians as well.
Conclusion
The only solution for Christians is to refuse to view
individuals in terms of race. The
promotion of racism, racialism, and reverse racism are all anti-Christian in
that they see individuals through racial lenses. Moreover, the West’s current focus on race is
by no means a virtuous movement tearing down racism. On the contrary, totalitarian Marxists are
using race to foster social unrest that will then propel society into a new
society that will itself use its power to persecute others, including Christians. Racial concerns may arise—as they did in the
Jerusalem church—and may need attention—as that church did (Acts 6). Yet the focus given in the Jerusalem church
to this matter—appointing Hellenists to serve in the church in order to
guarantee fair distribution to Hellenistic Jews—further led to mission to
Ethiopians and Samaritans. Ultimately,
it was the missional focus, not simply the community focus, that provided the
right balance in the Church’s early ecclesiology. Paul’s mission to the Gentiles proved to be
the definitive action regarding ethnic divisions, and missions keeps the Church
in focus rather than eclipses the Church in a ‘social justice’ concern that
calls on Christians to provide a general solution for society at large. Missionary outreach was the key. Making race the object of concern has the
danger of turning the community into a movement that does not bring all people
to Christ but that celebrates diversity itself with or without Christ. Worse, it celebrates the intersectionality of
reverse racism. Still worse, this
iconoclasm is part of a much larger movement of cultural Marxism that seeks,
like Black Lives Matter, to topple all the statues of Western culture,
including those set up by Christianity.
Satan’s third temptation of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel (ch. 4) was to
rule all the kingdoms of the world if He would but fall down and worship
him. The Church today is being tempted
to adopt the cultural Marxism of a post-Christian society, enticed by the issue
of racial ‘justice’, if it will but fall down and worship it.
[1] An overview article that would
help get readers oriented to the issues and authors who get behind the
political agenda and to the data has been provided by Peter Jones, ‘Only Five
Black Lives Matter?’ Truthxchange; available online at: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwJWrgDPLcrwNkscJtvwpgknLkB
(accessed July 20, 2020).
[2] My biography addresses ministry
during this time. See Rollin G. Grams, Stewards
of Grace: A Reflective, Mission Biography of Eugene and Phyllis Grams in South
Africa, 1951-1962 (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2010).
[3] The Gramsci Reader: Selected
Writings 1916-1935, ed. David Forgacs (New York: New York University,
2000), p. 36.
[4] Ibid. 33.
[5] He says, ‘What Hegel used to say
about philosophy can likewise be applied to theology: it rises at sundown. The
pastoral activity of the Church does not flow as a conclusion from theological
~remises. Theology does not produce pastoral activity; rather it reflects upon
it’ (A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, trans.
Caridad Inda and John Eagleson (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Press, 1988), p. 9).
[6] Gramsci Reader, p. 34.
[7] Ibid. 34.
[8] Ibid. p. 34.
[9] Ibid. p. 32.
[10] Ibid. p. 32.
[11] Ibid. p. 39.
[12] Ibid. p. 40.
[13] Ibid. p. 41.
[14] Ibid. p. 43-44.
[15] Ibid. p. 50.
[16] Ibid. pp. 50-51.
[17] Candler School of Theology’s white
faculty offers a good example of what is taking place, although it is not
Evangelical but liberal Methodist. They
wrote a letter of apology (June 18, 2020) that is worth reading to get a sense
of how reverse racism is expressed and how it would look at an Evangelical
faculty if this cultural Marxism finds receptive soil among Evangelicals. See https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/candleraction/.
Comments