Behind the Curve on Current Trends

Do you ever get the feeling that the world is inexplicably speeding past you, just when you thought you had caught up with all the current terms? Only to find out that what you finally understand is so… really “last decade”, not merely “last year”?

Some years ago, at pastors’ meetings, we heard presentations on the seemingly new phenomenon of post-modernism. It was all the rage. I belong to a reading group of several pastor friends. Way back in 2003, we read Gene Vieth’s book, Postmodern Times. We learned a lot of new terminology, like “grand narratives” (or “meta-narrative”) and “deconstruction.” Postmodernism challenges the moral assumptions of modernism, treating with suspicion any philosophy that holds to universal truth or norms that apply to all people everywhere. “Postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection toward what it describes as the grand narratives and ideologies associated with modernism, often criticizing Enlightenment rationality and focusing on the role of ideology in maintaining political or economic power.”¹ We aren’t allowed to use our “narrative” (or “our truth”) as a valid statement of authority that anyone else has to obey. Of course, there is much more to it than what I can summarize here.

Confronted with postmodernism, we wondered how to communicate with our new “pomo” generation. How to proclaim the grand narrative of the gospel, when the people of the postmodern era distrusted our narrative as an attempt to overpower them. Those were the days!

Hardly anyone talks about that anymore.

Today, the topic we hear about is “CRT” (Critical Race Theory) and how the teachers unions and leftists are filling the public schools with it. Various recent news items speak of courageous citizens “storming the barricades” as it were, running for public school boards and agitating against this new propaganda that seems intent on “divide and conquer” tactics. They seem to want to get the population at odds with one another, stir up conflict, put down alleged “white supremacy,” and gain power to shape our culture in new and frightening ways.

I’m doing some research myself, off and on, about Critical Race Theory. I think we should understand (a little) about what proponents are saying. Although CRT seems new and trendy, it actually goes back about 100 years to the development of Critical Theory. It shares Critical Theory with postmodernism, so there are links, but, as I understand it, CRT is an advance on earlier postmodern thought. In recent times, the issues of race have infused Critical Theory with new life and now we have Critical Race Theory in its place.

From my admittedly limited reading on the topic, CRT is Marxist ideology transferred from class struggle (the oppressing “haves” vs. the “have-nots”) to the social and racial unrest. Now its proponents pit the oppressive white culture (the “system” in the term “systemic”) against the oppressed minority culture, be it black, Hispanic, Asian, or some other racial minority or, in the case of sexuality, the oppressing “normal” sexuality against the various forms of minority sexual or gender expression. Terms like “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity,” etc., become the vocabulary of the new struggle and weapons to use in overthrowing the dominant and oppressive culture. “Equity,” for example, sounds almost noble, similar to the term “equality,” but the objective isn’t equal treatment of persons but fairness for groups. Fairness for groups means the dominant group must take its turn at the end of the line, apologize for its long history of oppression, and make reparations to the oppressed underclass. That’s why we can’t just not be “racist,” but we have to be “anti-racist.” The Wikipedia article on CRT says, “While critical race theorists do not all share the same beliefs, the basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals.”² Here you see the emphasis on groups over individuals.

That last paragraph is just a very brief and too simplistic summary of CRT and its doctrines.. Volumes are available to read, literally! One article I found helpful was “Critical Race Theory: What It Is and How to Fight It,” published by Hillsdale College in its Imprimis newsletter. The Wikipedia article also provides a decent summary.

You might notice I used the word “doctrines” to describe the teachings of CRT. CRT shares some characteristics with religion. Those who advance it are full of a kind of evangelistic fervor in promoting its ideas. Somehow, they think, if they can overthrow the dominating class, forcing dissent off the public stage, they will achieve a kind of nirvana, a beatific place that transcends all suffering.

One problem we face, in trying to understand movements like this, is the sheer volume of information published about CRT. Countless articles and books address the issues. The task is overwhelming, which often leaves those of us on the outside of the movement a little bewildered and unsure how to start. How can we take it all in? If we do come to understand it, what can we do about it?

First, I don’t think we need to be experts about CRT (or next year’s “philosophy du jour”) to be able to address our world with the gospel. We all should be open to learning, gathering information, grasping what we can, to improve our ability to communicate with our world. Still, our expertise should still be the gospel itself. We need to see how the gospel addresses the pain and suffering that leads people to grasp for the hope CRT is supposed to offer them. Truly, we have something better, and we should be well versed in the gospel most of all.

There is also a place for political activism. Some efforts to counteract CRT in the schools are worthwhile. We should applaud those involved, support where we can, and even get involved ourselves as opportunity arises. In a free society, activist citizens who work to pull our social structure into conformity with Biblical values are a need.

We should also remember that our culture will move on to something else soon enough. One thing that is constant about the world is change. The ideas of culture without God are nihilistic at their core, they cannot satisfy, so the masses will discard them as soon as they discover their emptiness (or their leaders find them no longer useful). That again points us to the need to be well versed in that which is truly unchanging, the hope found in the Word of God. Above all, our restless world needs hope (though it willfully denies the hope of the gospel, even if they see it staring them in their face). The frustrations brought on by our changing culture may open doors to broken hearts when the inevitable disappointment of their idols makes them ready to move on to something else.

One last point that should occupy our attention: communication. When we present the gospel, or when we are having a conversation with our lost friends and acquaintances (which should amount to the same thing, really), we need to grow in our ability to communicate. You’ve heard, I am sure, that we should avoid Christian jargon. To some extent, I agree. There are words we tend to use amongst ourselves that people in our world just don’t understand. The generation we want to reach is one without even rudimentary knowledge of church or Christian lingo. Learning to communicate, however, is more than just dropping jargon.

I’m becoming more and more convinced that the biggest weakness in my own witness is that I tend to “tell the gospel” rather than lead people to the gospel. In the past, I learned various soul-winning presentations. Many of you have also. These are valuable tools, and there is a place for them. The weakness of our presentations, however, is that they are presentations. My presentation involves me telling a story, without much input from the person listening to me. There is a time and place for that, but perhaps we need to devote more time to our gospel witness than trying to get through our presentations. We need to develop gospel conversation skills, drawing out our conversation partner in ways to understand where they are coming from and to discover ways we can apply the gospel story to their needs. When someone expresses their skepticism towards Biblical truth, ask them to explain how they came to that position. Ask them what kind of hope they have that provides a satisfactory alternative. The goal isn’t to stump them, its to draw them out so that they might see for themselves how little sure ground they are standing on.

I am reading a book (by a secular author, I think) on having conversations. The author offers all kinds of practical wisdom on conversing. I can see much application to how to converse with someone about the gospel. I plan to work up a review of this book soon, so I’ll hold off on any recommendations just now. However, my point is this — we need to learn the gospel thoroughly (so presentations help, and of course Bible study), and we need to learn people thoroughly, which involves conversing with them.

Politics have a place, no doubt, but we don’t have time to become political experts. The Lord is coming, and souls are in the balance. We need to grow in our ability to communicate as clearly as possible the truths of the gospel that bring peace and true liberty.

May God bless every effort we spend on this task.

Don Johnson is the pastor of Grace Baptist Church of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.

1. “Postmodernism,” in Wikipedia, Accessed July 4, 2021. [↩]
2. “Critical Race Theory,” in Wikipedia, Accessed July 13, 2021. [↩]