Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Matt Marino
2
Concerning the matters about which you wrote, I couldn’t be more pleased to
hear that you are planting a church in such a racially diverse context! You should be
greatly encouraged, and yet your email makes it sounds as if you are backed into a
corner, as if the current pronouncements over racism in the church are the wave of the
the recent conferences, you may be forgiven for asking, “Which ones?”
The exchanges that Thabiti Anyabwile has had were certainly illuminating,
particularly concerning the use of labels. For instance, “It’s become fashionable for
racism are a topic of discussion.”1 Perhaps “some people” are merely tossing around
labels to shut down debate. It may also be that some have intelligently read the Marxist
perspective and recognize some alarming, common threads. Should this be off limits?
The very definition of racism is up for grabs. As you know I am currently taking
an ethics class. In our main textbook, John Frame defines racism as “hating people
because of their race or color.”2 To me that is uncontroversial. Then again, as John Piper
said in his book on the subject, “the existence of the reality of race itself is disputed.”3
Dr. King provided a helpful contrast in his famous speech: that his children
would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
1
Thabiti Anyabwile,
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/race-racism-pre-date-karl-marx/
2
John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2008), 667.
3
John Piper, B
loodlines (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), 17.
3
What else is racism but the reverse of this ideal? Racism is to judge precisely by the color
of skin rather than by the content of personal character.4 And yet what have we seen in
recent years? We have seen something nearer to racial determinism, as I will argue.
that in fact do not. Should anyone say that racism is hatred and therefore not an idea, I
can only ask whether or not the hateful person has some reason to hate or else no reason.
My point is to show that the person who does not think racism is an idea has robbed
The whole question of defining racism is actually crucial to a meaningful
solution. But in order to show that I would start by remembering some church history,
then begin to look at what Marxist thought has done to our definitions of race, culture,
and “social justice.” Only then will we have a sufficient backdrop to compare how the
biblical worldview would solve these issues. I am convinced that the church is being
pressured to choose a set of Marxist definitions and solutions to racial problems over a
Christian Tradition
Reckoning with “how the church has fallen short” on the matter of race is a bit
Athanasius, Cyril, and Augustine were all Africans. Perhaps they were not all
4
Frame’s discussion of p
rejudice seems to support this definition: cf. T
he Doctrine of the Christian Life, 663.
4
dark-skinned, but neither can their theologies be reduced to “Eurocentrism.” This at
least shows that their Christianity was not “the white man’s religion.”
On the other hand, we Calvinists have to face the fact that newer Evangelical
movements answered the call of fighting bigotry where the older Reformed tradition did
not. There were always exceptions of course. Edwards and Whitefield were weak on
of the influence upon William Wilberforce, the other being the more Calvinistic hymn
writer, John Newton. So there is something of a mixed bag. Moravians led the way
evangelizing blacks.5 Baptists and Methodists picked up the slack throughout the
following century.
Charles Finney echoed the divine judgments of Wesley on racism. It is to our
shame that so many of these socially conscious revival movements departed from
orthodox doctrine. The Pentecostal movement is another case in point. One of their
defining features was the breaking of racial barriers at the highest levels of leadership,
as in the famous case of William J. Seymour at the Azusa Street revival meetings.
The greatest theologian of early southern Presbyterianism, R. L. Dabney, requires
all, then its justice could never be called into question. It was not merely tolerated by
God, as Jesus said divorce was in Matthew 19; but there was that “tribute” of captive
slaves (cf. Num. 31:25-30). Moreover, “heathen slaves were not to go free at the year of
5
Mark Noll, T
he Rise of Evangelicalism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 172-174.
5
servitude.7
Things were different in the northern Presbyterian stronghold of Princeton. In
1911 B. B. Warfield wrote a little known essay entitled “On the Antiquity and Unity of
now call racism. A century after the Civil War, John Murray’s view seems at first
indistinguishable from that of Dabney: “If slavery per se is immorality and, because of its
prevalence, was a rampant vice in the first century, we would be compelled to conclude
that the high ethic of the New Testament would have its issued its proscription. But this
is not what we find.”9 The reader is bound to find this rather anticlimactic.
The Dutch Reformed Church had a main hand in setting up Apartheid in South
death. Yet, for those black Christians this was the God to whom they had to turn for
comfort, for justice, for peace.”10 South Africans increasingly heard that God’s elect
were white and that the world was the inheritance of the Afrikaner. The liberation
theology of Boesak was one that appealed to the Kuyperian notions of all things under
the Lordship of Christ and that “Reformed Christians are called on not to accept the
6
R. L. Dabney, A Defense of Virginia and the South (New York: E. J. Hale & Co., 1867), 111.
7
His overall argument, in the Defense of Virginia and the South, was twofold: 1. Slavery is not wrong under
certain biblical circumstances; 2. the South in general, and Virginia especially, had done more for the
eventual end of slavery and that the North had upheld it for its own wealth, undermining those efforts. As
the book progresses, however, the dominant note becomes a biblical rationalization for slavery.
8
B. B. Warfield, “On the Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race,” Princeton Theological Review: Vol. IX.
1-25
9
John Murray, P rinciples of Conduct (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 1957), 94.
10
Allan Boesak, B lack and Reformed (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1984), 83-84
6
sinful realities of the world. Rather we are called to challenge, to shape, to subvert, and
sociology. For Marx, the old social orders were props. Family, property, law, religion,
and morality12 were all creations of the class in power to keep the lower classes content
of people defined by material attributes. Now how does this relate to the matter of race?
rather than by the content of personal character.” Racial determinism is a species of
to personal action. As a scientific model it would predict that if one belongs to x racial
group, then any number of thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors13 follow along those
11
Boesak, Black and Reformed, 90.
12
Frame puts it in this way: “But it is important to keep in mind that Marx is a thoroughgoing
subjectivist. He thinks that ethical standards are relative to one’s class. In his view, ethical systems are
tools of political movements, aiming to promote the interest of one class against another” - D octrine of the
Christian Life, 77.
13
This parallels Frame’s point that only “persons, acts, and attitudes” can be called “ethically good, bad,
right, or wrong” - cf. The Doctrine of the Christian Life, 11. This is not to deny that individuals can be guilty
of “group sins.” For example, bank robbery is a collective sin that an individual can be guilty of as part of a
group. But notice that when the crime of accessory to theft is sentenced, it is delivered precisely to each
individual. So, yes, an individual can indeed repent for a group sin, but he cannot do even that as anything
other than an individual. Indeed his guilt lies very often in thinking with the herd and justifying his
wickedness on those collectivist grounds. The Marxist conception intentionally transfers blame from
individual hearts to external social structures.
7
Three terms need to be understood to see how Marxist deconstruction takes us to
the present moment. Critical race theory began in American law schools in the 1980s,
but its foundations are older because it assumes the Marxist conception of class and
power. Oppressed groups may hate and even be guilty of prejudice, but, strictly
speaking, they cannot be “racist.” The formula is simple: Race + Power = Racism,
originally, “prejudice plus institutional power.”14 Whereas racism used to mean an idea
of superiority-inferiority based on race, now racism became the exercise of power by the
propertied class. Only such a power-over-class can be racist. In Marxism, the idea of
“power” is always equivalent to oppression.15 Individuals responding to morality is not
‘White privilege’ is not merely a label for a historical phenomenon. A classic
example is suspicion for shoplifting. Blacks are often suspect; whites have no such
anxiety. Any honest student of history would recognize that whites have had access to
countless similar advantages in Western societies throughout the modern era. Seldom
would one hear this term outside of an obscure academic discussion if this was the sole
label. Instead it is used as a card in a game of identity politics. It projects a guilty
“power over” status, so that to “have” white privilege is to be discredited in any
14
cf. P
atricia Bidol, D
eveloping New Perspectives on Race (Detroit: New Perspectives on Race, 1972).
15
Wayne Grudem identifies this “power-over” language throughout a few of Greg Boyd’s writings. It may
be the authors like Boyd and Jim Wallis have been preparing Evangelicals for such categories for a few
decades now - cf. Grudem, Politics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 40-44.
8
by Columbia University law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw. Group attributes such as
race, sex, class, and sexual orientation all converge as an aggregate, one might say
crassly, as “points” to be tallied on a spectrum of most to least oppressed. Members of
victimized groups arrive at an “intersection with other forms of subordination,”16 and
discussion or hiring practice, if the person or group with most of these “oppression
Consider a document from a recent social justice initiative which says: “Racialized
outcomes do not require racist actors. Focusing on individual instances of racism can
have the effect of diverting our attention from the structural changes that are required
in order to achieve racial justice.”17 Pay careful attention to this point. On the surface,
this creates a dilemma for repentance. How else can a white man repent but as an
individual for specific instances of racism? But now we are informed that “focusing on
individual instances of racism” is unhelpful. If the traditional concepts of repentance
are brought in as a response, attention is directed back toward a vague notion of
structural complicity. But what is meant by “structural changes” to begin with? When
we probe for an answer, we find that these are either institutional or economic. In short,
16
Yoso, Cultural Capital and Critical Race Theory, 73.
17
https://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/race_power_policy_workbook.pdf
9
This is why specific sins are rarely enumerated. If particular crimes of racism
could be repented for, then the individual party is “off the hook,” so to speak.
Interestingly, one concrete sin has been mentioned: namely, the assassination of Dr.
King. No one is suggesting an elaborate conspiracy with James Earl Ray or the KKK or
FBI or whatever. Rather the wider sin is our parents and grandparents being “complicit”
in the hate that led to it. Broad statements like “I’m saying the entire society killed Dr.
King” are made, characterizing that society by white supremacy. The next moment, a
1950s and 60s—especially those who weren’t even alive. But I do need all of us to
suspect that sin isn’t done working its way through society.”18 What Reformed Christian
would disagree with that latter statement? If any white Christian replied, “But my
parents had not yet immigrated to this country” or “But my parents marched in the Civil
Do you not see that repentance on such terms is impossible? That is because
atonement is not even possible. We cannot make the stains of slavery or segregation go
away, nor resurrect ancestors for a fair trial. No one should understand this better than
the Reformed theologian. Atonement is particular or it is no atonement at all.
trial for, what do we make of a prosecutor who can only deconstruct his question as
18
Thabiti Anyabwile,
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/await-repentance-assassinating-dr-king/
10
Who gets to decide to what extent we must “disassociate” ourselves from the theology
of the past? One academic remarks, “If we have been gagged and disempowered by
theories, we can also be loosened and empowered by theories.”19 Worldviews, or
“theories,” were a structure that the power class exerted over others. One overall
the whole Puritan tradition could be lined up against the wall and white-shamed? And
Another crucial aim of deconstruction is to equate race to culture without
remainder: If skin color x, then line-of-reasoning x. In a Christian worldview there is
that the races evolved in one line so as to disentangle Darwin’s theory from racist
theories.20 Thomas Sowell comments that, “Race is one of the ways of collectivizing
Now is culture tied to race or ethnicity? Certainly, but that is only the natural
consequence of proximity and mimicry. People stick with people like themselves, and
most do not analyze their worldview. The consequence of those two perfectly natural
19
Yosso, “Whose Culture Has Capital?” 70.
20
cf. Ken Ham and A. Charles Ware, D arwin’s Plantation. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2007
21
Sowell, Race and Culture, xiii
11
phenomena is that racial groups do tend to “have a culture,” or a set of norms. But
Piper mercifully states the obvious, “that there is more than one black
to charge a black man who deviates from socialism for being “less black.” That is why
the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court was not hailed as black
advancement, and why Voddie Baucham was not invited to any of these recent
culture.” If too many people find out about “blacks like them,” then the Marxist use of
Now if it is structural change that is required, we have more definitional
mischief: inequalities equal injustice. Sowell remarked that, “Equality, like justice, is one
of the most fateful - and undefined - words of our times … The abstract desirability of
equality, like the abstract desire of immortality, is beside the point when choosing
which practical course of action to follow. What matters is what we are prepared to do,
John Murray wrote that, “Equality is not a fact of God’s providence … Unequal
with which he has endowed us.”24 Why should the natural abilities and proven merit of
individuals not be chief controlling factors in hiring, promotion, and investment?
22
Piper, B
loodlines, 62.
23
Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, 51.
24
Murray, Principles of Conduct, 92.
12
Additional presuppositions lurk behind our most cherished utilitarian notions.25 Is
social leveling more beneficial to persons than, say, reward for hard work and
simply assumed.
It is undeniable that equality of opportunity, as the principle behind Brown v. the
Board of Education (1954), at some point became equality of outcomes by the 1980s. In
between those two times emerged the program of Affirmative Action and the larger
political-economic settlement called The Great Society. Note that the language of the
1964 Civil Rights Act speaks of rights “without discrimination or segregation on the
ground of race, color, religion, or national origin,” whereas the newer demands are
precisely with discrimination on these grounds. Moreover it has been persuasively
Sowell has coined the term “cosmic justice” to refer to what is being called
traditional justice, it is a fundamentally different concept.”27 It is egalitarian in
orientation. It assumes “that some segments of society, through no fault of their own,
lack things which others receive as windfall gains, through no virtue of their own.”28
Borrowing from John Rawls’ notion of positive justice where “undeserved inequalities
25
To value the “needs of the many over the needs of the few, or the one” (as Mr. Spock’s utilitarianism had
it) presupposes what those needs are. Socialism asserts those needs as essentially material and egalitarian.
26
Citing a study by UCLA law professor Richard Sander, Wayne Grudem explains that, “there are actually
fewer black attorneys today than there otherwise would have been. This is because (1) affirmative action
policies allow more black students to enter law school than would have entered based on grades and test
scores alone; (2) those additional students have lower academic skills than the rest of their law school
classmates and do not do as well in their studies; and then (3) they subsequently fail bar exams at a higher
rate after graduation. The final result is that (4) fewer of them become lawyers” - Politics, 522.
27
Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, 8.
28
Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, 13
13
call for redress,”29 the traditional Western notion of negative justice30 is reduced to a
defense of the status quo.31 On the contrary, “social justice” maintains that there is no
This explains the misleading way that models of “social problems” are
juxtaposed. It is said that liberals tend to lay the blame at structural injustices, while
warring sociologies: structuralism and voluntarism. The truth is that this dichotomy
often assumes a Marxist definition of social justice up front. The comparison begins
with the assumption that if one focuses on the collective as the solution, one is
one is concerned with “private morality.” But why should we accept these terms?
This ignores the possibility that mass societal structures are often socialist
structures. They were designed to solve social ills by transferring wealth away from
private institutions to the public sector. In other words, it is taken for granted in these
debates that “structures” equal the private institutions upheld by the bourgeoisie, yet the
actual structures that have been running the lives of minority communities for three
29
Rawls quoted in Sowell, T he Quest for Cosmic Justice, 12
30
cf. Frederic Bastiat, The Law (New York: The Foundation for Economic Education, 1994), 24, 28-29.
31
It should be pointed out that Tim Keller labored to show this same more expansive view of positive
justice, from the Hebrew words and from Old Testament law, in his book A Generous Justice (New York:
Riverhead Books, 2012).
14
the existential and situational perspectives together.32 If we examine the data from the
decades following Emancipation to the turn of the millennium, we find indicators such
as intact marriages rates,33 employment rates,34 median income, and percentage of
population over the poverty line35 all rising for blacks in direct proportion to minimal
government interference. Why is it not assumed that advocates of capitalism are for
“racial justice” and proponents of socialism “racists,” if the data shows that liberty has
First, there is one original race: “And he made from one man every nation of
sin, proliferating the curse in diverse ways and at diverse rates: “because [at Babel] the
curse of Ham,” but we deal seriously with the truth of Exodus 20:5, “that God visits the
32
On Frame’s model, Marxism belongs to the existential perspective and utilitarianism to the situational.
However, care for empirical results per se need not be reduced to utilitarian ethics. The errors of
utilitarianism have more to do with uncritically accepted goals than with measuring the sincerity of one’s
goals by proven results - cf. Frame, D octrine of the Christian Life, 96-99
33
Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, 16.
34
Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, 17.
35
Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed, 12, 13.
36
Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life, 650.
15
Nations have been multiplying all kinds of inequalities from the beginning,
mostly unplanned by human device. On the other hand, with those variegated
differences come racial sins. And no division could be so abused than a divinely
sanctioned ethnic barrier. However even in the call for Israel to be separate, there was
in the law of Moses an latent care for all of humanity. It was a sign of redemption, as in
Deuteronomy 10:17-19. God was going to demand that his people treat outsiders with
counterpart is: “God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and
From Peter’s vision - “What God has made clean, do not call common” (Acts
10:15) - to Paul’s letters, “There is neither Jew nor Greek … for you are all one in Christ
Jesus” (Gal. 3:28), there is a gospel logic that makes racism an enemy of God. It had been
good news from the beginning that the promise to Abraham would bless the nations
book condemned him. The gospel demands restoration of the whole image of God.
Consequently, “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who
does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1
Jn. 4:20). This speaks specifically of the “brother,” though other passages extend to
“your neighbor” (Mk. 12:31) and even “your enemies” (Lk. 6:27). The gospel makes a
Ethnic diversity was prized in the church, not least because of the division of
baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of
one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13). Philip did not hesitate to baptize the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts
8:30-38). And the maxim that “there is no distinction” (Acts 15:9, Rom. 10:12) was not
isolated to the Judaizer controversy. The principle applies to all ethnicities.37 It is
customary to focus on texts like Paul’s letter to Philemon: often highlighted as
approach might also look at “big picture” texts that situate the work of Christ in the
Consider three New Testament texts: Ephesians 2:11-18, Acts 2:1-36, and
Revelation 5:9. Cumulatively, these give a doctrinal basis that disintegrate racist
attitudes from emerging in the Christian. Our view moves from the work of Christ, to
the work of the Spirit, to the worship and communion of the eternal state. Said in
another way, these three texts reveal how God 1. severed the fundamental root of racial
tension, 2. reversed the curse of racial segregation, and 3. made racial integration
eternally grounded in a vision of ultimate worship. A greater to lesser argument can be
have said that if Christ can tear down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles, he can also
37
Jesus’ statement in Matthew 8:11-12 implies a welcome of all of the world’s other races to participate in
the event that was used in the ancient world to signify intimate fellowship: a meal. It was to “recline at
table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” They will have the best seats, the places of honor, where “the last
will be first, and the first last” (Mat. 20:16).
38
Benjamin Gladd draws this out in his chapter on ‘Philemon’ in Michael Kruger, ed. A
Biblical-Theological Introduction to the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016); 401-409. Citing the
exposition of Colossians 3 by Douglas Moo, Gladd suggests that even in the passages where Paul instructs
masters and slaves on reciprocal duties (thus, for many, enabling the furtherance of slavery), he is actually
tacitly undermining the institution by “relativizing the status of the slave’s master” (403).
17
break down any lesser barrier.”39 Some may be inclined to argue that the barrier
All of this would seem to suggest that you have an enormous opportunity in
planting such a church. What kind of a church? One that is proactively diverse to be
sure, but not one that allows that diversity to be politicized. Balance is required here to
avoid false guilt, as well as some other “inconveniences” that those proposing a
genuinely racial worldview do not typically address. Many reasons for “the most
segregated hour of the week”41 are benign and consequences for equitable integration
unthinkable.42 Consequently we should pursue the maximum of ethnic diversity that is
pursue congregational ethnic diversity by the principle of egalitarianism as if it were the
ultimate value.43
39
Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life, 653.
40
Colossians 1:20 expands the same point as Ephesians 2:14 from Jew-Gentile reconciliation to the
reconciliation of all things. “All things” would certainly include black-white reconciliation.
41
cf. Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life, 673.
42
If all churches were immediately racially integrated, with equitable distribution of population numbers,
that would mean that all black churches would instantly be absorbed, as fewer than 20% would now be
submitted to majority white congregations and thus majority white church polities, and so on down the
line with the doctrinal statements, worship services, and other related practices. Is that really what most
people are asking for? No, that is simply an example of unintended consequences that emerge when we
attempt to make a subordinate value an ultimate value.
43
The thoughts of G. K. Beale are instructive, as he was writing on the new creational implications for the
doctrine of reconciliation: “The goal of the church is not primarily to identify within herself many ethnic
diversities. That would be to return to the old, sinful world’s way of recognizing things. Rather, the true
church seeks to evangelize many ethnic diversities outside of itself, so that they all may identify with the
one Christ and find the peace of the new creation in theological unity … The New Testament doctrine of
‘affirmative action’ is to affirm all the diversity of redeemed humanity as one in Christ’” - “The
18
different in this sense? Piper addresses three false ways to deal with racist guilt: “Denial
drives it below the surface where it creates endless illusions and self-justifications.
Wallowing in it produces phony humility and obsequiousness and cowardice. Exploiting
gospel must drive to the heart of the specific guilts involved. Sin is specific. Atonement
is particular. Forgiveness can be no less. “Social justice,” as an extension of the gospel,
can contradict the heart of the gospel. Justice is what we do not receive from God, and
moreover the “social justice” being demanded would be given (transferred) apart from
merit. But in biblical soteriology we call that grace. So grace is being called “justice” in
now. It was the opening session of Together for the Gospel. It was Thabiti who spoke,
and the subject was race. It was a magnificent biblical message. He talked about the
oneness in Adam’s sin and the oneness in Christ’s righteous act. Two bloodlines; one
unites us and puts even this hateful evil to rest. But you know in your heart that this is
There is a charitable way that we can still interpret these critical voices. Often we
have a clear case of “Who is he arguing against?” There is a pithy condemnation that,
Eschatological Conception of New Testament Theology,” in Kent E. Brower & Mark W. Elliot, ed.
Eschatology in Bible and Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 35.
44
Piper, B
loodlines, 89.
19
we suppose, no one would ever disagree with, but it is said with the utmost righteous
indignation. But it is always possible that there is a concrete somebody that he “is
arguing against.” We need to be open to that possibility. On the other hand, we must
beg these voices stirring up so much about race to extend the grace of specificity. Jesus
intentions.” And we are within our rights as pastors to steer our own impressionable
sheep away from “social gospels” that are radical forms of political unrest.45
The final words of the introduction to Piper’s book on race also go unheeded:
“But we will do well not to speak in too many broad generalizations when dealing with
race. Better to anchor our thoughts to the real world. And in the real world, people are
one thing, and not another. They may be complex, but they are not generalities. They
45
Frame adds another reason for this pastoral duty: “When idealistic young people are attracted to
Marxism for ethical reasons, it is pastorally important to remind them that ethics is ultimately negotiable
for a Marxist” - The Doctrine of the Christian Life, 78.
46
Piper, B
loodlines, 28.
20
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bastiat, Frederic. T
he Law. New York: The Foundation for Economic Education, 1994
Beale, G. K. “The Eschatological Conception of New Testament Theology.” Kent E.
Brower & Mark W. Elliot, ed. Eschatology in Bible and Theology. Downers Grove, IL:
Boesak, Allan. Black and Reformed: Apartheid, Liberation and the Calvinist Tradition.
Carrette, Jeremy & Mary Keller. “Religions, Orientation and Critical Theory: Race,
Gender and Sexuality at the 1998 Lambeth Conference.” Theology and Sexuality; 6 / 11
Dabney, Robert L. A
Defense of Virginia and the South. New York: E. J. Hale & Co., 1867
Finkelman, Paul. Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson. New
Frame, John. The Doctrine of the Christian Life. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian &
Grudem, Wayne. P
olitics: According to the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010
in Critical Race Theory and their Implication for the Study of Religion and Ethics.”
Noll, Mark. T
he Rise of Evangelicalism. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003
Piper, John. Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011
Sowell, Thomas. Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? New York: Quill, 1984
Sowell, Thomas. Race and Culture. New York: Basic Books, 1994
Sowell, Thomas. The Vision of the Anointed. New York: Basic Books, 1995
Sowell, Thomas. The Quest for Cosmic Justice. New York: The Free Press, 1999
Wood, Forrest G. The Arrogance of Faith: Christianity & Race in America from the Colonial
Yoso, Tara J. “Whose Culture Has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of