It’s a curious phenomenon that racists rarely see their own racism—the plank in their own eyes. That was true during the long, torturous days of slavery. It was true during the long torturous days of Jim Crow laws. It was true during the Civil Rights Movement. And it’s true now. No, it’s not conservatives who are spreading racism while remaining blithely blind to it. It’s Ta-Nehisi Coates, Robin DiAngelo, Nikole Hannah-Jones, and BLM who are spreading racism like manure throughout our cultural system. And it’s racist Ibram X. Kendi who sees himself as “anti-racist” and wrote,

The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.

And like racists of yore, they profit handsomely from their efforts to encourage Americans to judge people by the color of their skin.

Leftist change-agents posing as “diversity educators” have captured the wills of corporate executives. Now Big Business is in the business of not only selling goods and services but also in repackaging racism as “antiracism” and browbeating employees into pretending they believe it.

Prior to capturing the wills of corporate execs—not known for their familiarity with or investment in arcane academic theories or for steely-spined moral integrity—leftist change-agents in sullied ivory towers captured the wills of teachers and administrators—not known for independent or “critical” thinking, or for commitments to diversity, inclusivity, or tolerance. In my experience, will-capturing of yellow-bellied teachers and administrators is an almost effortless task. All it takes is a bit of name-calling topped by a dollop of mockery, and the spineless among us bend like paper straws dipped in a Big Gulp.

Now states are requiring ongoing critical race theory (CRT) indoctrination for staff and faculty. Schools are forcing white students to engage in exercises designed to make them feel shame for their skin color (goodbye self-esteem movement).  And schools are racially segregating students in what are euphemistically called “affinity” groups. “Separate but equal” has returned with a vengeance thanks to vengefully regressive “progressives.”

That probably explains why administrators and faculty said next to nothing when the increasingly woke, decreasingly conservative evangelical Wheaton College held a racially segregated pre-graduation ceremony for colorful people on May 8, 2021, which was advertised as “RACIALIZED MINORITY RECOGNITION CEREMONY” (all caps in original) and held in the campus chapel. While it was created “Especially for undergraduate students, staff, and faculty of color,” the school provided “limited seating” for colorless people. I wonder if those seats were way in the back.

One Wheaton faculty member who likely loves Wheaton’s embrace of re-segregation is associate professor of philosophy and critical race theorist Nathan Cartagena who was recently interviewed for leftist Christian Jim Wallis’ Sojourners’ magazine. In this interview, Cartagena explained how he sussed out Wheaton’s friendliness to CRT by delivering a visiting lecture on controversial critical race theorist Tommy Curry during the interview process:

I wanted to see: Is this a place that would welcome such reflection? I received a warm welcome from the students, my department, etc., so I thought “OK, this is a place where I can do this.”

And by “do this,” Cartagena meant, not expose students to the debate on CRT, but to promote CRT:

I taught a reading group my first year at Wheaton that involved one of the important texts in the critical race theory movement, Faces at the Bottom of the Well by Derrick Bell. The following year I asked if I could teach a half-semester class on critical race theory—I got a full thumbs up.

Derrick Bell is another controversial figure in the critical race theory movement “whose writings on ‘critical race theory,’” conservative African American economist Thomas Sowell explains “promoted an extremist hostility to white people.”

Sowell described the academic transformation of Bell, attributing it largely to his scholarly inadequacy at Harvard:

As a full professor at Harvard Law, Derrick Bell was … surrounded by colleagues who were out of his league as academic scholars. What were his options at this point?

If he played it straight, he could not expect to command the respect of either the faculty or the students — or, more important, his own self-respect. …

Derrick Bell’s options were to be a nobody, living in the shadow of more accomplished legal scholars — or to go off on some wild tangent of his own, and appeal to a radical racial constituency on campus and beyond.

His writings showed clearly that the latter was the path he chose. His previous writings had been those of a sensible man saying sensible things about civil-rights issues that he understood from his years of experience as an attorney. But now he wrote all sorts of incoherent speculations and pronouncements, the main drift of which was that white people were the cause of black people’s problems.

Cartagena openly admits the cunning way he gets his students to accept CRT:

When I was first teaching on CRT, I was very explicit about when something was a CRT essay or quote. Now, one of the things I do is I present CRT literature without telling students that it’s CRT literature. Then I ask them what they think about it. The overwhelming response from the students is: “Wow, this essay is so rigorously researched, so clear, and so well-argued. Even if I don’t agree with every claim, I learned so much,” etc. Then, after they’ve sung a little praise song, [laughs] I tell them they’ve read a piece by a critical race theorist. You can see a look of disillusionment set in — this part gets really hard, if I’m honest. On the one hand, it’s a healthy destabilization. You’ve gotta remember that a lot of my students are racialized white folks. If they’re not now going to say that everything they just said was false, how do they reckon with believing there are things to learn from critical race theorists while knowing that the stakes, in some of these communities they’ve been a part of, are so high that to say such is to find themselves ostracized?

While this tactic appears to be a means to enable students to approach ideas objectively, with a mind decluttered and “decolonized” by the detritus of white privilege and systemic racism, educators know it’s a tactic that can be used to propagandize. Presenting students with an interpretive lens beclouded by jargon, ambiguous language, assumptions, and subtexts with which students have no familiarity doesn’t educate; it indoctrinates.

At least as offensive is Cartagena’s evident pleasure in “destabilizing” his students and emotionally manipulating them by manufacturing cognitive dissonance.

Enquiring donors and parents considering sending their children to Wheaton may want to know if Cartagena spends equal time having students study any of the many works of criticism of CRT like Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everyone or Voddie Baucham’s book Fault Lines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism’s Looming Catastrophe.

Anthony Esolen, professor and writer-in-residence at Magdalen College of the Liberal Arts, senior editor at Touchstone Magazine, and contributing editor at Crisis Magazine, opposes the teaching of CRT in schools:

The problem is that the schools shouldn’t be teaching any “theory” of human behavior at all, for two principal reasons. First, the students do not have anything close to the learning or the broad human experiences that would serve as evidence for checking the theory. For the same reason why it is pointless, and perhaps destructive, to teach literary theory to young people who have hardly begun to read literature at all, because they have no evidence or experience from which to judge the theory, and they will instead be prone to force what literature they do encounter to fit the predeterminations of the theory, so it is pointless, and probably destructive, to teach some theory of human behavior to children who need first to have the experiences, personal or vicarious, that the theory purports to explain.

But the second reason … is more grave. It is that human behavior does not admit of that kind of theory at all. I am not talking here about moral philosophy, or about anthropological observations, or about history and its more or less reliable guidelines. All “theories” of human behavior are necessarily ideological and reductive: whether it’s from Skinner or Marx, it doesn’t matter. The simplest things we do in a given day are steeped in so many motives, passions, thoughts, physical exigencies, and moral commitments, we dare not simply paste a label on them to explain them away and have done with them.

There are glimmers of hope that Americans on both the right and left may be approaching their limits with the racist “antiracism” movement. Virtually everyone on the right and increasing numbers of people on the left are fed up with the ubiquitous manifestations of critical race theory. Americans see CRT is corrosive and divisive. They see CRT is being used to control discourse. And they see that “progressives” are passing CRT off as inarguable, objective truth. “Progressives,” in control of most of the levers of power and influence, feel no obligation to debate CRT’s arguable assumptions. Nor will they acknowledge that CRT is arguable as they use hard-earned tax dollars to promulgate it in government schools. And hoo boy, are they promulgating.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/CRT-at-Wheaton-College.mp3

Join us in Collinsville on Saturday, May 22nd for an IFI Worldview Conference about CRT!

I received two thoughtful messages in response to an article I wrote about heresies related to homosexuality making inroads into churches. The men who wrote were concerned that the list of denominations I included could be misinterpreted as suggesting that the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) has adopted the unbiblical positions of the Presbyterian Church of the United States (PCUSA). Their concerns are justifiable, and I would like to offer both an apology and a clarification.

My intention was neither to criticize the PCA—a denomination which I deeply respect and appreciate—nor to mislead readers about the PCA’s positions on sexual morality and marriage. My goal was to warn readers that attacks on orthodoxy are coming to every denomination—including even the steadfastly orthodox.

I thought this statement made clear that I wasn’t accusing all the denominations mentioned of abandoning orthodoxy:

[S]ubversive heresies are dividing Protestant denominations, including the Episcopal, PCUSA, PCA, United Methodist, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and Evangelical Covenant denominations. In some cases, while the denomination still affirms orthodox theological positions, particular pastors ordained by these denominations have abandoned them…. 

Evidently I was wrong about clarity, and I want to humbly apologize for my carelessness.

I should have created two different lists: one that included denominations that have already embraced heresy and one that included denominations that remain orthodox but have experienced challenges from within to orthodoxy. In the latter category, I would place the PCA, Evangelical Covenant Church, and the Southern Baptist Convention.

Both the PCA and the Southern Baptist Convention have responded properly to these challenges. The PCA’s challenge came from former PCA pastor Fred Harrell who several years ago rejected the PCA position on women’s ordination, foreshadowing perhaps his more recent theological mischief. Because the PCA steadfastly maintains its biblical view regarding women’s ordination, it allowed Pastor Harrell’s church to leave the PCA and affiliate with the liberal RCA. More recently, Harrell announced the decision of his church to permit homosexual practice within homosexual faux-marriages.

Last year, then-Southern Baptist pastor Danny Cortez announced his rejection of orthodox views of homosexuality. He sought to remain affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, proposing a “third way,” which would allow members the freedom to embrace heresy. Wisely the governing board rejected such a proposal and voted against this church’s continued membership in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Another worrisome signal of potential challenges to PCA orthodoxy include the decision of a PCA-affiliated club to remain a Vanderbilt University-sanctioned student organization following the edict by Vanderbilt that no clubs may discriminate in membership or leadership based on “sexual orientation.” The vast majority of Christian ministries at Vanderbilt refused to sign the “anti-discrimination” agreement. The PCA-affiliated group was one of the two that did sign it.

Moreover, in the a September, 2014 issue of the PCA magazine, byFaith, Tim Geiger, executive director of Harvest USA, a ministry that works with “sexually broken people,” shared that “roughly 70 percent of young people in the PCA (under age 30) don’t have a biblical view of homosexuality.” Harvest’s founder and president John Freeman explained that “their sociology now interprets and defines their theology about homosexuality rather than the other way around.” This theological problem among so many millennials–and not just among PCA millennials–will necessarily result in challenges to orthodoxy.

The Evangelical Covenant Church seems to have a more troubling relationship with heresy. More than one pastor and at least one professor at North Park Theological Seminary embrace heresy on matters related to homosexuality, though many Covenant Church members have no knowledge of the division these leaders are fomenting.

Professor of Theology and Ethics at North Park College Seminary, Michelle Clifton-Soderstrom, advocates for the embrace of heresy in liberal Jim Wallis’ religion journal, Sojourners. Her articles are titled “In Over My Head: Freedom and LGBT Inclusion” and “In Over My Heart: Friendship and the LGBT Church.”

Clifton-Soderstrom’s ambiguous, oblique, heartstring-yanking rhetoric masks some deeply flawed arguments that are contributing to the dissension building within the Evangelical Covenant Church. This dissension remains concealed from many Covenant Church members but is evident at annual leadership conventions. There are now pastors who align theologically with Clifton-Soderstrom but are not sharing their revolutionary doctrinal evolution with their congregations.

Just two weeks ago, Clifton-Soderstrom spoke on “Faithful Dissent” at a conference sponsored by the pernicious Reformation Project founded by Matthew Vines, author of God and the Gay Christian. Here is the stated mission of the Reformation Project:

The Reformation Project exists to train Christians to support and affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Through building a deep grassroots movement, we strive to create an environment in which Christian leaders will have the freedom to take the next steps toward affirming and including LGBT people in all aspects of church life.

The keynote speaker was Dr. David Gushee, an Evangelical ethicist who created a teeny tiny splash last year after he fell into the rainbow-hued pool in which so many Americans are drowning. He had leaned leftward for so long, he could no longer hold himself upright. Kersplash he went.

Concerns about attacks on orthodoxy extend even to Evangelical bulwarks like Wheaton College (full disclosure, two of my children and their spouses graduated from Wheaton.) One Wheaton is a group of homosexual alumni and students who seek to undermine theological orthodoxy at Wheaton College. Yes, it’s a small group, but so too was the group of homosexual agitators who started the riots at Stonewall in 1969, and look at the harm they’ve wrought. A few foolish but impassioned subversives can grow in number and influence, leaving destruction and suffering in their wake.

Attacks on orthodoxy start in contexts that most church members rarely encounter or even hear about. The signs are first found at the fringes of culture or within our ivory towers. So, here are some tips to help you track the rise of heresy:

• Find and read articles written by theologians.

• Pay attention to the Fred Harrell/Danny Cortez stories.

• Ask your pastors if any debates or controversies are bubbling up in their assemblies, conventions, and conferences.

• Take note of shifts in rhetoric, including the use of “progressive” diction or arguments in favor of using only language that tickles the ears of secularists.

• Think critically about the embrace of the term “gay celibate Christian,” which both recent Wheaton College Ministry Associate for Pastoral Care Julie Rodgers and well-respected conservative theologian Wesley Hill use to identify themselves.

• Talk to others about whether this statement by Wheaton ministry associate Rodgers is theologically problematic: A “gay orientation” is “merely an expression of diversity, a unique way of experiencing art and beauty and community.”

• Ask your pastors and other church leaders direct questions about their theological beliefs.

Again, my sincere apologies to faithful, courageous, and wise leaders and members of the PCA for any confusion or offense I caused.

Please support IFI!

Rev. Wallis, you told us in 2008 that “the sacrament of marriage” should not be changed and that “marriage is all through the Bible, and it’s not gender-neutral.” Now, in 2013, you want to redefine marriage and make it gender-neutral. In doing so, you have betrayed the Word of God and the people of God.

To be candid, sir, I’m not surprised by your theological flip-flop—just pained and distressed by it, since your name is still associated with evangelical Christianity in America and you are a prominent church leader.

In the past, you raised some valid criticisms about the “religious right” and its deep solidarity with the Republican Party, but then you joined yourself to the religious left and the Democratic Party, even campaigning for Democratic candidates. So much for taking a kingdom-of-God position that transcends partisan politics and challenges the political establishment.

To be sure, you have rightly challenged us to consider the poor and the oppressed, pointing to the hundreds of Scriptures that call us to “social justice.” But then you have turned around and applauded Communist dictatorships that championed oppression and tyranny.

When it comes to Christian integrity, you disappointed us when you received funding from pro-abortion, pro-atheism billionaire George Soros and when you allowed the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the world’s largest gay activist organization, to take out paid advertising in your Sojourners magazine, even though the HRC would love to silence all religious opposition to homosexual practice.

It is true that in 2008, you expressed having “mixed feelings” about the HRC ads, stating that you “probably wouldn’t do it again.” But today, the HRC celebrates your defection from biblical values, announcing in headline news, “Leading Evangelical Christian Voice Announces Support For Marriage Equality.”

Rev. Wallis, you have brought reproach to the name of Jesus, to the Word of God and to evangelical Christianity.

You raised concerns for many of us when you argued in 2008 that justice requires Christians to support (and even bless) same-sex unions, but you also stated clearly in 2008, “I don’t think the sacrament of marriage should be changed. Some people say that Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality, and that’s technically true. But marriage is all through the Bible, and it’s not gender-neutral.”

Now you have declared your support for the radical redefinition of marriage, explaining, “I think we have to talk about, now, how to include same-sex couples in that deeper understanding of marriage. I want a deeper commitment to marriage that is more and more inclusive, and that’s where I think the country is going.”

How can you say this as a student of the Word and a professing disciple of Jesus?

I’m sure you have met devoted gay couples that love each other and love the kids they are raising. I’m sure you have also met devoted “gay Christians” who have told you about the rejection and pain they have experienced at the hands of the church. And I’m sure you are concerned about the institution of marriage.

But you don’t strengthen marriage by making it genderless, by replacing bride and groom with “Partner A and Partner B” (or, worse still, by adding formulas like, “I now pronounce you husband and husband or bride and bride”).

However sincere you might be, you are calling for changes that will ultimately result in removing the categories of mother and father from birth certificates, to be replaced instead with “Progenitor A and Progenitor B” (as is the case in Spain, where same-sex “marriage” is accepted under the law of the land).

Rev. Wallis, you don’t strengthen marriage by removing its foundational components—as emphasized by Jesus Himself in Matthew 19—namely, one man and one woman coming together in sacred, lifelong union. Instead, by advocating for the radical redefinition of marriage, you align yourself with the many groups in America who want to marginalize, ostracize and even criminalize religious opposition to same-sex “marriage.” What has become of your Christian conscience?

You even state that you want to make marriage “more and more inclusive,” which by extension means the support of polygamous marriage and polyamorous marriage and more, as the MarriageEquality blog states, “Advocating for the right of consenting adults to share and enjoy love, sex, residence and marriage without limits on the gender, number or relation of participants.” Have you really considered the implications of your words?

Worst of all, you have reversed your earlier position on what the Bible clearly says about marriage based largely on where “the country is going.”

What? Jim Wallis, the critic of the religious establishment; Jim Wallis, the counter-cultural revolutionary; Jim Wallis, the advocate of a Jesus who changes the world rather than conforms to it. You, sir, are now willing to redefine one of the most foundational and sacred human institutions, the institution of marriage, based on where the country is going? Isn’t that the path to spiritual and moral suicide?

You of all people should know that as followers of Jesus, we are called to swim against the conformist, worldly tide of the age, calling society back to the timeless ways of God, especially when society forsakes the Word of God and the God of the Word. Yet you have now joined in the apostasy, choosing to go with the populist flow—one that is becoming more anti-faith by the day—rather than having the courage and integrity to stand your ground.

Rev. Wallis, your best years of ministry could still be ahead, but you will need to humble yourself and repent. I am praying that you do.

Originally posted at:  http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/39106-jim-wallis-you-have-betrayed-the-word-of-god-and-the-people-of-god