In his sermon, Robert Bosley discusses the biblical principle of impartiality as presented in James chapter two, contrasting it with the principles underpinning the modern social justice movement, particularly critical race theory and intersectionality. He argues that the social justice movement misdefines justice as equity (equality of outcomes) rather than equality (equal opportunity and treatment under the law), which he sees as contradictory to biblical teachings. Bosley explains standpoint epistemology, a concept where individuals determine truth based on their personal experiences, as a subjective and postmodern form of knowledge opposing biblical standards of truth. He describes critical race theory as a worldview rooted in Marxist ideology that views societal systems as inherently oppressive, necessitating their overthrow to achieve equity. According to Bosley, this worldview promotes partiality, privileging perceived oppressed groups and discriminating against perceived oppressors, which he asserts is sinful according to scripture. He warns against the infiltration of these ideologies into the church, emphasizing the need for Christians to adhere to biblical teachings of impartiality, unity, and love, rejecting divisive worldviews.

Open up your copy of God's Word to James chapter two. What we're going to do this afternoon is we're going to take the next step and look at the next stage in our series examining the modern social justice movement, and we will continue seeing how this system, these theories are at odds with and in reality entirely in contradiction to the biblical teaching on what is and is not justice. Though it has the name social justice, it is anything but. So James chapter 2, 1-9, My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality. For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings and fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes.

You pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, you sit here in a good place, and say to the poor man, you stand there or sit here at my footstool have you not shown partiality among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen my beloved brethren has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to those who love him. But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? Do they not blaspheme the noble name by which you are called.

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, you shall love your neighbor as yourself, you do well. But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. Let's pray. Father we come before you again and we thank you that we have your word. We thank you that in it we find a sufficient and authoritative standard for all that is going on around us.

Lord, we thank you that you have preserved your word for us. You have given it to us to be the bedrock and the judge of what is true. Lord, help us to know and to see the truth more clearly today and to be able to discern truth from error. In Christ's name, amen. So as I was saying, this afternoon we're going to continue our series on the social justice movement.

Today we're going to look specifically at what are known as critical race theory and intersectionality, terms which I'm sure almost all of us have become very familiar with over the last few years if you have at all paid attention to the news. While we do so, keep in mind what we just read in the book of James. Keep in mind what the apostle or what the writer here lays out regarding the sin of partiality. Now James in this passage applies it to the rich and the poor and people in the church judging people visiting the church based on whether or not someone looks rich or poor. But this principle of not showing partiality goes beyond just the relationships based on economics and wealth.

This principle of impartiality can just as easily be applied to racial issues, white and black relationships, or any other social dichotomy that we see in the world and in the news today. And as we look at these hot button topics, we have to keep in mind the points that we considered in the last session on social justice. How the two defining concepts that mark in our integral to the modern social justice movement are one, a reliance on standpoint epistemology, and secondly, a mis-definition or a mis-defining of justice as equity rather than equality. So briefly let's recap those two ideas. First, standpoint epistemology.

This is a theory of knowledge which states that the recipient of an action or an event is the one who ultimately gets to determine and assign meaning to that action or event. It is a subjective point of view which determines what is and is not true for that person. It is the individual's place in society and their peer groups that determine what and how that person perceives and understands all that is going on around them in the world. And beyond this idea, it goes on to claim that this individual's personal experience is the source of meaning and defines their reality, contrary to what anyone else may say is fact. This person's standpoint then gives them the unique ability through their own subjective experience to see things in society that others may be oblivious to.

Or if they're on the other side of the scale, it may cause them to be oblivious to things that others may see. And so the oppressed groups in this system, the oppressed groups in society, such as blacks or women or LGBT people, these individuals simply by virtue of those categories have a more clear and truthful grasp on the world than the rest of us, particularly than the dominant and oppressor groups such as the evil, the ever-evil straight white man. Now, this is a completely postmodern and subjective epistemology. It is a completely subjective view of knowledge. And ultimately, it makes facts malleable or completely irrelevant based on one's personal experience.

So that is standpoint epistemology. Secondly, they mis-define justice as equity rather than equality. That is, the goal of justice, according to the modern social justice movement, is not a society where every individual has equal opportunity or is treated equally under the law. Instead, the goal of justice is to achieve equity, which they define as equality of outcomes among societal groups. And so as long as there is any difference between white people, black people, brown people, wherever that category is or wherever that system extends, any difference between men and women or any other seemingly opposed classes in society, any distinct group, if there is any disparity among them in society, then justice has not been achieved, no matter how those people are treated or what they personally do.

Personal choice and responsibility are not relevant. Any difference indicates that the system is foundationally and fundamentally unjust, and therefore justice has not been achieved. And justice will not be achieved until all groups have the same outcome. And so the means to justice for the modern social justice movement is not treating everyone equally and fairly and giving fair representation under the law, but rather the means to justice is to privilege those who are perceived as oppressed and discriminate against those who are the oppressors. Therefore, all the systems that are in society, all the things in our institutions that currently exist must be torn down and replaced by new systems that oppress the privileged and privilege the oppressed.

That is the second fundamental mark of the social justice movement, a misdefinition of justice. And nowhere today do we see these two elements, standpoint epistemology and a misdefinition of justice, Nowhere do we see these two concepts more clearly at work than in the realms of critical race theory and intersectionality. Now as we go through this, this is going to be dense. So I would encourage note taking, maybe even listening to this again, it's being recorded. So this is going to be dense, please forgive me for it.

So if we are going to understand critical race theory, if we're going to understand intersectionality, we have to first understand what the C and the T are in CRT. So what is critical theory, not just critical race theory? Well, in this context of critical theory, theory is more than simply a supposition. It is not simply a scientific model that's accepted in the mainstream. Rather, here the word theory takes on a new meaning.

This theory means a set of ideas or morals and practices that form the core of a discipline, a field of study. In other words, theory in this instance is largely a substitute word for what we would call worldview. That is extremely key. And this theory or this worldview is a product of ultimately the realm of what's called legal studies. And the attempt by some to identify and overthrow legal precedent and systems that they consider to be unjust or at least less than ideal.

And it begins with the assumption that the system is broken and cannot merely be fixed. That is the beginning presupposition behind the word critical in critical theory. The system is so broken it cannot be tweaked or refined. It must be overthrown and replaced. And that is what critical means in this context.

The word here conveys the idea instead of what we're used to when we think of critical thinking. There the word critical means careful analysis and evaluation to discover the truth and discover facts. That's what we think of when we hear the word critical in regards to critical thinking. But critical theory is altogether different. Critical here is something totally other.

It has the idea of finding and exposing problems that are assumed to exist and seek to overthrow their systems. In their helpful book, Cynical Theories, Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay point out that in critical theory, the word critical indicates, quote, that its intention and methods are specifically geared toward identifying and exposing problems in order to facilitate revolutionary political change. Another scholar defined it this way, the most important difference between traditional theory and critical theory is that the former traditional theory aims to refine and reform a system while the latter seeks a revolutionary dispossession of that system. At its heart, critical theory is a revolutionary worldview. When we consider the origins of critical theory and trace its development over time, we see that it goes back through the Frankfurt School in Germany and the German Marxists, such as Max Horkheimer, as well as through the Italian Marxist movement and the once leader of the Communist Party in Italy, Antonio Gramsci, all the way back to Karl Marx and what is known as conflict theory.

In the most simplistic definition, we can come up with conflict theory suggests that society is built up of a composite of several social classes that are in perpetual and constant conflict and competition over a very limited set of resources. And this conflict will continue eternally unless and until the lower classes, the proletariat, seize the means of production, if by force, if necessary, and socialize or redistribute it and thus usher in a utopian society of complete equity. This is the foundation of what has come to be called critical theory. And so To summarize, critical theory is a worldview based on a Marxist understanding of society and the world, which presupposes that all the systems that currently exist have been established by the oppressive classes to reinforce their own dominance and power. And because those systems are so completely owned by the oppressor class, they cannot be refined or reformed.

In order to establish justice, again defined as equity or equality of outcome, they must be completely overthrown and replaced. So much for the idea that critical theory in any form is simply an analytical tool. It is an entire overarching worldview, and one that is at its core intended to be divisive and to propagate division until the systems that exist are overthrown, all in the name of justice. Now take that divisive and polarizing idea and worldview and apply it to race and race relations in the United States. And that is what you get, or that is where you get critical race theory.

Now a man by the name of Derek Bell is typically credited with or perhaps we should say blamed for developing critical race theory. Derek Bell was the first tenured African-American professor at Harvard Law School and he applied his legal specialty of critical theory to issues of race. And he helped create and continued to promote this postmodern take on race relations beginning in the 1970s until his death in 2011. And the most enduring contribution he made to this system and this field of study, if you wanna call it a field of study, is something called convergence theory or interest convergence. Now, this is the thesis that quote, whites have only allowed rights to blacks, in other words whites have only given black people rights in society only when it has been in their interest to do so." That is, the only reason, per his theory, that black people have any rights today in our society is because it was actually advantageous for white people at the time to give it to them.

In other words, there has been no real moral improvement in American society whatsoever. There has not been any achievement of any real meaningful kind between race relations in the United States since the 1950s or even the 1850s. And so the end of slavery, the end of segregation, the end of state-sanctioned racism were actually only done in order to help white people maintain their superiority and control, because the interests of the white oppressor and the black oppressed converged at those moments in time. And this is not overreacting or overreading into Derrick Bell's words. He said it himself.

In his 1987 book, and we are not saved, fascinating side note, note the consistent use of religious language in the writings of critical race theorists. It is a worldview, and worldviews are inherently religious. But in his 1987 book, And We Are Not Saved, he says, quote, progress in American race relations is largely a mirage, obscuring the fact that whites continue, consciously or unconsciously, to do all in their power to ensure their dominion and maintain control." And so this interest convergence was the first of what has become a really four-legged stool that builds up the idea of critical race theory. And it concludes that ultimately the improvements in race relations and racial issues that we see in the United States, which by any reasonable estimation we can at least say are significant, if not absolutely spectacular, In reality, so they say, so he says, it's not enough. And in fact, since the whole order has not been torn down and replaced, it's really just been a cloak for continued oppression.

As I said, this became one of what we can call the four-legged stool of critical race theory. This became one of the legs of that stool. And in the current standard book that introduces students to critical race theory, a book simply titled Critical Race Theory, authored by Richard Delgado and Gene Stefanchik. They lay out the full four points that they believe undergird and uphold critical race theory. These things make the four foundational axioms of CRT.

First they argue that racism is normal or ordinary. It is not an aberration. It is the way that society normally operates and does business and it is the everyday experience of most people of color in the United States. And if you don't see it, it's either because you are part of the oppressive group and you're using your white privilege to ignore it, or if you're a black or brown person, then you have internalized the racism of the society and have become a tool of the white oppressors. So first, racism is normal and ordinary.

Second, Bell's convergence theory that we just talked about, that whites have only allowed other races to have rights or privileges when it has been in their own interest to grant them, thus actually perpetuating white supremacy rather than ending it. Third, critical race theory is marked by anti-liberalism. Anti or anti-liberalism. Now liberalism here is defined as the liberal order developed largely from enlightenment rationalism and Christian philosophy. This is traditional liberalism.

We're not talking about liberalism as we think of the word today. Traditional liberalism, which promotes individual rights, civil liberties, merit-based hierarchies, free trade, and the ownership of private property. The critical race theory movement opposes these concepts, even at their very foundations, because they are viewed simply as vestiges of a white supremacist culture. Therefore, merit-based hierarchies must be done away with. And so you must hire people not based on their merit, but based on the color of their skin.

Capitalism must be done away with, because it perpetuates white supremacy. And it is only when the government has authority over the economy that people can truly have equity. Fourthly, knowledge is socially constructed. And this is essentially the next step from standpoint epistemology taken to its next logical conclusion. This is the use of one's own subjective experience to craft their own social narrative to help achieve the societal change that CRT is seeking.

This is the storytelling and narrative building that we hear about in the news of believing the black experience or whatever variation that you hear about that. This storytelling and narrative building is advanced, per Delcato and Stefanczyk, as a means by which black and brown people advance and gain knowledge in contrast and in opposition to the scientific and rationalistic method of white people. So what they're saying is White people developed the scientific method as a means of gaining knowledge, and that's oppressive. Instead, we need to rely on personal experience and emotion and your own perception of the world in order to gain knowledge. That's what they're saying.

So knowledge is socially constructed. You and your peer group determine what is true. These four points create the legs of the four-legged stool of critical race theory. And again, quoting Pluckrose and Lindsay, the conclusion is, quote, as a result, we hear the language of CRT from activists in all walks of life, and one could easily be forgiven if critical race theorists didn't consider it racist to forgive this, for thinking that critical race theory itself sounds rather racist in ascribing profound failures of morals and character to white people as consequences of being white in a white dominant society. We are told that racism is embedded in culture and we cannot escape it.

We hear that white people are inherently racist. We are told that racism is prejudice plus power, therefore only white people can be racist. And we are informed that only people of color can talk about racism and that white people just need to listen and that they don't have the racial stamina to engage it. We also hear that not seeing people in terms of their race, that is, being colorblind, is in fact actually racist and perpetuates white privilege." That is the end result of this line of thinking. And so the advocates of this ideology cheer all of this on.

The chaos, the animosity, the division that all of this creates is not a bug in the system. It's the feature. It's the goal. Because again, the central aim of critical race theory, of critical theory in all its forms, is the revolutionary change of society. And to further the political goals of critical theory, the concept of anti-racism was developed and has seen much growth in the last few years.

Like most aspects of critical theory, terms that on their surface level seem to be good and appropriate are redefined and given new meaning. Take the word anti-racist at face value. Who doesn't want to be anti-racist? I abhor racism. I want to see it abolished in all forms.

However, because I believe that the way to end racism is to treat everyone equally, to represent everyone fairly under the law, according to this critical race theorists, I'm racist. In fact, according to men like Ibram Kendi and those like him, I would be one of the most pernicious forms of a racist because I want on the one hand, reject the so-called solutions of critical race theory, while simultaneously denying that I am personally racist. As he said, quote, denial is the heartbeat of racism, end quote. In another place, he said the claim of not racist neutrality is a mask for racism. And again, he said, there is no safe space middle ground.

The claim of not being racist is racist. Good luck untangling that. And so in this line of thinking we see a perfect example of the logical fallacy called a Kafka trap. Have you ever heard of a Kafka trap? This is where you are accused of one thing and Any response whatsoever is simply proof that you actually are guilty of the thing.

It's a Kafka trap. If you deny that you're racist, well, that's simply proof that you're racist. And if you admit you're racist, well, obviously you're racist. So you can't get out. You can't escape.

There is no other option. The only avenue is presented as being anti-racist. And so if racism is racism, defined as prejudice plus power, and being not racist is also racism because of the supposed ubiquity of white supremacy. What is anti-racism? Well, in his book, How to Be an Anti-Racist, what's really helpful is these people are actually very upfront about what they believe.

They're really not trying to hide it very much. Even their books, How to be an Anti-Racist. Read it, it's awful. Actually, you probably don't want to read it. It's not a great book.

Anyway, in his book, How to be an Anti-Racist, Kendi defines anti-racism as policies and ideas which promote racial equity. And again, remember how they define equity. It is equality of outcome. So he defines anti-racism as policies and ideas which promote racial equity. And so he writes that a racist policy is any policy that creates or sustains any racial inequality between racial groups.

And an anti-racist policy is any measure, any measure, doesn't matter what it is, any measure that creates or sustains racial equity among racial groups. And he clarifies that later on, I think, when he says this, racial discrimination is not inherently racist. So you can discriminate based on race and not be racist. It's amazing what they do to language. The defining question, he says, is whether that discrimination is creating equity or inequity.

If the discrimination is creating equity, then it is actually anti-racist. The only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. And he ends with this summary, the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. And the only remedy, The only solution, sorry, to present discrimination is future discrimination. And so the solution by the critical theorists themselves is not an end to discrimination.

That is not the goal or that is not the means by which we achieve equality or equity. The end of discrimination is simply merely a cloak for other forms of discrimination, according to their worldview. Rather, the solution to racial inequity is to discriminate against the privileged groups and then privilege the oppressed. Minorities must be privileged and the majorities must be punished until all groups in society have an equal slice of the societal pie. Now, what happens when you take this worldview, this system, and apply it to everything, not just race?

You broaden it out and apply it to every facet of life. That is Intersectionality. Introduced in 1989 by one of Derek Bell's students, Bell we just talked about a little bit ago. Introduced in 1989 by one of Bell's students, Kimberly Crenshaw, intersectionality is largely the application of the standards and perspectives of critical race theory to categories other than race. And simply defined intersectionality is, quote, about the multiple layers of oppression that minorities suffer, end quote.

That is, just as whites have oppressed blacks in society, men do the same to women, and heterosexuals do the same to homosexuals, on and on. And you could add a seemingly endless array of supposed oppressive and oppressed groups and categories. Particularly today we hear about able-bodied people versus the disabled. You hear much about people who are discriminated or privileged based on their body size and weight, all the way to the so-called cisgendered and transgendered groups of people, neither of which are legitimate categories to even think in. The idea here is that the more marginalized identities that one identifies with, then the more opportunities that person has to experience oppression and marginalization.

Now, the universal metaphor used to explain this is that of a street intersection. Imagine someone standing in the middle of an intersection of three roads. That person could be hit by a car coming from three directions. Now, take that concept as a metaphor for oppression. Imagine a black lesbian, for example, standing at the middle of the intersection of race, gender, what they call gender, really biological sex, and sexual orientation.

And so as a minority in all three of those groups, as a black lesbian, this woman, if you can even use the language of a woman, is at risk of being oppressed in three different ways, possibly even all simultaneously. Therefore, because she is a three-fold oppressed person, We must automatically confer on her moral authority and an understanding of the world that we must listen to and evaluate as a true and genuine source of knowledge on how we ought to understand and reshape the world around us. She, simply because of her oppressed minority classes, automatically has greater knowledge and insight into the oppressive social structures of our country, supposedly. Now it's key to understand that to the committed intersectionalist, none of these identities in and of themselves is actually intrinsically or inherently better than any other. White and black are equal, though they must be treated unequally to achieve equity.

And cisgendered, that is those who accept the body and mind that God has given them, and transgendered are both equally good and moral. And even all body sizes are equal, from the skinny anorexic to the morbidly obese. Though of course they would never use that language because that language sounds judgmental. It takes every single element or category that human beings can possibly be understood to fit into and says that all of them are okay and equal and must be fairly represented in society, and must be accepted. And so you cannot, you cannot question a child who thinks that they are the wrong biological sex.

You cannot point out the health complications that come from being extremely overweight. That is considered fat-shaming. Every single disparity, every single unequal outcome among groups in society is considered a consequence of prejudice and bigotry and therefore dismissed. So Despite the seeming complexity of intersectionality, it's actually a very simple idea. It reduces every single disparity and every single difference in society down to a single variable, prejudice, as understood through the lens of critical theory.

Personal responsibility, free choice, all of that does not matter. The only reason there are differences between any groups in society is because of oppression and prejudice. And on and on it goes, further dividing people into smaller and smaller niche groups, functionally creating a kind of caste system. Far from the older traditional liberal and Christian idea of ending prejudice through equal treatment under the law without consideration of so-called intersectional categories, this system seeks to end, quote unquote, inequity through the means of flipping the discrimination. We are told we must de-center whiteness, masculinity, and straightness, and every other privileged category, and instead empower and center the marginalized in all its forms until equity is achieved.

And if this requires government intervention and societal pressure from all of our institutions, so much the better. Now it should be obvious, I hope, to all of us that this type of a worldview, this kind of a system cannot actually achieve anything even remotely resembling a fair or just society. It's not possible. Instead, it simply maintains and spreads more division, more distrust, and further fragments society. I think we have all seen that clearly over the last few years.

And so I am out of time, and this has largely been a simple description of these two systems, these two worldviews, and honestly a condensed and simplified one at that. So what is the conclusion of the matter, to borrow Solomon's phrase? The conclusion is that the worldview of critical theory and its attendant applications in critical race theory and intersectionality boil down to what scripture calls partiality. That is the conclusion. We read James chapter 2, the first nine verses of James chapter 2, and that is not the only place the Bible addresses the sin of partiality.

And it is a sin. James says, if you show partiality, you commit sin. But the critical theorists say, no, you must show partiality so that we can have an equitable society. But Scripture instead commands impartial treatment, equal treatment under the law of all people. James specifically applies it to rich and poor, but it can apply to all these other facets of society.

Specifically when we talk about critical race theory, we have to understand the Bible has really no category of race. You will search in vain for the Bible talking about race as we think of it today. Jew and Gentile, which is probably the closest that we can think of, is really more of a religious distinction than a racial one. And so we can unequivocally say that there is no room biblically for anything less than complete impartiality in dealing with people who have a different color skin. Racism in all its forms, whether the historic bigotry that has been and yes, sometimes still can be a problem in America, or the modern Marxist racism that is called by the pseudonym anti-racism, all of it must be rejected by the Christian.

It is a sinful way of thinking. We do not look at another person and determine how we are going to treat them based on the color of their skin. It is evil to do so. It doesn't matter what side of that aisle you are on. All people, no matter what they look like or where they're from, are image bearers of God, equal in worth and dignity and worthy of love, and they need to hear the gospel because ultimately is that gospel that is the true solution for all these problems.

All people are equal no matter where they're from no matter what they look like. Equal as image bearers of God, also equal in being fallen image bearers of God. And the redeemed, whether white, black, or something in between, all the redeemed are alike children of God. And so there is no room to bring this idiocy into the church. We do not do like some high profile evangelicals want us to do and have black and white spaces in the church.

There is no black Lord's Supper, there is no white Lord's Supper, there is no brown Lord's Supper, there is no distinction in the body. And you are twisting and denying the very meaning of the word communion when you try and insert such a foolish idea. The biblical teaching, the better worldview given to us by God is to see the equality of mankind, both in sin and in salvation. And so let us as followers of Christ reject and expose this evil and divisive worldview of critical race theory and intersectionality. And we have to remember that there are those, some of which I think truly are brothers and sisters, some of which may not be, who are seeking to promote CRTI, Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality, in the church.

We have to rebuke them. We have to reprove them. We have to show them the better way of scripture. And we have to remember that as this movement is increasing, the woke church movement, it is often called, as this is increasing and spreading, we have to remember that these ideologies are package deals. You cannot simply slice off a part of critical theory and simply say, well, it's just an analytical tool.

It can't be done. It's all or nothing. You can try accepting it partially for a time, but its own internal logic will force either wholesale acceptance or rejection. You cannot just say, it's useful in this part over here, but we're not going to apply it anywhere else. It doesn't work.

It is an overarching worldview. It is a complete lens through which its followers are supposed to view the world. And so we cannot allow this to come into the church. It is an evil, demonic even, worldview, utterly contradictory to the worldview of the gospel, and must be rejected and exposed for the evil that it is. Now I know this has been very information dense and probably a little overwhelming, But my plan was to cover these as well as give a fuller biblical response.

No way I could do that today. So next time we will spend more time unpacking exactly how we as Christians are to respond to the claims of critical theory, specifically critical race theory and intersectionality, and instead spend most of our time examining what the Bible teaches as the solution to sinful partiality in all its forms. But I want to give this as a foundation for that next session. So hopefully this was clear and useful to you. Let's pray.

We come before you, God, begging your help. Lord, we are in a very odd point in time where we seem to have a culture intent on destroying itself, a nation that seems to be fragmented at the most basic level, and we ask Lord for your help. Your help not merely to sustain what once was, but Lord we ask for your help to maintain the unity of your church. Help us God to have that unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace that we are told about. God as we see the society around us, the secularists dividing and destroying themselves, may your church be a family, a unity of love and hope, a place where all are welcomed and cherished as redeemed image bearers of God.

Lord, may we have that mindset. May we have the mind of Christ when we think about these issues. God, give us help. Lord, I especially pray for the young people here who are most at risk of being taken captive by this evil philosophy. Lord, give them help to see the error and God give them grace to hold fast to the truth.

In Christ's name, amen.