Fault lines, where most earthquakes occur, are cracks in the earth’s surface where tectonic plates meet and slide past each other. Usually, they are moving too slowly for us to notice, but when stress builds up, they’ll suddenly slip, causing an earthquake.
People don’t live on fault lines because they like the destruction earthquakes bring. They do it because the beauty above is real and tangible; the danger beneath lies out of sight and out of mind… until the ground starts shaking. Few places on earth can match the picturesque scenery, the ideal weather, or the rich, fertile soil of the San Francisco Bay Area; that’s why millions call it home. But when earthquakes hit, people wonder why anyone would choose to live in a place where such devastation is likely.
The same can be said of the current fault lines in evangelicalism. Catch a glimpse of a Christian community unstained by racism, classism, sexism, or injustice, and you can see why many are willing to risk everything for the sake of a movement that offers such hope. But what if the movement that purports to have the answers to all these problems is built on a fault line destined to distort the Gospel, cause even deeper divisions, and wreak havoc?
Those who have seen the devastation of an earthquake know the solution for those living on fault lines is to move to safer ground, or at least build structures that can withstand the coming catastrophe. Evangelicalism does have a fault line—and my goal is to show my brothers and sisters being tossed to and fro by the winds of sociological doctrine how to get to safety.
We are right to pursue justice, peace, and unity (Micah 6:8; Romans 12:18; John 17:20–21). That is not the fault line. The fault lies in believing that such a vision can be attained by affiliating with, using the terminology of, or doing anything other than opposing in the most forceful terms the ideology that lies at the root of the social justice movement.1
I am a debater; I always have been. But in the current climate, debate is becoming a lost art—partly because of a general decline in the study of logic and rhetoric, but mostly because of the general feminization of culture and its consequent disdain for open verbal combat.
Gone are the days of Luther and Erasmus slugging it out over the question of original sin. Today both men would be accused of being petty (for daring to split hairs over such theological minutia), mean-spirited (for daring to speak so forcefully in favor of their own position and against the other’s), and downright un-Christlike (for throwing around the word “heresy”). I have often said, “The Eleventh Commandment is, ‘Thou shalt be nice”… and we don’t believe the other ten.”
One of the negative results of this is no longer being able to deal with ideas without attacking the people who hold them. Disagreements quickly deteriorate into arguments and worse. Consequently, taking a position on an issue carries the automatic assumption that one is utterly opposed not only to the opposing view, but to all who hold it. Therefore, we don’t debate ideas at all, but go straight for personal attacks and character assassination. And this debate is no different.
To the anti–Critical Social Justice camp, those on the side of CSJ are all Cultural Marxists. Conversely, to the social justice camp, those who oppose their cause are all racists (even fellow black people like me who, according to their definition of racism, can’t be racists… but I digress). The result is a standstill—a demilitarized zone that exists, not because hostilities have ceased, but because we all tacitly believe there is no solution.
Meanwhile, well-meaning Christian laypeople find themselves at a loss. Which side do they choose? There are “big names” on both sides, so who’s right?
In June 2018, I had the sobering privilege of spending a day with fifteen men who would eventually become the driving force behind the Dallas Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel. I was hesitant to attend, but since one of my heroes, John MacArthur, called the meeting, I thought I should be there. What came out of that meeting would, in my estimation, prove to be a pivotal piece of the puzzle in the contemporary discussion of race, ethnicity, and justice inside and outside the Church.
My initial hesitation had nothing to do with a lack of desire to engage the issue, but it was meant to address issues arising from the CSJ movement in the United States, and I was living in Zambia. Also, I didn’t want my participation to hinder the work.
I had already raised the ire of many on the CSJ front through articles and speaking engagements. Moreover, I knew that my signature, along with that of every other black signatory, would be viewed as tokenism—cover for the “racists” in the Church who allegedly didn’t want to discuss social justice—despite the fact that nearly half the attendees stated openly that I had introduced them to the dangers of the social justice movement either directly or indirectly.2 Ironically, I am still frequently either eliminated from the discussion or cited as a token or pawn by those who advocate CSJ within the Church. This makes it much easier to dismiss the Dallas Statement as the product of a group of white supremacists who are “tone deaf” on racial justice.
In the end, I chose to help shape and sign the statement because I believed the potential benefits far outweighed the inevitable costs. My goal then, as now, was to bring both clarity and unity. I knew that we would produce an imperfect document. I also knew some would be waiting anxiously, not to receive it, but to parse it. However, I also knew others saw the coming catastrophe and hoped someone would speak up. We all knew unity could never be achieved without clarity.
Documents like the Dallas Statement are never meant to be a final word. The Bible is the final word. Nor did we believe our statement would be beyond reproach. Tom Ascol, the principle architect of the first draft of the Dallas Statement, captured this sentiment perfectly when he wrote:
The statement makes no claim of any ecclesiastical authority. It is issued for the purpose of calling attention to and clarifying concerns. We have spoken on these issues with no disrespect or loss of love for our brothers and sisters who disagree with what we have written. Rather, our hope is that this statement might actually provoke the kind of brotherly dialogue that can promote unity in the gospel of our Lord Jesus whom we all love and trust.
But that is not what happened. In fact, there has been very little formal pushback or dialogue. Most of our friends at 9Marks, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Gospel Coalition, Together for the Gospel, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Presbyterian Church of America—all of whom had historically embraced us as ministry partners and been willing to critique us as brothers—didn’t write a single word one way or the other.
Tim Keller did offer a comment. When asked about the Dallas Statement, his response said more about his philosophical presuppositions than it did about the document. “[T]he statement can’t be judged based upon whether or not the words are right,” he said, “but by the consequences those words might eventually bring about.”
By contrast, when John MacArthur, the lighting rod with whom most people associate the Dallas Statement, decided to hold services at his church in Southern California last summer in defiance of Governor Gavin Newsom’s orders to keep churches from meeting during the coronavirus pandemic, 9Marks fired off a missive addressing MacArthur’s decision from a biblical, theological, and historical perspective. But the Dallas Statement didn’t warrant a drop of ink. Did these groups fail to address the statement because it was correct? If so, why didn’t they join us in signing it? Was it because, as more than one of the leaders of the aforementioned ministries stated, “The group lacked any names with gravitas,”3 therefore implying the statement was insignificant? If MacArthur, who called the meeting, lacks “gravitas,” then there’s no need to warn people to be cautious about following his lead.
No, there was a much bigger issue at play—a fault line everybody knew was there and that nobody wanted to acknowledge.
None of these groups or leaders would openly identify with CRT/I or CSJ. In fact, they all swear up and down that they do not hold to such ideas. However, they regularly use CRT/I categories in defining racial justice/injustice. They embrace the key CRT idea that racism is “normal.” They continually speak of and refer to cases like George Floyd in terms of racial injustice. They define the disagreement in terms of their having a different view of the “importance” of race, but they continue to express an ideology that decides this importance based on presuppositions regarding disparities.
Before taking the Dallas Statement public, we shared it with several people with a view toward gaining both support and honest, helpful critique. Members of several of these organizations pleaded with us not to publish it—not because they disagreed, but because they thought it would be “unhelpful.”
Dozens of pastors, professors, and concerned Christians have told me they find themselves at a loss to explain the upheaval they are experiencing. One private message I received from a leader in a well-known international ministry captured this tension very well:
Hello Pastor Baucham, I am writing to you as a heartbroken gospel sharer.… I would like to get your help regarding one of the largest missions organizations on earth that is becoming consumed with the racial identity and reconciliation “conversation.” Indoctrination is a more accurate term. Literally thousands of Jesus-loving staff are becoming distressed and heartbroken over this sudden departure from the Gospel in this organization.…
He went on to say that the “ministry is being taken over presently by a very progressive group who keeps pushing radical speakers on us and, again, the staff are grieving and wondering what happened so suddenly?”
Three issues he presents resonate with others I have received. First, there is the sense of helplessness and discouragement. Godly men and women find themselves in a position that feels completely beyond their control or even understanding, and they are looking for help.
Second, there is a sense that these changes have happened suddenly. Of course, those of us who have been watching know that these changes were not sudden. The fault lines that are shifting today have been there for a long time.
Finally, there is a sense of urgency over preserving the Gospel. It is ironic that both sides of this fault line claim to be 1) passionately pursuing the Gospel and 2) afraid that the other side represents compromise that will undermine it. This is the foundation of both my greatest fear and my greatest hope in this debate. While I am aware that there are extremes at play that threaten to obscure the Gospel, I am convinced that much of what we are seeing today is disagreement between well-meaning brothers and sisters who are arguing around the margins but holding fast to the center—to the Gospel. However, I must admit that hope is fading fast.
The crux of this brother’s message was that he wanted to suggest me “as an alternative speaker to the indoctrination that is occurring.” Then, in what has to be the most disturbing part of his note, he admits, “I do not think they will say yes, but I do feel that they might feel deep conviction from the Holy Spirit if they say no because they will be reminded that they are ‘preaching’ a one-sided message.” This is a very important piece of the puzzle. This man wanted to respond to the onslaught of racial/social justice by inviting a black man to speak to the organization. He hoped my minority status would blunt criticism that is virtually certain to come when one dares to disagree with the “conversation.” In fact, he asked that I never mention his name, “as we feel it is not presently safe to disagree with certain ministry leaders… due to the forcefulness of their current direction.”
Here, dear reader, is the heart of the matter. The environment within evangelicalism is so hostile that it has a chilling effect. In this environment, dissent is not only unwelcome, but condemned. Consequently, many godly, thoughtful, well-meaning, justice-loving brethren are being silenced. As a result, the fault lines continue to shift, and the catastrophe gets ever closer.
I have received dozens of similar messages from people who are at a loss to explain the sudden shift beneath their feet. From seminary professors who have been warned or reprimanded for addressing racial/ethnic issues (from the “wrong” perspective), to pastors and church staff who have had decades of faithful ministry called into question, to faculty members at Christian universities who prepare lectures with one eye on the truth they intend to convey and the other on potentially career-ending statements they must avoid, the fault lines are everywhere.
I wish I could say that this book is meant to help us avoid the impending catastrophe. However, it is not. This catastrophe is unavoidable. These fault lines are so deeply entrenched, and the rules of engagement so perilously complex, that the question is not if but when the catastrophe will strike. In fact, the ground is already shaking. Relationships are being ruined, reputations are being tarnished, careers are being destroyed, and entire denominations are in danger of being derailed.
If we are to survive this catastrophe, we must understand it. We must understand what the fault lines are. We must also know where they lie.
The clearest evidence of the coming collapse we have seen in recent years came at the Southern Baptist Convention’s 2019 annual meeting. I write this not because I anticipate a particularly Southern Baptist audience for this book, but because the size, scope, and influence of the SBC makes these events both relevant and ominous. If it can happen in the SBC, it can happen anywhere.
Every year, representatives of the forty-seven thousand churches, called messengers, show up to elect officers, hear reports, and conduct the business of the SBC. Chief among their responsibilities is voting on resolutions. It is worth noting that—since the SBC is technically not a denomination but a voluntary association of confessing, free churches—the resolutions are not binding. Nevertheless, they represent the collective voice of the Convention and have great influence among the churches.
In 2019, there was very little pre-Convention buzz about Resolution #9 on Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality (see Appendix B). Many wondered how such a resolution made its way to the Convention. Others thought it would never make it out of the committee. But Resolution 9 was as strategic as any the SBC has seen in decades. To the casual observer, it may seem like a lot of “inside baseball,” so allow me to explain why this was a critical cultural moment, and why it was inevitable that Resolution 9 would eventually pass.
First, Resolution 9 was a response to the Dallas Statement. Southern Baptist churches, like all others nationwide, were reeling from divisions over social justice, with the evangelical movement’s upper echelons dividing into clearly delineated sides. The most prominent events in the country featured messages and/or panel discussions either defending or opposing the growing social justice movement.
Second, leaders of many SBC entities pleaded with and warned their personnel not to sign the Dallas Statement. One former Southern Seminary professor went public about the warnings he says he and other faculty and staff received concerning it. He is one of only three professors from SBC seminaries who signed the statement—and for his pains, this one believes it led to a series of events that culminated in his firing.4
Finally, the SBC had to pass Resolution 9 because its first draft forced the hand of Convention leaders. Once it was submitted, there were basically three options: the resolution could have been sent to the floor as it was, it could have been allowed to die in committee, or it could be amended. The Committee on Resolutions chose the latter (see Appendix C), and there is clear evidence why.
There are a few other procedural issues worth mentioning. First, Resolution 9 almost passed without any debate or discussion from the floor—but not because there was none to be had; there was. (Several attendees, including two of the original drafters and signers of the Dallas Statement, were still standing by microphones waiting for their turn to speak when the resolution was sent to the floor for the vote.)
No, the debate was muted because SBC President J.D. Greear, an outspoken proponent of all things social justice, waited until there were only a few minutes left in the session, then tried to package resolutions 9–13 to be voted on as a block! Several messengers erupted at the mere thought. Eventually, a motion was made and seconded, but the vote did not pass. Resolution 9 had to stand on its own merits.
A second and perhaps more deceptive issue is the fact that the Committee on Resolutions had its fingerprints scrubbed from the final document. Because they gutted and rewrote Resolution 9, it still bears the name of the original author, even though it ended up being a grotesque misrepresentation of what he submitted originally. Hence, anyone looking at the historical record, unless they dig beneath the surface, will have no idea who actually wrote Resolution 9, or the implications thereof.5
The original Resolution 9 on Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality was submitted by Stephen Feinstein, pastor of Sovereign Way Christian Church in Hesperia, California, who also serves as a chaplain in the U.S. Army Reserves. What happened to Feinstein’s resolution was nothing short of scandalous, but the scandal went largely unnoticed. I fully expect to see book-level treatments, Masters theses, and doctoral dissertations analyzing the origins, background, political maneuverings, and theological implications of the Resolution 9 controversy. Space does not allow for such a treatment here, but even a cursory look at the matter reveals issues that should concern not only Southern Baptists, but any Christian concerned about the current trajectory of evangelicalism.
Comparing a few key passages from the two resolutions is revealing. I want the reader to see that this was a deliberate act of duplicity. If the original text of Resolution 9 had been sent to the floor, there would be no cover for the SJW. Seminary presidents would have to explain, among other things, why material Resolution 9 condemned was being taught in their classrooms. And others would have asked, “If this is the way the Convention feels, why hasn’t a single high-level SBC leader signed the Dallas Statement?”
There is a clear difference in the tone of the motivation behind the two versions of Resolution 9:
Original Resolution |
Final Resolution |
|---|---|
WHEREAS, the rhetoric of critical race theory and intersectionality found in some Southern Baptist institutions and leaders is causing unnecessary and unbiblical division among the body of Christ and is tarnishing the reputation of the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole, inviting charges of theological liberalism, egalitarianism, and Marxism.… |
WHEREAS, Concerns have been raised by some evangelicals over the use of frameworks such as critical race theory and intersectionality.… |
Similarly,
Original Resolution |
Final Resolution |
|---|---|
WHEREAS, both critical race theory and intersectionality as ideologies have infiltrated some Southern Baptist churches and institutions—institutions funded by the Cooperative Program.… |
WHEREAS, Evangelical scholars who affirm the authority and sufficiency of Scripture have employed selective insights from critical race theory and intersectionality to understand multifaceted social dynamics.… |
It is worth noting that two of the individuals to whom Feinstein alluded in the original draft were members of the committee that gutted and transformed his resolution. Committee Chairman Curtis Woods and member Walter Strickland have been promoting CRT and Intersectionality through their positions as professors at Southern and Southeastern Seminaries, respectively, as well as through other events both within and outside the SBC.6 7 8
Remember, the messengers on the floor of the Convention only vote on the final resolution. They never saw the “concerns [that] have been raised by some evangelicals…” nor would they know that those concerns were related directly to the actions of the man arguing for the completely gutted and revised version of the resolution.
Having identified the players, it is clear that the perpetrators of this “infiltration” are identifying themselves as “evangelical scholars who affirm the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.” Ironically, as we will see, Resolution 9 itself denies the sufficiency of the Scripture it claims to uphold.
Another area of departure between the resolutions is evident in their assessment of the nature of CRT:
Original Resolution |
Final Resolution |
|---|---|
WHEREAS, critical race theory and intersectionality are founded upon unbiblical presuppositions descended from Marxist theories and categories, and therefore are inherently opposed to the Scriptures as the true center of Christian union.… |
WHEREAS, Critical race theory is a set of analytical tools that explain how race has and continues to function in society, and intersectionality is the study of how different personal characteristics overlap and inform one’s experience.… |
This is the crux of the matter: The million-dollar question is whether CRT is a worldview or merely an analytical tool. In other words, are there worldview assumptions that must be accepted in order to apply the tool? If there are, then the authors of the final resolution are either naive or downright subversive.
According to the founders of CRT, the “movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power.” Based on those assumptions, CRT “questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”9 Moreover, the movement itself asserts that, “Unlike some academic disciplines, critical race theory contains an activist dimension. It tries not only to understand our social situation but to change it, setting out not only to ascertain how society organizes itself along racial lines and hierarchies but to transform it for the better.”10
How, then, can CRT be viewed or used as “a set of analytical tools that explain how race has and continues to function in society”? Tools don’t explain; worldviews do. And CRT is a worldview based on clear, unambiguous assumptions:
CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color (italics mine).11
These terms are discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this book. However, a few basic assumptions are worth noting. First, racism is engrained in the fabric and system of American society. Second, that racism has been redefined so as to no longer require the existence of individual racists. Third, CRT exists to examine power structures which are assumed a priori. Fourth, these power structures are identified based on the assumed definitions and existence of white privilege and white supremacy.
The distinction between the two drafts is made even clearer when addressing the ways in which CRT and Intersectionality can or should be used:
Original Resolution |
Final Resolution |
|---|---|
WHEREAS, critical race theory and intersectionality are founded upon unbiblical presuppositions descended from Marxist theories and categories, and therefore are inherently opposed to the Scriptures as the true center of Christian union.… |
WHEREAS, Critical race theory and intersectionality alone are insufficient to diagnose and redress the root causes of the social ills that they identify, which result from sin, yet these analytical tools can aid in evaluating a variety of human experiences.… |
The statement, “Critical race theory and intersectionality alone are insufficient to diagnose and redress the root causes of the social ills that they identify,” may sound innocuous. However, it is anything but. Perhaps an illustration will help make the point.
One of my sons used to have a terrible time with his throat. He was constantly coughing, hacking, and grunting. We tried everything! We had him gargle, coat his throat, drink more water, and change his diet. Then we took him to see a doctor. The doctor said, “He has asthma.” I said, “OK, but what does that have to do with stuff getting stuck in his throat?” The doctor explained that asthma narrowed all his respiratory passages, including his throat. I was doubtful. We got an inhaler. Within a few days, all my son’s symptoms were gone! Turns out we were analyzing his problem based on faulty assumptions. And that is exactly what is wrong with CRT/I.
Again, a little background goes a long way here. The term “Intersectionality” was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw. She developed the idea under the tutelage of her mentor, Derrick Bell, the founder of Critical Race Theory. The two concepts are linked inexorably not only by the relationship between their founders, but by their Marxist underpinnings and goals. According to Resolution 9, CRT and Intersectionality identify social ills and “aid in evaluating a variety of human experiences.” Many have noted that, like many of the ideas in Critical Social Justice, Intersectionality possesses a kernel of truth. A complex web of intersections shape and influence one’s experience of the world. But what are the underlying assumptions intersectional theorists use for their assessment and analysis? Another side-by-side comparison will shed light on that question:
Original Resolution |
Final Resolution |
|---|---|
WHEREAS, critical race theory divides humanity into groups of oppressors and oppressed, and is used to encourage biblical, transcendental truth claims to be considered suspect when communicated from groups labeled as oppressors.… |
WHEREAS, Critical race theory and intersectionality have been appropriated by individuals with worldviews that are contrary to the Christian faith, resulting in ideologies and methods that contradict Scripture.… |
This one takes the cake! To say that CRT/I “have been appropriated by individuals with worldviews that are contrary to the Christian faith” is like saying heat has been appropriated by the sun. Intersectionality, according to its founder, is inseparable from feminist ideology and identity politics. In fact, the title of the seminal article outlining the concept is “Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.”12 In addition to identity politics and feminist theory, Intersectionality is rooted in the Marxist assumption of Oppressor/Oppressed categories. “Intersectionality means the examination of race, sex, class, national origin, and sexual orientation and how their combination plays out in various settings. These categories—and still others—can be separate disadvantaging factors… or an intersection of recognized sites of oppression.”13
The Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice puts an even finer point on the matter:
Our experiences of the social world are shaped by our ethnicity, race, social class, gender identity, sexual orientation, and numerous other facets of social stratification. Some social locations afford privilege (e.g., being white) while others are oppressive (e.g., being poor). These various aspects of social inequality do not operate independently of each other; they interact to create interrelated systems of oppression and domination. The concept of intersectionality refers to how these various aspects of social location “intersect” to mutually constitute individuals’ lived experiences.14
Again, note the clear Critical Theory categorizations. The language of oppressor/oppressed and the underlying Marxist worldview are inseparable from the analytical tools of CRT and Intersectionality.
Curtis Woods’s dissertation “The Literary Reception of the Spirituality of Phillis Wheatley (1753–1784): An Afrosensitive Reading” gives us several clues as to what he considers to be an appropriate use of CRT/I as analytical tools. Perhaps the most poignant is his glowing praise of Ibram X. Kendi: According to Woods, “Kendi’s work is phenomenal because he deftly incorporates critical race theory, theology, anthropology, sociology, and philosophy in narrating the history of racist ideas in America.”15 In case you are unfamiliar with Kendi’s work, he is a seminal figure in the secular Critical Social Justice movement whose work is anything but biblical.
Much more could and needs to be said about this. What happened at the SBC is far more significant than most people realize—more significant than I could possibly communicate in a single chapter. The overwhelming majority of people who raised their ballots in support of Resolution 9 did so not because they agreed with or even understood the matter at hand, but because they trusted the Committee on Resolutions. It also passed because a black professor from the flagship seminary in the SBC stood there and defended the resolution using hot-button language like “the Gospel of Jesus Christ” and “the sufficiency of Scripture” in order to obscure the fact that the resolution he helped write compromised both.
In the end, there were several factors that led the SBC to pass the resolution—including that among all the voices that spoke to the issue, one was conspicuously absent. Dr. Albert Mohler, the most respected theologian and cultural apologist in the SBC, who has repeatedly repudiated CRT, didn’t say a word. Nor could he. For Mohler to oppose Woods from the floor would not only have been professionally awkward, but it would most certainly have been seized upon by race baiters in the SBC—an opportunity to accuse Mohler of publicly opposing Woods only because he is black, and opposing CRT/I because he is a “racist” who want to “shut down the conversation” about racial justice, or to please the “white supremacist faction” within the SBC.16
1. I will differentiate between the concept of biblical justice and that of social justice in later chapters. For now, allow me to say that my argument is simply that Christians are obligated to “do justice”; social justice is a specific set of ideas that stands in stark opposition to the biblical concept of justice.
2. Tom Ascol, Tom Buck, Josh Buice, James White, and other drafters of the Dallas Statement have been very open about this fact both in public and in private.
3. More than one key leader in those organizations said the major problem with the Dallas Statement was not its content, but the fact that we failed to get up-front participation from people with significant reputations. This, of course, is tragic. For men to say outright that they are not willing to affix their signature to a document with which they agree simply because they (or those more powerful than they) were not asked to help shape it is disingenuous at best.
4. One former Southern Seminary professor confirmed the warnings he and other faculty and staff received concerning it. Conversations That Matter, “Downgrade at Southern Seminary: Critical Theory & Al Mohler (Part III),” YouTube, May 25, 2020, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4Wc3nGPGyY.
5. Tom Ascol, “Resolution 9 and the Southern Baptist Convention 2019,” from the Founders Ministry blog, June 15, 2019, https://founders.org/2019/06/15/resolution-9-and-the-southern-baptist-convention-2019/. Tom is a long-time Southern Baptist and regular attendee at the convention. He offers very helpful insights into the inner workings of the convention that shed light on the particular rules, traditions, and maneuvers that led to the final passage of Resolution 9 and its implications.
6. “A Southern Baptist Seminary Professor Promotes Liberation Theology,” Enemies Within the Church, August 9, 2019, https://enemieswithinthechurch.com/2019/08/09/a-southern-baptist-seminary-professor-promotes-liberation-theology/.
7. Strickland’s pro-liberation theology curriculum can be found at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m-2DQuN5bTDWwU3IeDGg-1l5gmW5yVnU/view.
8. Strickland’s interview with the Jude 3 Project, in which he praises James Cone and other heretical liberation theology exponents, can be seen at Jude 3 Project, “The Balanced Scholar: The Life and Work of J. Deotis Roberts | Walter Strickland,” YouTube, October 14, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxqW-HQ8Fuc.
9. Richard Delgado, Critical Race Theory (Third Edition) (New York, New York, New York University Press, Kindle Edition), 3.
10. Ibid., 8.
11. “What is Critical Race Theory?” UCLA School of Public Affairs, Critical Race Studies, https://spacrs.wordpress.com/what-is-critical-race-theory.
12. Kimberlé Crenshaw, Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics and Violence against Women of Color, https://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/mapping-margins.pdf.
13. Delgado, Critical Race Theory, 58.
14. Sherwood Thompson, Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Kindle Edition, 2014), 435.
15. Curtis Anthony Woods, “The Literary Reception of the Spirituality of Phillis Wheatley (1753–1784): An Afrosensitive Reading, A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary” (Louisville, Kentucky: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, May 2018), 91, https://repository.sbts.edu/bitstream/handle/10392/5714/Woods_sbts_0207D_10471.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
16. As this book was on its way to press, the Council of Seminary Presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention released a statement on November 30, 2020, that is nothing short of a complete repudiation of CRT as well as Resolution 9. While the organization condemns “racism in any form,” the seminaries agree that “affirmation of Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality and any version of Critical Theory is incompatible with the Baptist Faith & Message.” The issue was addressed at several convention meetings late in the year. This is a complete reversal of the language adopted in Resolution 9 in 2019. See George Schroeder, “Seminary Presidents Reaffirm BFM, Declare CRT Incompatible,” SBC News, November 30, 2020, https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/seminary-presidents-reaffirm-bfm-declare-crt-incompatible/.