Confronting Injustice without Compromising Truth
Confronting Injustice without Compromising Truth: 12 Questions Christians Should Ask About Social Justice
By: Thaddeus J. Williams
This is one of the best books I’ve read on social justice, and I’ve read several! (see below for links to those reviews)
There is part of me that was hesitant to read another book by a white person, but as soon as I read the foreword, written by civil rights activist, John Perkins, I knew I was in good hands. Thaddeus J. Williams did not write this book in a vacuum. It was written from much research and many conversations with people of all colors. Also each chapter contains a corresponding personal story from diverse authors that add to the truth and authenticity of this endeavor.
I wish I could copy verbatim, John Perkins’s foreword but I know my review is already going to push advisable length limits. While you wait for your book to arrive in the mail, I will add one quote from his portion here and continue forth.
“We are in the midst of a great upheaval. There is much confusion, much anger, and much injustice. Sadly, many Christian brothers and sisters are trying to fight this fight with man-made solutions. These solutions promise justice but deliver division and idolatry. They become false gospels. Thankfully, in these trying times, new conversations are happening, and the right questions are beginning to be asked. I believe the twelve questions Thaddeus raises in the book are the right questions we should all be asking in today’s troubling world.”
I believe another thing we must establish here before we go any further is that if you come away from this book thinking Williams was advocating that injustice doesn’t exist or that Christians are not responsible to fight it, then I doubt you actually read this book. He reminds us many times that God doesn’t just recommend that we do justice but he commands it.
Referencing Jeremiah 7:5, Williams emphasizes that we are to “truly do justice” which “presupposes there are untrue ways to execute justice, ways of trying to make the world a better place that aren’t in sync with reality and end up unleashing more havoc in the universe.”
Determining this true justice is the foundation of this book.
Integral to understanding his conversation regarding social justice is the recognition of two terms he has coined: Social Justice A and Social Justice B. Both sides believe they are doing justice. No one is anti-justice. We just have different ideas of what social justice means and entails.
Social Justice A: biblically compatible justice-seeking
Social Justice B: social justice that conflicts with a biblical view of reality
The distinctions are made as we ask and answer each of the 12 questions (some paraphrased):
1. Does our vision of social justice take seriously the godhood of God?
When we view creatures (namely humans) above the Creator, our reality is blurred. Our sin nature is rebellious towards God, desiring to be our own gods, to make our own rules, to determine our own morality. If we don’t have a proper view of who we are in comparison to our Creator, our form of justice will be selfishly skewed.
“Racism, therefore, is not merely horizontally unjust, depriving other creatures what they are due; it is also vertically unjust, failing to give the Creator his due by making race an ultimate object of devotion.”
2. Does our vision of social justice see everyone as an image-bearer of God?
If we are just bodies and nothing more, where do we find the basis for human equality? What gives people dignity or value? We must have something ‘outside of the box’ of our bodies to declare human dignity a truth. McLaughlin’s newest book ‘The Secular Creed’ is a short book proving how all elements of human equality come from the Bible. “Size, shade, sex, or status” are not what gives us value, it is our God-given identity as image-bearers.
I found this particular quote very convicting and one I plan to use going forward to maintain a godly perspective when I interact with people I disagree with.
“Picture someone specific who you see as the living, breathing antithesis of everything you believe to be true and just… Now think this true thought toward that person. “Image bearer.” Then treat that person as an image-bearer because this is who they were long before you found yourselves on opposite sides of a culture war.”
3. Does our vision of social justice idolize self, state, or social acceptance?
It’s another convicting statement when Williams (quoting John Calvin) calls our hearts “idol factories.” It is again, our sin nature, that has an innate ability to turn any thing (good or bad) into an ultimate thing. And our idols dictate what we view as just or unjust.
How do we know we are doing this? Well, one way we can ferret this out is to see where we seek justification. The Bible is clear that God is our justifier. Our belief in Jesus’s death on the cross for our sins means God declares us, ‘Not Guilty!’
But what do we see today? If we remove God from the discussion, we try to justify ourselves. And we try to seek justification from the government and others. Our salvation is then in our self-created identities.
“The question is, “Who has the right, the trustworthiness, the goodness, and the authority to render the verdict about who we really are?” Social Justice B answers, ‘We do.’ Herein lies one of the deepest problems with idolizing the self as sovereign. The omnipotence-demanding task of constructing an entire person’s nature is forced onto our all-too-shaky and finite shoulders.”
“We turn to society, Government, media, law, education, entertainment, the local business owner- everyone must declare us, in unison, ‘not guilty!’ We must silence anyone who fails to acknowledge and celebrate our guiltlessness… We must use the power of law to squash those who dare question our self-defined selves.”
“What happens when we sacrifice the truths of God’s Word on the altar of cultural trends? We tell the lie that Jesus is not worth it. We bow to idols. We do not give the Creator his due, and that is not justice.” - Becket Cook
4. Does our vision of social justice take any group-identity more seriously than our identities “in Adam” and “in Christ”?
Many studies highlight that human beings have a desire to belong and be part of a group. We live longer, healthier lives when we are in community. But our sin nature twists this into an us vs them scenario. We view our own groups superior to others.
Another convicting and hugely significant thought: if we want to find a common denominator between all of humanity, look no further than our depravity. The Bible is clear that no one is righteous, not even one.
“the same human nature in the Aztec slayer, the Atlantic slave trader, and the Auschwitz executioner resides in us too. If we don’t seriously reckon with that uncomfortable truth, then we can all too easily become the next round of self-righteous oppressors.”
This cuts through the rhetoric found in Social Justice B that tries to divide people into oppressor vs oppressed groups based on physical characteristics. Logic found in words from James Cone, the father of black liberation theology follows: Sin=oppression and oppression=white people; therefore sin=white people. But sin knows no racial boundaries.
“Any and all righteous status we have is solely in Jesus, not our color, not ethnicity, not gender, not the amount of oppression we or our ancestors have or haven’t experienced, not our good works, our ticking the right squares on the ballot, or our height on a hierarchy of privilege of pain; it is nothing but Jesus.”
5. Does our vision of social justice embrace divisive propaganda?
“Social Justice B attempts to explain the world’s evil and suffering by making group identities the primary categories through which we interpret all pain in the universe.”
He talks a little about revisionist history here. That narratives and edited histories are used to paint a condemning picture of a particular people group which is then applied to all individuals of that people group. Then all the bad, hardship, and pain in the world is blamed on this people group. This folks, describes the main markings of propaganda.
6. Does our vision of social justice champion suspicion, division, and rage?
“Instead of being love-filled, we’re easily offended, ever suspicious, and preoccupied with our own feelings. Instead of being filled with joy, we’re filled with rage and resentment, unable to forgive. Instead of striving for peace, we’re quarrelsome—dividing people into oppressed or oppressor groups instead of appreciating the image-bearer before us. Instead of having patience, we’re quickly triggered and slow to honestly weigh our opponents’ perspectives. Instead of being kind, we’re quick to trash others, assuming the worst of their motives. Instead of showing gentleness, we use condemning rhetoric and redefined words to intimidate others into our perspective. Instead of showing self-control, we blame our issues exclusively on others and their systems, not warring daily against the evil in our own hearts.”
7. Does our vision of social justice prefer damning stories to undamning facts?
This chapter has a lot of statistics and studies. The main question we are considering here is:
‘Disparities= Discrimination’?
Ibram X. Kendi, a leading antiracist scholar says, “When I see racial disparities, I see racism.”
Jonathan Haidt and Gregg Lukianoff explore this concept of equal outcomes in their secular book ‘The Coddling of the American Mind’. Disparities that Kendi is referring to involve what is perceived as unequal outcomes- a gap in racial representation at a school, in a group, at a job, a gap in pay, etc. If the outcome does not appear to be equal, some assume the cause had to have been discrimination— whether of age, gender, race, etc.
But one must remember what is preached to no end in psychology- Correlation does not equal Causation.
Haidt says, “Unfortunately, when reformers try to intervene in complex institutions using theories that are based on a flawed or incomplete understanding of the causal forces at work, their reform efforts are unlikely to do any good—and might even make things worse.”
Williams gives several examples of what appear to be unequal outcomes that can actually be explained when looking into the facts. Sometimes the more ‘boring’ explanation tells the actual truth about the disparity. Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers also explores seemingly unequal outcomes and identifies potential causes. Different personal preferences or priorities can easily account for a lot of disparity we see in the world.
“Only people who are forced to be, believe, and behave alike could have any hope of reaching the sacred goal of equal or equality outcomes… Different priorities would be swallowed up by some grand collectivist ideology.”
[See also Thomas Sowell’s Discrimination and Disparities]
8. Does our vision of social justice promote racial strife?
“The Social Justice B story tells us that American systems are so thoroughly racist that dark skin makes it virtually impossible to escape poverty.”
There are also lots of stats and studies in this chapter I can’t list here, but the facts presented show us a different picture of America than what is portrayed in the media. It tells a different story of policing and poverty. It questions what “voices” are really being heard— considering the damning and widely applied terms “whiteness,” “white privilege,” and “white fragility,” were all coined and popularized by white liberal women.
It considers the possibility that continually telling black people that their future is dim because of the color of their skin, could unintentionally have a “dream-crushing effect” that just perpetuates the cycle of poverty when actually studies show that if a kid grows up in poverty but finishes their education, finds a job, gets married, and then has kids (in that order) only 6% will end up in poverty. There is more hope than we are told.
Much more interesting things from this section I can’t include!
9. Does our vision of social justice distort the best news in history?
“If we make social justice our first thing, we will lose not only the real first thing—the gospel—we will lose social justice too.”
Social Justice B can easily become its own gospel, its own religion or ideology. If social justice is placed above the gospel, we have strayed from biblical teaching.
We hear the phrase “social justice is a gospel issue.” But if we view social justice and the gospel as the same thing, we have heavily edited Scripture to include our political ideology. The distinction must be made that the gospel (“Good News”) is declaring what is already done (by Jesus). It is not something we do, it’s something we receive. Social justice is something that must be done. Social justice comes from the gospel, but is not the same as the gospel. (He provides biblical basis for this from Jesus and Peter) We would be in trouble if fighting social justice became part of the equation for salvation— being good enough or doing enough is never something we can achieve.
“Without the gospel first, we become graceless in our truth telling, cheerless in our giving, and our neighborly love turns into self-righteous showmanship. Likewise, when the gospel is not our first thing, social justice becomes something else entirely.”
10. Does our vision of social justice ask ‘is there oppression?’ or does it ask ‘what kind of oppression?’
“Caring about justice requires a commitment to truth.”
Williams lays out an acronym— TRIBES— with each letter representing a different kind of oppressor. When our thinking stems from this viewpoint, we stop seeking truth and we start assuming oppression.
“Concept creep is particularly common in Social Justice B. It assumes that questioning sexism, racism, or any other evil ism as the best explanation is to side with the oppressors against the oppressed. This is exactly backward. If we care about ending actual sexism, then we should welcome the question of how much of the gender pay gap can be laid at the feet of actual sexism. Otherwise, we aren’t fighting the real problem, but shadow boxing our own ideological projections.”
Haidt also addressed this kind of thinking in his book. Though he doesn’t use the term Social Justice B:
“Imagine an entire entering class of college freshmen whose orientation program includes training in the kind of intersectional thinking… along with training in spotting microaggressions. By the end of their first week on campus, students have learned to score their own and others’ levels of privilege, identify more distinct identity groups, and see more differences between people. They have learned to interpret more word and social behaviors as acts of aggression. They have learned to associate aggression, domination, and oppression with privileged groups. They have learned to focus only on perceived impact and to ignore intent…”
What do you think is the outcome of this thinking (which is central to Critical Race Theory)? Whatever the outcome, it’s not justice. It’s keeping people from asking the right questions to get to the true injustices and crowding them out with a lot of false claims.
11. Does our vision of social justice turn the “lived experience” of hurting people into more pain?
Social Justice B elevates lived experiences to a place of authority, an authority that should dictate policies and systems and supersede objective truth, facts, and evidence. Lived experiences matter, and we should listen compassionately and genuinely without immediately seeing their story through our own political ideology. But we are doing more harm than good if we respond to lived experiences with fear-driven encouragement to see more oppression everywhere they look. Is this not psychological oppression?
“We can’t all be right. The difference between those who do justice and those who merely think they do comes down to the question of truth. Perhaps we should be less concerned about being on the so-called right side of history—a phrase so easily deployed to feel good about ourselves and demonize our opponents— and more concerned with being on the right side of truth. If we’re on the wrong side of truth, then no matter how virtuous we believe ourselves to be, we are adding to the net injustice in the world.”
12. Does our version of social justice accept ‘truth’ only from certain identity groups?
“The antidote to oppressive pseudoscience and racist theology is better science, better biblical interpretation, and more logic and evidence. The more truth we find, the less dark corners racist ideologies have in which to hide.”
The popular book, White Fragility, grounded in Critical Race Theory, leaves no room for anyone to challenge her (Robin DiAngelo) view. Anyone who presents counter arguments or evidence is seen as an oppressor. This turns Social Justice B into an unfalsifiable belief system. That’s not a good belief system. For example, Christianity hinges on the belief that Jesus died and rose again. If that is proven false, Paul says we (Christians) are to be “pitied.” Social Justice B refuses to acknowledge evidence that goes against their beliefs and this is a detriment to any truth-seeking person.
“Do arguments magically become true or false by putting them in someone else’s mouth? No. Writing off someone’s viewpoint because of their melanin levels makes us actual racists. Dismissing someone’s argument because of their gender makes us actual sexists. Silencing someone’s ideas because of their sexuality, their economic status, or any other quality of their lives rather than the quality of their ideas does not make us a voice of justice for the marginalized; it makes us actual bigots.”
Williams concludes his book with 7 valuable appendices that go into further discussion on topics like abortion, race, capitalism v socialism, sexuality, the term ‘culture war’, and fragility vs antifragility.
Before you make assumptions about what Williams means or implies with anything you’ve read here, I encourage you to read the book. He offers plenty of disclaimers throughout the book to dispel incorrect assumptions. After each chapter he includes a section of retorts one might counter in the form of “So you’re saying… [insert negative interpretation]”. I believe this to be a hugely important aspect of this book because it prevents people from reading into his words what he is not saying. Clarity is helpful for truth.
Honestly guys, I know this review was insanely long. But that’s because this book has so much truth and has really addressed so many of the concerns I’ve been feeling as tensions surrounding the concept of social justice have increased— in the world and in the church. A book that defends the gospel above all, defends the pursuit of truth above feelings, AND defends the command to love the oppressed and fight injustice is a book that I can whole-heartedly get behind and share with the world.
The question I am constantly asking when I finish books like these is— Okay, so what do I do now?
Williams answers:
“We preach the only gospel that offers real meaning to our generation created to know and enjoy God. To those gasping for air under the crushing weight of Social Justice B, we preach the gospel…
…But that is not all. We must show them through our words and actions just how compelling, beautiful, and liberating social justice can be when we do it God’s way, by his grace, through his power, for his glory, and for the good of his image-bearers.”
We may not have nailed down specific instances of injustice that we need to fight today, but we now know how to process all the candidates and focus our energy to “truly do justice.”
A few bonus quotes I couldn’t leave out:
“When you choose an anger-fueled life, you choose a fear-controlled life.” — Bella Danusiar
“When we don’t share the gospel, we leave people shackled to soul-crushing ideologies, enslaved to sin, and captive to forces of darkness… If our vision of social justice reduces evangelism to an offense or an afterthought, then we don’t care about the oppressed the way Scripture calls us to care for them.”
“If our mental operating systems function in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, then we should journey through our daily lives scanning the roadsides for anyone mangled by bandits. But if our epistemology keeps our eyes always fixed on the horizon—by focusing only on getting all our doctrinal i’s dotted and t’s crossed, or only on getting to heaven, or only on the triumph of our political party until the grimacing faces on the roadside become blurred—then we are the religious villains of Jesus’s story.”
“But Jesus said, ‘You will be hated by all for my name’s sake.’ James tells us that ‘friendship with the world is enmity with God’ and ‘whoever wishes to be friends with the world makes himself an enemy of God.’ This, then, is the telltale sign that we have crossed the line from real justice into Social Justice B: Does our vision of justice include anything the mainstream would reject?”
“Evil humans make evil laws. We build our sins into our systems. But this biblical insight that sin can be supersized and systematized is usually not what Social Justice B means by ‘systemic injustice.’”
“According to historic Christianity, salvation is the good news of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection so sinners of all colors can be saved by a free act of divine grace. CRT [Critical Race Theory] had pulled me away from that good news into a social justice gospel in which the finished work of Jesus wasn’t enough. Activism to end “oppression” as redefined by CRT became a gospel essential. Scripture consistently defines us as brothers and sisters. CRT splits us into intersectional tribes. In God’s eyes, humanity’s fundamental problem is that we are all sinners in need of grace. According to CRT, humanity’s fundamental problems are whiteness and oppression. The beliefs of CRT weren’t ‘part of the gospel;’ they formed a different gospel altogether.” — Monique Duson
For reference, there are the other related books I have read so far that flesh out one or more of the topics covered in this book. I will continue to add to this list as I learn more:
The Secular Creed: Engaging Five Contemporary Claims by Rebecca McLaughlin
Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian by John Piper
What is the Mission of the Church: Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission by Kevin DeYoung
The Color of Compromise by Jemar Tisby
Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes Us Just by Timothy Keller
Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America by Michael O. Emerson
How the Nations Rage: Rethinking Faith and Politics in a Divided Age by Jonathan Leeman (Dealing with divisions in the church that are often caused by differing opinions on social justice)
The Intolerance of Tolerance by D.A. Carson (Another word that has been redefined and how it influences our exchange of ideas)
The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting a Generation For Failure by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff (This secular book has a broader scope than social justice but it does address social justice, discrimination, hate speech, us vs them ideology, identity politics, and other related concepts.)
Fortitude: American Resilience in the Age of Outrage by Dan Crenshaw (Again, a secular book not social justice specific but focuses on relevant things like overcoming obstacles, being unoffendable, and fighting rage with clear-headed question-asking.)
Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don’t Know by Malcolm Gladwell (This looks at why we assume certain things about certain people and the psychology involved with interacting with strangers— the balance between proper suspicion and just paranoia)
Pin this to Pinterest!