Is Critical Theory Corrupting Our View of I.C.E. and Gender?

John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle, in their book, A Practical Guide to Culture, write: “We live the way we do because of our worldview. Our worldview, whether or not we’re consciously aware of it, informs our actions in the world and our interactions with others. It consists of our deeply held beliefs about God, morality, and the nature of relationships.” In other words, ideas have consequences. Good ideas bring blessings. Bad ideas bring victims.

Since the 1930’s, one of the worldviews taught at our universities and impacting our culture, is critical theory, aka cultural Marxism. This episode argues that many Christians today have been corrupted by strains of critical theory in their thinking about I.C.E., the use of authority, and their view of gender. I believe the way many Christians ignore what I Timothy 2 teaches proves my case. But critical theory's corrupting influence goes beyond gender.    

In Romans 12, after telling us that our first response to God’s mercy in sending Christ for us should be to put ourselves on the altar to God as a living sacrifice, Paul’s second instruction is to fix our broken thought process. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. One of the ideologies in our culture that is squeezing us into its mold, as I mentioned in the intro, is a destructive worldview called, cultural Marxism. Let’s review this system of thought so we can identify its corrupting impact in our culture and perhaps our own lives. 

Origin and Growth of Critical Theory

Critical theory is a way of viewing society that is rooted in Karl Marx’s dichotomy of society into the oppressed proletariat laboring class and the oppressor bourgeoisie land and business owner class. Italian Marxist Antonia Gramsci extended this oppressor/oppressed lens into every aspect of culture. Thus, not only are laborers oppressed by business owners (Marxism), but the poor are oppressed by the rich, blacks are oppressed by whites, women are oppressed by men, homosexuals and transgendered oppressed by cisgendered people. Poor nations are oppressed by wealthy nations, immigrants wanting to cross our borders are oppressed by Americans citizens who want closed borders. Palestinian Muslims are oppressed by Israel. Gramsci called the force that enables these oppressors to oppress “unjust, cultural hegemony.” You may remember this term from history class, which usually refers to the influence of stronger nations over weaker ones. Gramsci used hegemony to mean “the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group within a culture.”

A group of Gramsci’s followers, called the Frankfurt School, moved from Germany to Columbia University in NY City in 1935. It has been spreading it’s antibiblical ideology across America’s college campuses ever since. They expanded Marx’s oppressor/oppressed economic lens to every sphere of social injustice. All inequities are caused by the cultural power of the OPPRESSORS, which these OPPRESSORS cling to through their religious, political, social, and cultural structures. Cultural Marxists want to see these structures, such as Christianity, the US Constitution, the free market, accurate history, and the structure of the family torn down to accomplish "social justice." Critical theory idealogues foment violence to create social unrest across our country. But it is not the extremists who concern me, but the threads of this ideology creeping into the thinking of those who call themselves Bible-believing Christians. Here are some of those threads:

Thread # 1: An anti-Biblical view of justice. Cultural Marxism says “all inequalities are unjust.” Privilege is evil and the cause of oppression. Equal opportunity is replaced by the call for equity. Whereas equality means that each individual or group is given the same opportunity or resources, equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and, therefore allocates the exact resources needed to reach an equal outcome among all. This is pure Marxism—the redistribution of wealth, i.e. the state stealing from the rich and giving those funds to the poor. After all, why should some have so much and others so little; it is not fair!

Mao fomented revolution through his slogan “from each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” This utopian ideal to force “equality” upon others led ultimately to the slaughter of 65 million Chinese by Mao, and 20 million in the USSR by Lenin and Stalin (Jay Richardson, Money Greed and God). That this Marxist view of justice is seen in critical theory is obvious. For example, Ibram Kendi, the author of How to Be an Antiracist, and leading spokesman for Critical Race Theory writes, “As an anti-racist, when I see racial DISPARITIES, I see racism” (Ted Cruz, Unwoke). Think of it, ANY inequality PROVES racism. Therefore, the “haves” are always demonized by critical theory. What is troubling is that the recent reawakening of Christian concern for social justice has led many to unthinkingly adopt a sinful bias toward those deemed “oppressors” by critical theory. They have a sinful, blaming attidute against categories of God’s image bearers that just happens to perfectly match the categories that critical theory names “oppressors.” They embrace the legacy media's demonization of these "oppressors" with no discernment. Here are some examples of undeserved bias:

• Against I.C.E. agents who are putting their lives at risk to do their jobs eforcing laws passed by Congress and are viewed as the “oppressors” while gangs that have sent thousands of teens to their death through fentanyl poisoning are somehow the “oppressed.”
• Against Homeland Security administrators enforcing immigration law who are seen as the “oppressors” while illegal immigrants are seen as victims. God’s love for the sojourner never trumps the just rule of law. We may favor a fine and path to become legal for those who crossed the border illegally or overstayed, their visa, illegally. But such disagreement can never lead to resistance to law-enforcement.
• Against the President. Some Christians refuse to associate with supporters of Trump despite his pro-life. pro-Israel, anti-woke agenda. He used American economic strength to end wars, has helped the poor through foreign investment that will bring thosands of jobs to our economy, saved  thousands of young lives from fentanyl death and young women and children from being raped by Mexican drug cartels by closing the borders, which are all consistent with biblical values. Of course, some disagreement with MAGA is legitimate. I cannot support MAGA's nationalism. But does that one negative really negate countless other biblical policies being implemented by his administration or has critical theory blinded some Christians to reality?
• Against business owners, who are the “oppressors” because somehow one person becoming wealthy means he caused another’s other’s poverty (which exhibits complete ignorance of economics). In reality it is business owners who provide jobs to workers who are fundamental to developing the resources on planet earth to feed its population.
• Against men. I’ve witnessed the unjust treatment of a male accused of abusing a thirty-year-old woman with whom he had a four-year consensual affair. It was sin, but it was not abuse. Biblical justice holds both man and woman equally accountable, and being labeled an abuser in this culture, when you are not, is a horrific injustice.
• Against police. Police in our cities are deemed the “oppressors,” while black teen male lawbreakers are the “oppressed.” Justifying an attempt to hurt the police through defunding because they are racist oppressors is absurd when between 75 and 88 thousand police officers in America are black.

Thread # 2: A false oppressor/oppressed social binary, which is evil. Of course, those with power oppress those with less. That is an obvious conclusion from biblical teaching about the fall. But the radical fall of Adam’s race transmitted his sinful nature to all humans, not just the rich and powerful. The Biblical law requiring landowners to harvest only once, leaving the leftovers for the poor, needs to be recognized; but to act justly is not just defending the marginalized. It is being impartial, i.e. not favoring the rich or POOR. “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the POOR or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor” (Lev 19:15).

The most insidious aspect of this oppressor/oppressed false dichotomy is that it demonizes the enforcement of the law. It falsely identifies enforcing the law as authoritarianism. Therefore, interfering with I.C.E. is justified, and the Commander-in-Chief is labeled a fascist for enforcing immigration laws passed by Congress. This past week, five members of Congress put out a video to military members implying that those who disagree with the Commander-in-Chief’s orders should defy them. Anti-I.C.E. sentiment, anti-law-enforcement, and politicians who enable it, should be roundly criticized by Christians because biblical teaching to support law enforcement is very clear. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment (Rom 13:1-3). Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good (I Pet 2:13-14). Are some innocent people harmed by I.C.E.’s enforcement of the law? Yes. Can law enforcement be corrupt? Yes. But that has never been justification for Christians to oppose the enforcement of law. Both Peter and Paul would be unjustly executed by the Roman emperor, Nero. Nevertheless, they knew that opposing the enforcement of civil law is EVIL. 

But Cultural Marxism’s oppressor/oppressed lens sees lawbreakers as victims, not those needing punishment. Cities like San Francisco and Chicago have been overrun by crime because officials refuse to enforce laws. This victim mentality towards lawbreakers could not be more anti-biblical or unloving. There is no place for Bible-believing Christians to be anti-I.C.E., support non-enforcement of immigration law, or vote for politicians who are quick to release guilty prisoners when such neglect is rewarding crime, harming innocent citizens, and destroying cities.

The biblical view of punishment for repeated lawbreakers could not be more different than cultural Marxism’s victim mentality, which excuses the wrong behavior that is destroying the lawbreaker, internally. It is best for society, but also for the lawbreaker not to get away with lawlessness. Christians who think it is loving to let convicted lawbreakers escape punishment are looking through the lens of cultural Marxism not the Bible. Scripture teaches that punishment for lawbreaking is required to motivate humans towards righteousness. Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him (Prov 22:15). Love for an unrepentant lawbreaker means bringing punishment, in the hopes of bringing repentance that will rescue him from the downward spiral of sin that will result in more pain and judgement from God if he continues. Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him (Prov 13:24). Love punishes evil, so it will not destroy its perpetrator.

GENDER

Strains of critical theory are also causing many who claim to be Bible-believing, to reject clear biblical teaching about authority in the home and church. Have you ever wondered why women are considered a minority when they outnumber men? According to cultural Marxism, the reason is cultural hegemony. White men have gained cultural power by using traditional views of gender roles and the patriarchy of the Bible to oppress women. I know for certain that egalitarianism and critical theory are corrupting today’s Christians. How? Because the biblical teaching that men are assigned leadership in the church is crystal clear—but many won’t defy the culture. The case against ordaining women to be teaching elders (pastors) or ruling elders is irrefutable. We come to it today in our study of 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.  

Here are some facts about this text:

• “Learning quietly with all submissiveness” refers to the elders of the church affirming or denying the legitimacy of what the visiting preacher said. In other words, they are to be silent when the elders of the church are judging whether or not a visiting preacher's teaching is true. This is the tradition behind saying "Amen" which means "it is true," after someone speaks.
• Paul is speaking with Apostolic authority when he says, “I do not permit.”
• The context of this prohibition is worship. What Paul says refers to the authoritative teaching of God’s Word, which corresponds to preaching today.
• Paul is not discussing women having authority over men outside the church.
• “Have authority over a man” means what it says. Egalitarians have tried to argue that this prohibition was specific to Timothy’s Ephesian church by attempting to translate the Greek word AUTHENTAO “usurp authority,” or “abuse authority.” But over 80 examples of AUTHENTAO exist outside the NT clearly establishing that the word means “exercise authority.”
• This teaching cannot be merely an accommodation to the culture because Paul bases it on the order of creation. It is therefore normative for all cultures.
• This text in I Timothy is consistent with what Paul said in I Corinthians 11:13. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of  a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Paul sees significance in the fact that Eve was created to be Adam’s perfect ally not vice versa.
• Paul reaffirms the “order of creation,” here. God’s recounting of Adam’s sin did not begin, “you ate the forbidden fruit.” It began, “Because you listened to the voice of your wife and ate…” The creation design was Adam leading Eve and them both exercising dominion over the reptile kingdom. But Satan had subverted this order. Eve listened to the serpent and Adam listened to Eve.  
• The woman was deceived. Paul appears to weigh seriously Satan’s intelligence in trying to deceive Eve instead of Adam. I believe Paul saw something in this strategy that caused him to believe Adam was less vulnerable to deception.
• Saved through childbearing does not mean saved by childbearing. Paul’s mind was going back to Genesis 3, which recorded not only the fall but God’s curse upon Eve. She will have pain in childbirth, but God’s blessing will still be on the woman through the process of childbirth, if she continues to walk with Jesus bearing the righteous fruit of faith, holiness, love, and self-control.

NT policy is clear. God has assigned the leadership position of pastor and elder in the church to qualified men. Even if this text were unclear, the rest of Scripture teaches that leadership in the church, as it is in the home, is assigned to men.

• As we’ve seen, in 1 Cor 11:13, Paul explicitly teaches that the head of a wife is her husband and again in Ephesians 5. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
• The church is uniformly called “the household of God” by the NT writers. Men are responsible for leadership in their own household, so it follows logically that they would be leaders in the “household of God.”
• This pattern of leadership in the church follows the pattern of leadership in creation. Not only was Eve created for Adam and not vice versa, but Adam had the responsibility of naming Eve, a mark of authority in that culture.
• The requirement for a pastor or elder is “to be the husband of one wife.” Scripture does not read “or the wife of one husband, (1 Tim 3:2).
• The requirement to lead the church was "demonstrated success at leading the home," which was assigned to husbands and fathers (1 Tim 3:6).
• God assigned Abraham the teaching responsibility to guide his kids in the ways of the Lord and Paul addressed fathers, when he commanded, "Raise them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," (Eph 6:4).
• Since Scripture commands church members to submit to their elders, if God assigned women to be elders, then who would submit to whom? Would the husband church member submit to his wife the elder, or would she submit to him as his wife? Mutual submission is a non-answer; the question is, “who has the final say?” This impossible situation does not exist, because only qualified men are assigned to be church pastors and elders.

Why do many Christians and churches rationalize clear biblical teaching about gender roles in the church? Because cultural Marxism considers biblical teaching to be the imposing of oppressive patriarchy upon women. It falsely claims that any structure of authority is demeaning to those required to submit because submitting admits one’s inferior status. But this is a lie from Satan, the first egalitarian who wanted to be equal to God and tempted Eve to be like God. Is Jayden Daniels an inferior human being to Dan Quinn, his coach? Does a driver show his inferiority to a police officer when he obeys his wave to come through an intersection? Does an employee following his boss’s lead demonstrate that he has less dignity and worth than his boss? God ordained structure for order in life. His structures are not the problem; the problem is sin. The claim that submitting to authority proves inferiority was proved completely false by Jesus, once and for all. All of Scripture indicates that God the Son is fully equal to God the Father in dignity and glory. Yet The Son chose to humble submit himself to The Father to accomplish our salvation.

Critical theory’s claim that the Bible teaches oppressive patriarchy is completely false. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both Israel and the NT church were governed by the rule of law. The heads of families were accountable to the elders of the town for obeying laws like Leviticus 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. In the church, husbands and fathers were accountable to the elders for their conduct and challenged regularly to sacrifice whatever was necessary to enable their wives and children to flourish.

God’s design of male and female to complete one another in the loving intimacy of marriage is glorious. Of course it is; God chose it to image himself! And every time Christians follow critical theory and demean the gender roles the Bible teaches for the home and the church, men are further enabled to be passive, instead of obeying Christ's call to step up to their leadership role. The old Puritan, Matthew Henry, who was uncorrupted by critical theory or egalitarianism, got it right on this issue. He wrote. “Eve was made from a rib, out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected by him and near his heart to be loved by him.” 

For Further Prayerful Thought:

1. How does “cultural Marxism” sound like what you’ve heard about (economic), i.e. regular Marxism?
2. If justice means there must be no disparities of money, ability, or power in society, why does it logically follow that the “have nots” will be hostile to the “haves?” Why might they be able to justify a revolution as Mao did in China?
3. Why would it be tragic if the legitimate enforcement of the law were seen as authoritarianism? Knowing that holders of authority can and do use it unjustly, why do you think God takes such a strong stand (in Rom 13 and I Pet 2) requiring Christians to obey authority.
4. What do you think of the argument that the biblical teaching about gender roles and church leadership is so clear that to deny it strongly suggests Christians are being shaped by culture and not Scripture?