WOE TO THE SHEPHERDS

The First Reading for July 21, the day after the conclusion of the ELCA Youth Gathering, was from Jeremiah 23.  In verse 1 the Lord says to the leaders of God’s people, “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!”  I believe that the same thing could be said about the leaders of the ELCA, including the planners of the youth gathering, which was held July 16-20 in New Orleans. 

Because of COVID, the last youth gathering occurred six years ago in 2018.  That time recordings of the messages from the keynote speakers were available for some time after, so I was able to listen to them, analyze them, and report on some of them in detail.  This time the sessions were live streamed (except for when the arena was having difficulties with the internet connection) and the recordings were available only for a short time before they were removed.  I was able to watch the evening session on Tuesday, part of the evening session on Thursday, and the closing worship service on Saturday morning.  Other than that I am dependent upon written comments, including on Facebook, and the daily summaries – complete with ELCA spin – in the ELCA’s digital magazine, “Living Lutheran.”  Even the video recaps for days 1, 2, and 3 – which are still available on the gathering’s YouTube channel – do not give any content from the keynote speakers.  They basically show young people being energetic and doing service projects.  It gives the impression that the gathering planning team do not want people to know what the keynote speakers said.    

However, the team did put together a five minute “Week in Review” video, which is still available.  I will use that video to share my reflections on the gathering.  A link to the video can be found HERE.

The video concludes with the person who actually opened the gathering – Bishop Michael Rinehart of the host synod, the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast Synod (4: 40).  He began not with an opening prayer calling upon the Lord to bless the event but instead by acknowledging the indigenous people who had previously lived on the land and from whom the land was stolen.  It reminded me of the opening of the August 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly, where greater emphasis was placed upon the rivers that flow through the area of the host synod than upon the God who created the rivers.  Bishop Rinehart told of how one of the indigenous tribes had sued the federal government and had succeeded in getting their land back.  At the announcement that a tribe had been successful in a lawsuit against the U. S. government, the young people cheered.  Hearing their cheers, I wondered what else they would become (and had already become) conditioned to cheer for.

But what I thought was most significant in Bishop Rinehart’s comments in the “Week in Review” video is the fact that he is the only person in the video who mentions Jesus.  And how does he describe Jesus?  As the “Jesus who calls us to challenge systems of oppression and power.”  Jesus through the lens of Marxism, critical race theory, and DEIA ideology.

The “Week in Review” video opens with Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton.  This is not in the video, but on Tuesday (opening) night Bishop Eaton was introduced by one of the emcees, Rebekah Bruesehoff, as having worked for eleven years for “inclusivity, advocacy, and social justice.”  The introduction certainly shows what is considered most important.  I thought it was very interesting that Rebekah Bruesehoff, who along with her mother Naomi spoke at the last gathering in 2018 promoting transgenderism, was now one of the emcees.  In 2018 Rebekah was a pre-adolescent, transgender child.  Her mother is the author of “Raising Kids beyond the Binary: Celebrating God’s Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children.”  The ELCA reveals what it values most by whom it elevates, lifts up, and makes heroes of.

The “Week in Review” video quotes Bishop Eaton as saying with joy and anticipation on opening night, “You can make a change; you can be disruptive” (0: 01).  Actually on opening night Bishop Eaton used three phrases – “You make a difference; you can make a change; you can be disruptive.”  Anyone who does public speaking knows that in a series like that, whatever you want to give the greatest emphasis to – whatever you want to be the climax of your comments – you put last.  On opening night, when Bishop Eaton said, “You can be disruptive,” the crowd cheered.

Many times during the five days the youth were told that they were “Created to Be Brave, Free, Authentic, and Disruptive Disciples.”  I noticed that none of the keynote speakers were brave and free enough to be introduced without including their pronouns.  (When I register for ELCA synodical events, I make sure that I do not give my pronouns.)  The model for being disruptive that was held up was Jesus’ overturning the tables of the money changers in the Temple.  But I wonder what kinds of behavior 16, 000 youth thought were being approved, endorsed, and even promoted when they were told that they were created to be disruptive.

Evidently there was one example of being disruptive that did not please everyone.  At the closing worship service Bishop Eaton mentioned that there had been a low point during the gathering when a group was made to feel as if they did not matter.  She said that the group had been offered a heart-felt apology on a previous evening.  Again, because recordings of the evening sessions were very quickly removed, I was not able to watch that apology and find out exactly what it was in response to.  But I can think of one strong possibility.  Someone posted on Facebook that his group had felt “triggered” by one of the speakers.  “Triggered” seems to be a favorite term for those who feel offended.  So the group started talking about it out loud.  People who were nearby asked them to be quiet because they wanted to hear the speaker.  That request led to the group’s feeling even more triggered and claiming that they were being subjected to racist behavior so they will never attend a future youth gathering.  I do not know if that is the incident that triggered the apology, but if it is, it does raise the question of whether talking out loud as a group near other people during a public gathering was validated and legitimized by the ELCA’s saying that we are created to be disruptive.  If my public rudeness leads to your having to apologize publicly because I feel triggered and subjected to your racist behavior, it also shows – in the strange world of wokeness, critical race theory, and DEIA ideology – that the one who is the most empowered is the one who claims to be the most victimized and oppressed.

For me the bright spot of the gathering was the presentation Tuesday evening by Michael Chan (2: 06).  Michael’s message at the ELCA’s Rostered Leaders Gathering last summer was also the bright spot at that event for me.  At the Rostered Leaders Gathering I felt that he was the only keynote speaker who expressed care and concern for us – the ministers of the church – rather than merely viewing us as underlings who need to get totally on board with fully supporting the ELCA agenda and priorities.  At the youth gathering he spoke on Psalm 139: 13 – “You formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”  He began by saying, “Wonders happen in the dark,” and then said so many other good things that I would have wanted the youth from my former congregation to hear.  These comments include “You were loved and treasured long before you performed your first good act” and “You were precious long before you could prove it.”  He talked about the difficult circumstances that can bury us and then said, “You are not in the grave, you are in the womb: something is happening in the darkness.” 

I would have been happy to have the youth from my former congregation hear Michael Chan.  I would not have wanted them to hear another keynote presenter, ELCA pastor Keats Miles-Wallace, who spoke on Thursday evening (3: 00).  Pastor Miles-Wallace shared that he always knew that he was different.  In middle school he did not fit in anywhere, and he made himself miserable trying to be what every group that he wanted to be a part of wanted him to be.  He finally learned that God created him to be free – “free to be my weird, different, unique, transgender, non-binary, neuro-divergent, and Anglo-Mexican-Indigenous self.”  Rather than finding his identity in Christ, he found his identity in being himself “out loud.”  He found peace when he finally experienced the “freedom of expression that God intended for all of creation.”  He is a member of the task force that is reviewing the 2009 human sexuality social statement. 

A video was shown on Thursday evening about ten minutes before Pastor Miles-Wallace spoke, which certainly set the stage and prepared the way for Pastor Miles-Wallace’s remarks.  This video went through the various days of creation in Genesis 1 as it prepared the young people to fully embrace the LGBTQ+ agenda.  Its argument was that at first glance, creation seems full of binaries.  God created light and then separated the light from the darkness, but there are also sunrises and sunsets, dawn and dusk.  God separated the land from the waters, but there are places that are not fully land or fully water, such as marshes and bogs.  God created the sun and the moon, but there are also stars, planets, and asteroids.  God created creatures of the land, sea, and sky, but there are also land animals such as penguins that swim and fish that fly.  God created male and female, but He also made all other types of people.  The video concluded, “At a glance creation seems full of binaries, but there is also a beautiful in between.  Genesis gives examples, but does not exclude the possibility of more, and God saw that it was good.”

The video said nothing about God’s creating male and female not as just two of an endless number of possible varieties, but instead so that two could become one flesh and so that the two would be able to be fruitful and multiply.  (Genesis 1: 27-28, 2: 24; Matthew 19: 4-6)  The stage was now set for ELCA youth to fully embrace the full LGBTQIA2S+ agenda and every variety of gender identity.  No wonder the “Week in Review” video even showed a group of youth with a drag queen (2: 00).  

The video of the closing worship service on Saturday ended with a short introduction of the location of the 2027 gathering – Minneapolis.  Minneapolis was described as a city that has a “commitment to inclusivity,” “celebrates diversity and embraces dialog,” and where “every voice is heard and every story matters.”  I noticed the Palestinian flag at one point in the “Week in Review” video (4: 20).  I am sure that during the gathering the voices of the Israeli people were never heard and their story did not matter.  Typical of ELCA youth events, there was not even one person who spoke in support of traditional views of human sexuality and gender identity.  Typical of the ELCA, this time also not every voice was heard and there were stories that did not matter. 

Dennis D. Nelson

lcorewebmail@gmail.com

 

In the September and November editions of CORE Voice, Dennis Nelson analyzed the activist constituency of the members of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC). The fact that there are a number of activists on the Commission is not surprising, since the Churchwide Assembly’s directive to the ELCA Church Council was to create a commission to recommend restructuring the church being particularly attentive to the church’s commitment to “dismantling racism.” In other words, whatever recommendations the CRLC makes must take steps to dismantle racism within the denomination.

For many members of the ELCA, the question of racism in the church is confusing. In this instance, why is there a move to restructure the whole denomination around dismantling one particular sin?

To answer this question, it is important to understand the chief philosophical assumption of ELCA policymakers, namely, Critical Theory. In critical theory, the world is viewed chiefly through the lens of power and how some groups use their power to oppress other groups. There are oppressors and victims, especially in the sense that some groups are kept from having full access to the power that opposite groups enjoy. This oppression is racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, etc. This means that oppression like racism is much more than personal prejudice (which is how most of us would understand the term); rather, racism is systemic and institutionalized.

The assumptions at work in the ELCA’s effort to “dismantle racism” rely on a subset of Critical Theory usually called Critical Race Theory. Critical Race Theory has been popularized recently by books like How to be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi and White Fragility by Robin Diangelo. In Mainline Christianity, Critical Race Theory has long been defended by ELCA Pastor, anti-racism advocate, and author Joseph Barndt. Barndt offers the distinction in his work that power can be used by Christians for good when it is shared without exclusivity.

The modern anti-racist movement based on Critical Race Theory makes a fundamental claim: You are either a racist or an antiracist. Within this framework, you are either supporting racism or you are working to dismantle racism. Because, in this view, racism is so enmeshed in American culture, one cannot simply be “not-racist.” There is no neutrality. If you are a White person, racism is your original sin. Furthermore, because racism is institutionally enmeshed, to be anti-racist is about supporting particular political policy changes that deconstruct supposed hierarchies of power within society.

Connected to this understanding of Critical Theory is the understanding of Intersectionality, which asserts that there are interlocking systems of oppression that affect more than one individual trait. Thus, oppression based on race is intricately tied together with oppression based on sexuality, gender, ability, etc. Under this framework, for example, opposing the full inclusion of practicing homosexuals on the roster of Word and Sacrament is descriptive of institutional racism. To be anti-racist is to support the full inclusion of any group that claims oppression.

Understanding this will help one understand many of the ELCA’s policy commitments. Working to end so-called Global Climate Change is an anti-racist policy, because it is argued that Global Climate Change disproportionately affects minorities. Likewise, Bishop Elizabeth Eaton’s statements such as those regarding Israel and Palestine or the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse, which drew the ire of many moderate and conservative ELCA members, can be understood through the oppressor/oppressed framework of Critical Theory.

The question is, what will it mean to restructure a church around the tenet of dismantling racism? Barndt answers this question in his book Becoming an Anti-Racist Church: Journeying toward Wholeness, providing six steps: Commitment to Institutionalizing, Full Power Sharing, Assured Cultural Inclusion, Mutual Accountability, Multiplying Inclusion, and Restored Community.^[1] The purpose of these steps, according to Barndt is, “The ultimate vision that drives the process of institutional change is a future in which both the church and the wider community overcome systemic racism.”^[2] Consequently, this means that the fundamental goal of a church restructured to be anti-racist is to be an institution that can partner with the world to overcome systemic racism. In other words, the anti-racist church will be on the leading front of the anti-racist policies that shape the world.

Understandably, when one hears the phrase “dismantle racism,” it is easy to hear it through what we all know: Racism is a sin. There is no question, and the church must always call racism what it is; however, when you hear ELCA policy makers using phrases like “anti-racism” and “dismantling racism,” please understand the goal is to structure a church around political activism. This ought to concern those in the ELCA who understand that Christ has given his church a different commission, a commission found in Matthew 28:16-20 and John 20:21-23.

---

^[1] Barndt, Joseph. Becoming an Anti-Racist Church: Journeying toward Wholeness. 1517 Media, 2011, p. 188-189.

^[2] p.194

Sin, Justification, and Salvation: Critical Theory as Christ-less Christianity

Secular Christian Heresy

One of the more perplexing questions I received after writing my last article was, “Why do you call critical theory a secular Christian heresy?”  It was perplexing to me because I thought that was the burden of my whole article; I could see someone disagreeing with me and objecting, but not simply misunderstanding. 

To be clear in this article, let me say what I mean by secularized Christian heresy.  A heresy is simply unbalanced or incorrect teaching.  The word heresy means to pick and choose, so rather than accepting the full, robust teaching of the Holy Scriptures regarding this or that topic, they embrace some aspects of it and neglect others. 

So, to claim that Jesus was an inspired but perfectly human moral teacher is a heresy, not because Jesus is not an inspired, perfectly human moral teacher, but because teaching that alone neglects the other Biblical teaching that He is also the Word of God that “became flesh and dwelt among us,” (John 1:14) the eternal only-begotten Son of the Father, “the only God, who is at the Father’s side, [who] has made [God] known” because “No one has ever seen God.” (John 1:18) Both Jesus’ full humanity and absolute divinity must be proclaimed together for the Church to correctly articulate the Biblical teaching about who Jesus is.  Anything other, less, or partial is heresy.

Christian theology has many subcategories.  In addition to Christology (who Jesus is) just a few are soteriology (how we are saved), pneumatology (who the Holy Spirit is and how He functions), and the most difficult of all, Trinitarian theology (how we articulate who God is in Himself).  In each of these areas it is possible to fall into error by getting the doctrine wrong through omission, addition, or innovation; though some people would reserve the term heresy to errors in Christology and Trinitarian theology alone, the principle of heresy remains the same across all the theological categories, and I will use the term in that sense throughout this article.

Such theological categories are the common inheritance of everyone in the West, even those who forthrightly reject orthodox (correct) Christian teaching — though they may lament it being so, it is the inescapable cultural air a Westerner breathes.  A category of meaning like the fall from primordial human perfection was a controlling idea for philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau, whose ideas are experiencing a resurgence of influence today.  Though he explicitly rejected Christianity — especially its sexual ethics — Rousseau’s thought world was a distorted reflection of the Judeo-Christian story he was rejecting.  First, he gets the story wrong by claiming we can return to primordial perfection (Eden) without the ministrations of a divine Savior, as though an impassible flaming sword does not bar our way.  That makes his story heresy.  Then, he goes on to posit that there is no God at the root of our existence … at least not one of the personal, tendentious, interfering, judgmental sort depicted in the Bible.  That makes his story secular.  Rousseau’s view of the human predicament is a secular Christian heresy.

Critical theory too adopts categories of meaning from the Christian thought world that it sees as its opponent, makes key errors in the doctrines and then secularizes them in the same way Rousseau did, failing to recognize its debt to Christianity.

Sin

In classical Christianity, sin is not a problem for humanity, it is the problem.  “Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” (Romans 5:12)  Sin separates eternally from God and as Genesis 3:7 makes plain, even before humanity becomes aware of the wedge sin drives between us and the divine, we are excruciatingly aware of the wedge it drives between us and the ones we love — Adam and Eve are no longer comfortable naked and vulnerable before one another and so begin to hide aspects of themselves from one another, the deeper and more ominous meaning of their crafting of makeshift loincloths.  Sin thus becomes the common inheritance of all humanity, for as psychologist Eric Berne noted, all people “play games” with one another, seeking to manipulate others for their own benefit; “all sin and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom 3:23)

In critical theory, sin is not the common inheritance of all humanity, but the special purview of the oppressors.  Indeed, the oppressed is proclaimed to have a moral superiority over the oppressor, especially if the oppressor is unaware of their oppressive status.  Oppression in this case is not simply defined as an immoral, illegitimate exercise of power by one party over another, but rather any exercise of power by such a party, for all structures of authority (what sociologists refer to as dominance hierarchies) are defined as immoral because the goal is absolute equity.  Indeed, preferential attention is paid to language structures that make some people feel oppressed, even if legally and/or culturally they are not.  Thus, the married homosexual continues to be oppressed if people are permitted to express disagreement with their life choices because this may trigger doubt of some sort in them even though legally their marriage enjoys the same protections as a heterosexual one and the majority of people in the United States support gay marriage (at least civilly) and the great majority of all entertainment media lionizes their position. 

Support for and understanding of the political importance of the First Amendment is falling precipitously among Millennials precisely because they see free speech as a tool of oppression, for nobody should have to defend their choices and/or identity.  The political good of liberty, which presupposes that all people will have to live by the consequences of and when necessary defend their choices and sense of identity to people who disagree with them, has been demoted to a good of the second or third order if indeed it is a good; after all, why should anyone have to bear consequences — even natural ones — for their choices?  Aren’t consequences merely another form of limitation and potential chastisement and hence, oppression?

And so, for the critical theorist, just as sin is the problem for a Christian, so oppression is not a problem … it is the problem.  The division between oppressor and oppressed defines the sinner from the saint; in every interaction, it is the purview of the saint to speak, and the privilege of the sinner to listen.  Justice means the oppressed are properly the tutors, and the oppressors only rightly their students — willingly or unwillingly.

Justification

Having just passed Reformation Sunday, it must be acknowledged that from a generically Protestant perspective, the key doctrine of Christianity apart from the Hypostatic Union (Christology) and the Holy Trinity is the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith.  Martin Luther famously referred to it as the teaching whereby “the Church stands or falls.”

In its most simple terms, this doctrine might be summarized as follows; because human beings afford the infinitely high cost of sinning against the infinitely holy God  — “the wages of sin are death” (Rom 6:23) — Jesus picked up humanity’s paycheck when as a true human being He died without sin on the cross.  Because He was also true God, death could not hold Him, so He rose up alive again beyond the reach of death ever again — that is why the Church’s proclamation on Easter is not “Jesus has risen,” but rather “Jesus is risen;” he remains to this day beyond the reach of death.

Because of His unique status as the God-Man, Jesus alone could have accomplished this mission.  Since we cannot pick up the wages of our sin without perishing eternally, God offers us Jesus’ work to take care of our predicament as a gift; we call that grace.  Because we are not yet at the final judgment when God will proclaim us justified (upright in His presence or righteous) on account of Jesus’ saving work for us, we must accept Jesus’ work at this point in time as a pledge or promise in which we trust … a promise in which we have faith.  We are saved by grace through faith.

Thus, our uprightness in God’s presence is something of a legal fiction; we are not actually without sin and so deserving of eternal life, God just counts us as sinless because of Jesus, who is truly sinless.  Protestant theologians have classically referred to this as forensic (legal) justification.

Justification — being just — works similarly for the critical theorist.  While the oppressor-sinner can never be truly just (non-oppressive), she, he or zhe (gender neutral) can be declared just by renouncing their identity as oppressor and proclaiming themselves an ally.  If you have heard of undergraduates renouncing a seemingly immutable characteristic (their ethnicity, sex, family of origin, etc.) in order to claim the status of “ally” or their wholesale adoption of a new identity in a group who has garnered the social capital of “oppressed,” you have seen people proclaiming their religious conversion.  They have been “justified” as a gift from the group designated as oppressed, and although they can never be truly other than oppressor, they can accept the gift (grace) of their new “woke” or “ally” status by trusting — having faith in — the social contract that conferred it upon them.  Their persistent pleas for mercy as they seek further wokeness are direct parallels to the Christian life of continual repentance and pursuit of holiness, but they prostrate themselves not before God, but before the capricious, constantly-shifting social categories that new discoveries and definitions of “oppression” dictate.

Salvation

For the Christian, the fullness of salvation is a matter for an undetermined future date and can only be sketched in the loosest outlines, but what they know of it seems promising; Jesus spoke of it as being “like a wedding banquet” and apocalyptic and prophetic texts, beginning with the oldest book of the Bible, Job, refer to it as a time when “after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God,” (Job 19:26) and “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” (Rev 21:3–4)  When this shall happen is totally in God’s hands — “concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only” (Matt 24:36) — but that it shall happen is the fundamental hope of Christianity.

Equally so, for the adherent of critical theory, precisely when the hoped-for day of perfect inclusivity, equity, and diversity will arrive is unclear, for since oppression is defined by subjective experience rather than objectively-verifiable metrics, new “inequities” are always being “discovered.”  However, that it shall indeed come and that its coming will be glorious is a truth not to be questioned, for it is the prime motivator for all the efforts Herculean and pedestrian that give their day-to-day life shape and meaning.  Indeed, their participation in the process of ushering in this new age is reflective of not only the classical Christian struggle for sanctification, it is reflective of a peculiarly modern form of Evangelical Christianity which believes that God will not or cannot act until we “do our part” to usher in the longed-for future, such as learning how to harness our spiritual power in the Word of Faith movement or the building of a third temple in Jerusalem for many dispensationalists.

As Patrick Deneen has noted, progress toward a brighter, more glorious future is the great myth — the grand metanarrative — of Western secular Liberalism, a 300+ year project of which both modern conservatism and liberalism are a part.  When President Obama quoted Dr. Martin Luther King, saying, “the arc of history bends toward justice,” he was not expressing Dr. King’s Christ-based hope in the eschaton, but rather the conviction of secular Progressivism, which is the intellectual superstructure of Christianity wrenched from its historic and metaphysical foundations; it is Christ-less Christianity, and heretical Christ-less Christianity at that.

The Heretical Moves

How is it heretical?  First of all, it is so in its understanding of sin.  Just as some misguided forms of Evangelical Protestantism confuse sanctification with the claim that a relatively or completely sin-free life is possible following one’s conversion to Christ, so critical theory believes that through strenuous efforts at “wokeness” and externally-measurable equity that people can become relatively free of the sins of exclusivity and inequity as denominated in the more familiar constellation of sins like sexism, racism, ableism, homophobia, white supremacy, etc.

Or perhaps such sinfulness may be conquered completely in a world where the education of the masses from womb to tomb is rigorously controlled by politicians, teachers, and CEO’s of multi-national communication and commerce companies who effectively operate beyond the regulatory bounds of sovereign nation states … if such leaders are catechized properly — and exclusively — by critical theorists, who have in true Enlightenment fashion, defined an intellectual space wherein they can operate free of the “sin” that haunts the great wash of humanity.

Orthodox Christian doctrine allows no such bifurcation of humanity into the (perhaps relatively) sin-free and the sinful.  There is a bifurcation inherent in Christianity, but it is between the redeemed and the unredeemed — those who trust in Christ’s work of salvation and those who do not.  Such trust includes both salvation and whatever holiness of life proceeds from faith, which are ultimately the work of the Triune God who creates, redeems, and makes us holy. 

People, believer and unbeliever alike, not only fail to, but are incapable of becoming sin-free by their own efforts.  “We confess that we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves,” go the familiar words of the Lutheran Book of Worship’s Brief Order of Confession and Forgiveness.  All human beings are both oppressed because they live under the yoke of sin and oppressor because they regularly and willingly collaborate with sin in the oppression of others around them for personal gain. 

The Orthodox Christian Alternative

There is literally no option for human beings to be radically free in Christian theology, something that the atheist existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre understood far better than many self-identified Christian theologies, which are heretical on this point.  Redemption through faith in the gracious gift of God in Christ Jesus means moving from unwilling servility to sin (oppression) to willing servanthood to the Lord.  The self-aware and active disciple of Jesus is to be a “slave to righteousness:”

¹⁵ What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! ¹⁶ Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves,^[a] you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? ¹⁷ But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, ¹⁸ and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. ¹⁹ I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

²⁰ For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. ²¹ But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. ²² But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. ²³ For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.  (Romans 6:15-23)

Because this is reality, the actors who seek for themselves radical libertarian freedom will find themselves in the end to be merely a slave to sin, receiving as the reward for their quixotic quest unbeneficial fruits whose culmination (end) is death. 

Conversely, the Christian who willingly lays down his erstwhile “freedom,” which is really bondage to sin, chiefly taking the form of futilely trying to fulfill his disordered desires, finds in the end that every desire is in fact fulfilled as he learns to love the things that God loves, pursues the things God would have him pursue, and in the end receive for it “the unfading crown of glory.”(1 Peter 5:4) 

All this proceeds from the justification we have in Christ Jesus; it is “not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For [Christians] are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Eph 2:9–10)  Christians continue to be servants, but no longer of a cruel taskmaster who will in the end take everything from them, but rather for a gracious Lord who will in the end bestow everything upon them.

You see, sin is not just a problem — the problem — for human beings in the Christian telling of history, it is also a problem for God, for God’s great desire is for restored communion with His fallen creatures. (cf. John 3:16, Ezekiel 18:23, Mark 5:15, etc.)  In Jesus of Nazareth, “Christ crucified,” we are not to see a God so demanding and bloodthirsty that He required the death of His Son before He would allow errant sinners into the kingdom of heaven.  Rather, with a full and robust Christology, in the cross of Jesus Christ, we are to know God as the One who is so loving that He was willing to sacrifice Himself — experience the annihilation of death, which is utterly foreign to Him as the One whose deep and first revealed name is “I AM” — that we might have eternal life and restored communion with Him.

Evangelical Hope

In every critical respect — its understandings of sin, justification, and salvation — critical theory is a secularized form of Christian heresy.  While this means we must be on our guard not to drift into false teaching when dialoguing with its proponents as the Church of Jesus Christ, it is also a cause for hope.  Since our thought worlds are not so far apart, we may be able to give a winsome and persuasive witness to the gospel by doing what orthodox Christians do; we can confess the sins of which we are guilty, including our own slides into heresy.  We can help them understand the fatuousness of their account of sin and justification and point out that the categories of meaning they employ are quickly resulting in the opposite of paradise wherever they are or have been employed, that “the end of those things is death.”  Most importantly, we can tell them a far better story of sin, justification in Christ, and redemption, a story whose end is eternal life for those who will, in the immortal words of the Lutheran Reformers, through faith “grasp on to it.”