Fire in the Streets: How You Can Confidently Respond to Incendiary Cultural Topics

Fire in the Streets

How You Can Confidently Respond to Incendiary Cultural Topics

Douglas R. Groothuis

Praise for

FIRE IN THE STREETS

"First, they told us CRT was a white supremacist dog whistle. Then they said it was only taught in law schools. Now they tell us CRT in schools is a necessary component of teaching America’s true history. Fire in the Streets pulls back the veil and exposes CRT for what it is. More importantly, Doug Groothuis helps us see CRT’s threat not only to the Gospel but also to the very fabric of American culture. This timely book is winsome, honest, thorough, and fearless. Groothuis has made an invaluable contribution to the current cultural debate."

—Voddie Baucham, dean of Theological Education at African Christian University in Lusaka, Zambia, and bestselling author of Fault Lines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism’s Looming Catastrophe

"For all who know that shallow thinking will win no arguments, and witty put-downs and hard-hitting one-liners will change no minds, Groothuis has given us a deep dive into the ideas behind the radical left. Clear, comprehensive, and cogent, Fire in the Streets is for all who care about the American experiment and who wish to respond to the present crisis constructively."

—Os Guinness, author of The Magna Carta of Humanity

In this wise and winsome book, Doug Groothuis gives us a brief history and summary of Critical Race Theory, a response to its accusations, a defense of America that recognizes both its genuine failings and the essential goodness of its ideals, and a way forward in our highly polarized times. This is a book that should be read by all who are concerned about the direction America is going or who want a well-documented summary and assessment of CRT.

—Glenn Sunshine, professor emeritus of history at Central Connecticut State University and author of Slaying Leviathan

"My good friend Douglas Groothuis is a person of rigorous intellectual depth, integrity, and character forged on the anvil of suffering and Christlike courage to speak truth when it is not popular to do so. Fire in the Streets brings all these things together. The result is a careful, intellectually informed, heartfelt, and bold treatment of a range of social, ethical, and political topics that constitute today’s chaotic culture. When you read this book, be prepared for hard-hitting straight talk backed up with carefully crafted arguments. If you don’t agree with his claims, then provide reasons why he is wrong."

—J. P. Moreland, professor of philosophy at Biola University and contributor to Dissident Philosophers: Voices against the Political Current of the Academy

"Fire in the Streets is a timely and eye-opening book. Groothuis offers a biblical and philosophical critique of Critical Race Theory that Christians—whether they agree with his assessment or not—need to take seriously. This book deserves to be read, analyzed, and discussed widely."

—Sean McDowell, professor of apologetics at Biola University, speaker, and author

"Fire in the Streets is wise Christian counsel to Americans who are concerned about the rise of Critical Race Theory and its equally destructive kindred ideologies. CRT, the fire that is currently burning in our streets, has been subject to many other critiques, but Groothuis brings something new to the table. He seeks to fight that destructive cultural fire with the ‘good fire’ of ‘well-reasoned, knowledgeable, and humble conviction that the American creed is worth reaffirming and living.’ His argument is meticulous, respectful, and frequently eloquent."

—Peter W. Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars and author of 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project

What are Christians to do in our present American age? Too many Christians are not equipped by their churches to properly engage the most pressing issues of our time. How does the Bible guide us in the public square? Dr. Doug Groothuis brilliantly explores these issues with a foundation on Christ’s mandate to serve each other with the love of God. Grace and Truth are critical for America to continue. This is must-read for every Christian.

—Jeff Hunt, director of Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University

To Dr. Thomas Sowell, preeminent and courageous social scientist, and intellectual inspiration to me for forty years

PREFACE

While I am constrained to write this book, I realize that any such effort is faced with multiple challenges. It is a weighty task, and risky. First, given the welter of often-conflicting accounts on our cultural and political situation, finding reliable sources is not simple. I hope to avoid unreliable sources and root my analysis in credible ones. Second, one needs to develop a biblical view of race and justice to bring to bear on our vexed situation. Third is the need to understand Critical Race Theory (CRT) in its several forms aright. Fourth, one must have an accurate understanding of the history of race and gender in America—no small task. Finally, some advice—I won’t say a solution—should be given that is biblical, hopeful, and realistic.

In attempting these four tasks, I hope to avoid mere talking points, factoids, clichés, and ideological shibboleths. Nevertheless, my political views will emerge in the chapters that follow. I will argue for them while anticipating criticisms and will advance credible viewpoints whether these are acceptable to those on the right, the left, or the middle politically. My theological commitments are to historic Christian orthodoxy. My social and political views are largely informed by the tradition of classical liberalism, which is not to be confused with contemporary liberalism or leftism.¹

This view is often called conservative, but I mean that not in the sense of being a Republican (I am unaffiliated with any political party), but of sharing in the vision of people like the Irish statesman Edmund Burke (1729–1797) and more recent American thinkers such as Russell Kirk (1918–1994) and Thomas Sowell (b. 1930).

A conservative in my sense holds what Sowell calls a constrained vision of human nature, institutions, and history.²

This account takes humans to be constitutionally limited in their knowledge and goodness. Therefore, social and political aims should be calibrated accordingly in order to avoid utopian ends which are both unachievable and (ironically) deleterious to society. This means that statecraft is concerned with establishing and preserving order, policing the law, conserving historic institutions (such as the nuclear family and the church), and ensuring legal equality for all persons as a fundamental right.

Unlike the unconstrained vision, this account denies that any revolution or social program will bring about a society unaffected by humankind’s basic selfishness and other intrinsic limitations. A conservative is skeptical of any plans to eliminate poverty, racism, sexism, or any other ills, since humanity is not subject to such perfections. We will find that just as the American war on poverty inadvertently made many matters worse, thus injuring the ones it sought to save, so too do today’s efforts to eliminate racism and other social ills.

A conservative seeks to ameliorate ills as much as possible and is quick to critique ill-fated and unrealistic attempts to fundamentally change human nature. Conservatives, given their constrained view, are eagle-eyed to spot the unintended consequences of political overreach (or statism). We will find that well-meaning measures, such as minimum-wage laws, preferential admission policies based on race, taxing the rich at a higher rate than others, and affirmative action, end up doing more harm than good. The policies proposed by antiracism are even more draconian and dangerous, despite the colorful name. As the adage puts it, The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.

Radical-turned-conservative David Horowitz explains another crucial aspect of the conservative vision.

Conservative principles are about limits, and what the respect for limits makes possible. By contrast, progressive views [of which CRT is one] are built on expectations about the future. Progressive principles are based on ideas about a world that does not exist. For progressives, the future is not a maze of human uncertainties and unintended consequences, but a moral choice. To achieve social justice requires only that enough people will it.³

Thus, all progressives, and especially CRT advocates, focus more on denigrating the status quo as racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, etc., than on preserving legitimate institutions or explicating just how the desired social justice should play out. Idealism is unshaped by realism and often results in de facto nihilism—the system must be destroyed and we will worry about how to rebuild it later (if at all). As Black Lives Matter leader Hawk Newsome put it,

If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right? And I could be speaking figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It’s a matter of interpretation.⁴

Given the riots of the summer of 2020, we know what the proper interpretation was.

This constrained vision is founded on a Judeo-Christian worldview anthropology. Humans, while made in the Divine Image, are fallen and sinful (Genesis 1–3; Romans 3:9–20). We are unique and uniquely valuable among the living, but are likewise prone to selfishness, self-deception, and cruelty. The ultimate remedy for this sad condition is divine deliverance found in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Still, those delivered from the penalty of sin through faith in the Mediator do not become angels upon their conversion, and many never convert. Thus, any social and political policy should heed intrinsic human failings, turpitude, and outright evil. Otherwise, such a policy or movement will try to draw blood from a turnip and will shed innocent blood along the way.

So, let us begin. I ask only of my reader that he or she read carefully, check the documentation, and endeavor to serve God and others even as there is fire in the streets and fire in the minds of men and women.⁵

INTRODUCTION

WHO STARTED THE FIRE?

We saw fire in the streets across America in the hot, pandemic summer of 2020. Some were horrified and some were gratified. It all started after a short video was leaked to the press that showed a black man dying on May 25, 2020, while a white police officer had him pinned to the ground with his knee. That man was crying out, I can’t breathe! That phrase became a rallying cry for those who saw the death of forty-six-year-old George Floyd as emblematic of racism in America. On this basis—and before a trial was held—hundreds of protests turned into riots across America.¹

Not all were violent, but thousands of police were accosted, highways were blocked, businesses were looted, and federal and other buildings were set ablaze.

According to the Center for Disaster Philanthropy, [b]etween May 25 and November 18, 2020, protests occurred in more than 4,446 cities worldwide, including in all states, territories and Washington, D.C., and internationally in more than 60 countries.²

Nineteen people were killed during the first two weeks of protests. Americans, especially those in inner cities, were on high alert all summer.³

Sales of guns skyrocketed, breaking records.⁴

Amid all this, we heard calls to defund the police, that America was systemically racist, and that white people experience an unjust white privilege.

For many, the death of George Floyd sparked a national reckoning on race. Some take it as the beginning of a positive revolution. Others fear it may mean the end of America as we know it. When added to concerns about the deaths of other black people—such as Trayvon Martin and Breonna Taylor—at the hands of white police officers,⁵

Floyd’s dramatic and globally publicized death was the tipping point that drove people into the streets, often to commit violence. Floyd’s image was seen everywhere—on posters, on murals, on shirts, and on street signs. While millions were mandated to stay inside because of the pandemic, multitudes were allowed to protest freely without masks and without censure.

Some even justified the extensive looting of 2020 riots by saying that the rioters and looters, who were people of color (POC), deserved the goods, since the owners’ insurance would replace the goods and pay for the damage. Vicky Osterweil, author of In Defense of Looting,⁶

told National Public Radio (which is supported by tax dollars) that

when I use the word looting, I mean the mass expropriation of property, mass shoplifting during a moment of upheaval or riot. That’s the thing I’m defending.

She wants revenge on those who have supposedly succeeded at the expense of black people.⁷

Will such attacks make white people fairer and more generous with black people? Will these attacks bring down the whole system of private property in the United States? They will not, unless millions start wantonly breaking the law by looting. Moreover, property is not based on white supremacy but is a natural right of all citizens. Why strike at the heart… of the police?⁸

Many police officers—including police chiefs—are black. At their best, they try to keep the peace and protect the innocent. To deny the institution of policing is to live in a dangerous fantasy world wherein people will just get along if freed from police, given enough welfare and social workers. Osterweil’s proposal is sheer ressentiment—and is, as such, ugly as sin, because sin it is. You shall not steal (Exodus 20:15), God declared.

In the days before the verdict on Derek Chauvin—the white officer whose knee was on George Floyd—businesses were boarded up in cities across the country, including Denver, Colorado, where I live. Because Chauvin was convicted of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter, few protests followed. America had not seen this kind of upheaval since the riots of 1968, and many wondered how it would end.

This fire in the streets stemmed from the fire in the minds of many about race, class, and gender. This fire is strange fire, not holy fire. While many are rightly concerned about racial justice, economic opportunity, and the fair treatment of LGBTQ people, the leading philosophy behind these protests is CRT. This philosophy that has driven people to torch the streets is being taught in state schools and has been implemented in the military and in governmental settings. Christopher F. Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, wrote that

[i]n Cupertino, California, an elementary school forced first-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, and rank themselves according to their power and privilege.… The Treasury Department held a training session telling staff members that virtually all white people contribute to racism and that they must convert everyone in the federal government to the ideology of antiracism.⁹

I will give many more examples in the pages to come, but behind these events lies the basic theory of CRT.

What Is Critical Race Theory?

In a nutshell, CRT developed from an earlier ideology called Critical Theory (CT), which was a form of neo-Marxism. Every aspect of society must be criticized and found wanting. Instead of dividing society into the two categories of the bourgeoise owners (the oppressors) and the proletariat workers (the oppressed), as in Marxism, CT taught that oppression is woven into the fabric of culture and must be exposed through cultural critique. Through this critique, the culturally and economically oppressed can throw off their false consciousness (socially induced deceptions about their plight) and embrace a philosophy of liberation.

CT morphed into CRT when legal scholars began to add race to the mix, seeing racism as systemic in American life and evident in the law. Thinkers like the late Derrick Bell, best known for his work with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, argue that white racism has been a permanent feature of American life and could only be countered by revolutionary change in cultural and political values. Those advancing rights for sexual minorities (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, the transgendered, etc.) found the social system to be rigged against them as well. For that reason, I will include gender matters under CRT in upcoming chapters.¹⁰

Today, this amalgamation plays out in the following ideas, advanced by thinkers such as Kimberlé Crenshaw, Robin DiAngelo, and Ibram X. Kendi.

CRT claims that America is systemically racist and that the entire social system disadvantages POC—a term which includes all non-white people, but which usually refers to African Americans. Any discrepancy in the achievements between POC and white people is due primarily, or entirely, to this systemic racism. The claim of systemic racism is often accompanied by the idea that America has been racist from its beginning. The 1619 Project, a long-form journalism project of the New York Times that aims to reframe national history, claims that America was founded on racism when the first slaves were brought here in 1619. Any idea of American exceptionalism is therefore deemed racist, xenophobic, and so on.

All white people are racist, say CRT advocates. They grant that not all white people harbor explicit ill will toward POC, but since they are part of a racist system, they participate in racism simply by being white. They must be taught to realize this, which is the goal of the popular book White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo. White people, particularly heterosexual white males, are the oppressors in society. Let us consider some terms and phrases used in CRT.

White privilege refers to the condition of unearned and unjust benefits—economic, cultural, and emotional—that POC and sexual minorities do not experience.

White supremacy is the ideology that says white people will fight to keep their white privilege over POC, even if they do so unconsciously. This is a redefinition of the classic sense of the term, which held that white supremacy is the belief that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races.¹¹

Racial essentialism is a tricky term. On the one hand, CRT says that race is constructed socially and not inherent in people. In this sense, it is postmodern.¹²

On the other hand, race is what determines whether one is oppressed or an oppressor. How this conflict is resolved escapes me, but perhaps it can be claimed that racial conceptions are constructed by the oppressors in order to oppress. As such, they are real. But in terms of one’s objective being, they are false.

Standpoint epistemology is the belief that, unlike white people, POC and sexual minorities have a privileged perspective on matters of racial oppression. Their lived experience defines objective reality. If someone questions that perspective, he or she is assumed to be racist. Thus, CNN host Don Lemon often speaks of his truth of experiencing racism and homophobia as a gay black man, as do others seeking to advance this agenda.

Intersectionality is an idea Kimberlé Crenshaw developed, holding that those who occupy several oppressed categories—such as a black lesbian or a Hispanic transgender person—are particularly oppressed, and thus have a reliable vantage point to speak of the dynamics of oppression.¹³

Identity politics is the norm amongst advocates of CRT. Instead of deeming individuals as created equal before God and the law, CRT understands individuals as members of a group who must be treated accordingly. Hence, the proliferation of hyphenated adjectives: African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and more.

Microaggressions are commonly perceived