This is one of the best books I’ve read on social justice, and I’ve read several!

[FYI- I had to cut a lot out- Goodreads didn't give me enough space for all my thoughts so check out my full review here.]

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.

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.

“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.

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?

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. Different personal preferences or priorities can easily account for a lot of disparity we see in the world.

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.

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.

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.”

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?

12. Does our version of social justice accept ‘truth’ only from certain identity groups?

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.

“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.”

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 has 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.

(Again- click the link at the top to see the full review and more quotes from the book)