People of good will heartily endorse the sentence, “Black lives matter,” because all human lives matter, and because we are especially sympathetic with the Black experience in America. One can heartily endorse that sentence, however, without endorsing the organization that goes by that name or the Marxist social theory that it promotes.

Part 2 (Read Part 1 in this series.)

The group that calls itself Black Lives Matter is not as innocent (in the literal sense) as first might appear. Initially, I assumed (by their title) that they were basically a newer iteration of other civil rights organizations, such as the NAACP. My assumption was mistaken. BLM promotes far more (and far less) than the well-being of Black people; they have a comprehensive vision for a particular kind of (Black) life, a vision that intentionally excludes other expressions of Black life. Any candid reader of the official BLM statement (below I have copied parts of it) would realize that much of it has little do with justice for Blacks, and everything to do with a different conception of human society altogether. In short, I do not endorse the Black Lives Matter organization, because it promotes many things that are not distinctive to Blacks, and promotes some things that are injurious to Blacks (and others).

Undergirding BLM is the over-arching principle of critical social justice theory; a theory that builds upon and borrows from the worst aspects of Marxism, a theory that posits that irreconcilable tensions develop sociologically between those who have power and those who do not, tensions that inevitably must lead to warfare, in which the powerless eradicate the powerful. Furthermore, according to social justice theory, the powerful are merely the enemy – an anonymous evil mass. Thereby, social justice theory robs people of their dignity and disregards the personal virtue, compassion, and goodwill found in many individuals from every demographic group. At root, critical social justice theory (and BLM) is simply speeding up the timing of that allegedly inevitable power struggle and its inevitable violent revolution. If you and I find ourselves asking, “Why do these peaceful BLM protests so often end in violence?”, the answer is because critical social justice theory embraces violence as an inevitable result of the ages-long struggle for power.[1] Social justice theory’s basic goal is violence, so it is not surprising that many people associated with it are inclined to act violently. Those who say they “support” BLM because they support Black people are acting naïvely; they do not realize that BLM promotes Marxist revolution at its core, and Black lives only because they are one of the various dis-empowered groups. We might as well embrace the KKK on the basis of the fact that they occasionally refer to some good things in some of their literature (it was/is pro-family and professedly Christian). Thoughtful people dare not promote or endorse dangerous, violent, racist, or hateful organizations just because a handful of their platforms and/or proposals are good. I quote several of Black Lives Matter’s stated beliefs here, omitting their other canons, and I enumerate them for convenience, so that they can be referred to in my notes, in which I record my brief comments.

1. We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.[2]
2. We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege[3] and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
3. We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.[4]
4. We make our spaces family-friendly[5] and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.[6]
5. We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers,[7] parents, and children are comfortable.[8]
6. We foster a queer‐affirming network.[9] When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).
7. We call for a national defunding of police.[10] We demand investment in our communities and the resources to ensure Black people not only survive, but thrive. If you’re with us, add your name to the petition right now and help us spread the word.

People of good will heartily endorse the sentence, “Black lives matter,” because all human lives matter, and because we are especially sympathetic with the Black experience in America. One can heartily endorse that sentence, however, without endorsing the organization that goes by that name or the Marxist social theory that it promotes.

Dr. T. David Gordon is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and serves as Professor of Religion and Greek at Grove City College.

[1] Tim Challies addresses the problems with the ideology of critical social justice theory in his review of Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility here: https://www.challies.com/book-reviews/is-white-fragility-a-helpful-resource-for-christians/. For a thorough, book-length discussion of the nature and history of critical theory, cf. Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody (Durham, NC: Pitchstone Publishing, 2020).

[2] What has this to do with Black Lives? Are Blacks—as a demographic entity—more trans-gendered than other ethnic groups? The same question pertains to 2. and 6. Why does an organization that entitles itself “Black Lives Matter” have any statements at all about various sexual practices? I raise the question only rhetorically, because I believe the answer is that the organization is a blend of anarchist, radical egalitarian, and Marxist values, at war with traditional conceptions of human life and society that merely masquerades as an organization devoted to Black lives.

[3] Why “cisgender privilege,” rather than “cisgender responsibility”? BLM did not introduce the expression “cisgender privilege,” to refer to the ostensible advantages enjoyed by those who are heteronormative. But those of us who act in terms of heteronormativity do not regard such action as being exclusively one of “privilege.” Those of us who have reared children have found it to be one of the most demanding (and most rewarding) of our adult responsibilities. Is it a “privilege” to care for a sick child, to bury a deceased one, or to pay dental bills? Is it a privilege to worry about teen-aged children? Why is the “cisgender” experience regarded as merely a privilege and not a responsibility? And why was the term “cisgender” coined when it merely refers to what has (until very recently) been a belief in the complementarity of male-and-female, a complementarity that ordinarily produced a nuclear family? Note, then, that BLM—in its own words—wishes to “dismantle” the traditional nuclear family. Note also that, once again, such a proposal—regardless of its merits (and I think this particular proposal has no merits)—has nothing to do with Black lives per se.

[4] This may merely be unclear or empty, or it may reflect the “men-are-the-powerful-enemy” theme that undergirds so much of critical social justice theory. One might have expected that Black Lives Matter would affirm both Black men and Black women; but it does not do so. Were there some “truth in advertising,” we might ask them to re-name themselves Black Women’s Lives Matter.

[5] This is the most disingenuous statement in a very disingenuous document. Everything else in the document is an outright assault on the family; there is nothing “family-friendly” about a document that wishes—in its own terms—to “dismantle” such families.

[6] Many Black mothers work “double shifts,” as it were, because they do not have husbands to assist them in the care of the household. Note here and throughout an intentional attack on the traditional two-parent household. This has nothing to do with Black lives per se and everything to do with a fundamentally different conception of human society and the roles of mothers, fathers, and children within that society.

[7] Why “mothers, parents…”? Why not just “parents”—an inclusive term—or “mothers, fathers, parents,” which would also expressly include male parents? Or why not “mothers and fathers”? Note here the attack on fathers and fatherhood. It is a tragedy of the current Black experience (more below) that so few children have a functioning relationship to their father, yet Black Lives Matter does not regard this as tragic, but as ideal. In terms of the Marxist dialectic of powerful v. powerless, men are the previously-powerful who have suppressed the previously-powerless women; men are the powerful enemy who must be removed from power as power transfers to women. Within critical social justice theory, men are simply the enemy. They are as welcome as Hitler at a Bar Mitzvah. This is particularly painful since roughly half of Black lives are male.

[8] Any reader of the Analects of Confucius would dispute the notion that the nuclear family is an exclusive product of the West; the very essence of the Confucian ethic is filial piety. The nuclear family is in fact universal, and is found, historically, everywhere; and has only been openly challenged by a vocal minority in the postmodern West. Further, many observers would argue that the least helpful thing for Black lives is further destruction of the nuclear family that has almost disappeared from the Black experience in America. Over 90% of Blacks are now born out of wedlock, and 78.6% of prisoners in the United States were reared in single-parent families. This is a recipe for disaster, and if Black Lives Matter cared about Black lives in America, the last thing they would recommend is the termination of the last vestiges of the nuclear family in the Black community. Since 2015, only 12% of white babies are aborted, whereas 35% of Black babies are aborted over the same time, three times as many. Indeed, Black babies have been aborted at the highest rate of all American racial groups since abortion was legalized. Yet BLM is entirely silent about these Black lives; there is not a word about it on their website, so apparently these little unborn Black lives do not matter to Black Lives Matter. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/usa_abortion_by_race.html

[9] Again, I ask the question: what does homosexuality have to do with Black lives that differs from other lives? Whether being “queer-affirming” is a good idea or a bad idea is not my point; my question is the one I have throughout: why does human sexuality appear in such a document at all? And does this imply that Blacks who are not “queer-affirming” are Blacks whose lives do not matter?

[10]I am not sure I understand what people mean by “defunding” the police. My understanding of the English language suggests this means removing funding for police (what else would “de-funding” mean?), which would, of course, mean not having any police, because no one would do such a difficult and thankless job without pay, and without funding, there would be no cruisers, no mace, no badges, no uniforms, radios, etc. Those who call for “defunding the police” are calling for removing law enforcement; yet, for some reason, they are unwilling to call this spade a spade. One third of our form of government is the executive branch, which includes law enforcement. The entire criminal justice system would also disappear without law enforcement. Indeed, the legislative branch would also functionally disappear. Why pass laws that no one would enforce? And why have a judicial branch—to interpret the Constitution as it relates to legislation—if there is no enforcement of legislation? To “defund the police” is to remove all government; it is anarchy, plain and simple. What’s more, and more important to this conversation: what does this have to do with black lives? Why would blacks benefit more from the effective destruction of all government than other demographic groups? What per centage of 911 calls are made each year from predominately black communities? Who will they call for help if there are no police? Will Antifa protect them?