SRR 108 Hiram Diaz on Critical Race Theory, Part 2

I do a podcast.

I'm not interested in your podcast.

Justification by Faith Alone and Polemical Ministry

The anathema of God was for those who denied justification by faith alone. When that is at stake, we need to be on the battlefield, exposing the air and combating the air.

We are unabashedly, unashamedly Clarkian. And so, the next few statements that I'm going to make, I'm probably going to step on all of the Vantillian toes at the same time. And this is what we do at Simple Riff around the radio, you know.

We are polemical and polarizing Jesus style.

I would first say that to characterize what we do as bashing is itself bashing. It's not hate. It's history. It's not bashing. It's the Bible.

Jesus said, woe to you when men speak well of you. For their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way. As opposed to, blessed are you when you have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness.

It is on. We're taking the gloves off. It's time to battle. Alright, welcome back everyone to Simple Riff around the radio. It's been a while since we've been back on the show. I know we've been on a little bit of a hiatus for these past couple weeks.

And we've been, I've been on vacation and Tim's had a lot of stuff going on. So, I haven't been able to really focus on that. But I'm really glad to be back on the show with you guys. And to talk about some really important stuff once again.

And I've got our special guest with us, Hiram Diaz once again. And really look forward to talking to him again about his article. But before we get into that, I do have a few, just a few administrative announcements for folks.

We've had some questions about how to maneuver on the website and how to get to the podcast. So, we are on iTunes. You guys can, if you want to subscribe to any app that you use. The podcast app, the, you know, CastBox, whatever you want to use.

You can use it, you can search for us. The name of the podcast is Thorn Crown Network. And so, all the podcasts are there on that one feed. So, you can subscribe to that one podcast and you get to, you get all of them.

You get Semper Ephraim on the radio. You get The Protestant Witness with Pastor Hines. And Radio Lux Lucid with Steve Matthews. And all, and you know, the two podcasts that Brother Kaufman does on church history and Roman Catholicism and all that stuff.

And the eschatology stuff. So, just, you can search for us and find us there. Also, some, so regarding the website, we're still kind of working things out. It's a little bit, we're still kind of trying to figure out the tags and how to best categorize the content that we have there.

So, I know some of the pages, they limit, we have square space. And so, some of the pages are limited by displaying at most 20 items. And so, we're still trying to figure out a way to be able to display all of the previous postings.

And so, but if you search for something, it should come up. The search is comprehensive on the website. So, the search is actually, works pretty well. It's just that some of the pages, they don't display the full history of posts.

So, just something to keep in mind. But you should be able to find it if you search for it. And with that, so, I thank you all for joining us once again. I've got some really exciting news that we hit it off.

If you listened to our previous episode, when I interviewed Hiram Diaz on Critical Race Theory, had a really good time doing that. Really enjoyed it. We really hit it off and we have a lot in common with Hiram.

And so, he's slowly climbing up the ranks in our network and Semper Firm on the radio. And so, we're really excited to have him on board with us and hopefully be more of a regular participant. And so, I'm very excited to continue the discussion with him.

He's very knowledgeable. If you listened to the previous, I think it was episode 103. If you go back and listen to that, that's the first part of this interview. We're going to kind of pick it up where we left off from there and continue some of the main points that he covers in the article.

So, without further ado, Hiram, welcome back to the show. Yeah, it's good to have you back on again. So, I know last time we talked a little bit. There's like six key points to Critical Race Theory that Matthew Mullins was providing.

And we only covered like two of them. So, I want to finish those main points because I really appreciated how you gave a kind of a running commentary on that. And so, we did the first one. The race is a social construct.

And so, I think we skipped the second one. So, let's jump over to that one. I'll just read it and then you can go ahead and give your comments on it. Here we go. So, point number two is racism is structural.

Mullins explains that for CRT or Critical Race Theory proponents, racism is thus not only treating someone badly because their skin color is different from yours. Racism is a huge complicated historical system.

It is the very way our world has been organized over time to empower folks who came to understand themselves as white and to subjugate those who fall outside that category. So, you care to comment on what he's saying there?

Yeah. Well, basically, the way that we normally view racism is that a person who's racist is basically showing favoritism toward one group of people and showing animosity. In other words, hatred toward another group of people based on skin color.

And usually have other stuff mixed in there with skin color like culture, language, things like that. And there are also presuppositions about the people who you are showing antagonism toward. So, there's a superiority of one group of people based on phenotypical features, like I said, skin color, and those associated cultural things.

And that's basically how we understand racism. That's how it was understood all the way back in the 50s and 60s with the original civil rights movement. But with the advent of postmodern philosophy or the infiltration of postmodern philosophy in things like critical legal studies and with critical race theory, racism was expanded to mean not just those overt actions, but also things as basic as what kind of reasoning you use.

Right, so we as Clarkians, we employ deduction, and we employ what the secularists and other people unfortunately would call quote-unquote Aristotelian logic, correct? Well, for critical race theory, logic, because it was articulated and developed by white Europeans beginning with Aristotle and his progeny in the medieval era, because of that, logic and logical analysis, deduction, even induction, even probabilistic quote-unquote logic, things like that, are all part of the white supremacist system.

So structural racism goes beyond just, here's the police, it goes beyond what you see in things like Black Lives Matter where they're saying, well the structure of the legal system is bad, okay? That's one part of it, but even that's too superficial because it goes beyond that, it goes to the level of saying that logic itself is a construction of white European males and it's a way of oppressing people who have a different way of viewing the world.

So racism is structural, it goes all the way down to that level, although people won't talk about it that way, but this is where it really goes down to. You have people like, we talked a little bit about Al Mohler, one of the things that he said in a video you can find on YouTube, and I mentioned it in the last podcast when we met, where a student asked him about his take on social justice, and he says, well, I'm not, he basically says, and this is my summary, or my paraphrase obviously, he says, I'm not with that as far as the secular version goes, but we do need to oppose white supremacy because there are instances of white supremacy.

And he's basically agreeing with the social justice warriors and the CRT people, critical race theory people, that there's such a thing as structural racism. Well, if he knows his stuff, if he knows his philosophy, he'll know that this goes beyond just an institution that has historically opposed people through indirect means, like laws that would exclude people from advancing, let's say, right?

Because this is what you hear about all the time. This is on the surface level, right? People say, well, you know, why is it that this person who's Mexican, let's say, goes to jail for five years for having a nickel bag of weed, and this white person who's rape smutty only goes to jail for a week?

You know, to some extent, that is what they're concerned with. But philosophically, epistemologically, in terms of worldview analysis, it goes beyond that. And the structural aspect goes way beyond just the external stuff that you see.

You know, for the proponents of this, it goes, like I said, down to the very basic level of even logic itself, even language itself, right? Language norms, speech norms, those things are instances of racism.

So it goes deeper than just the superficial stuff that you see.

Right. It sounds just so insane. You just triggered another college experience that I had. It's funny because I was taking, I took a writing class. And my professor was, she was an older woman. And she was a postmodernist.

And it was interesting because I was critiquing postmodernism. And she really didn't like that. She gave me like a terrible grade. And I was pretty much her best student. But she gave me a horrible grade because she didn't like that I was attacking postmodernism.

And then she accused me of imposing my Western understanding of logic on others, you know, like, okay, so using these rational thought is considered oppressive. Like, I mean, I guess to an insane person, it would be but what do you, what does that even mean?

That's just so that's so ridiculous. And, you know, in the popular media, I know that this is where you get a lot of it, right? Because they say, you can be a racist without even realizing it. Apparently, like you just by participating in the system, you become an implicitly, what is it called like you implicitly consent to a system that is partial to others and disenfranchises others, right?

Other minority groups or whatever. And it's like, okay, folks, you know, and this is one thing that really triggered me when I was listening to the MLK 50 conference. And that was just something that I was about to blow a fuse because people just have this victim mentality.

And it's like, when are you going to take responsibility for your own self, you know, for your actions? Like, when are you going to take responsibility? Why does it have to be somebody else's fault all the time?

Like, when is something when is something going to actually be for you to just, you know, I get that there's oppression, there is oppression, and there are certain things that happen like that. I get that.

But to the extent that these people talk about, like, they're basically blaming everybody else but themselves. And it's like, it's your life. You and it's not like you don't have the means to overcome.

There's plenty of stories of folks that have come out from really horrendous situations from the ghettos and all this stuff. And now they're very successful people. And this country is one of the most that one of the places on the planet that most enables that most empowers people to do that.

And so, you know, but this, this, this theology of victimhood makes me so nauseous, because they try to find ways to accuse, you know, the majority group of racism. However, in however, they can possibly try to pin racism on somebody else, for any little thing that goes on, and to make minorities feel like they're being abused, or they're being taken advantage of.

I mean, it's just, it gets taken to a point where it's just beyond ridiculous. And that's, you know, like the Black Lives Matter stuff that we talked about a little bit on the on the first part, too. I mean, it just it's so out of control now.

And the fact that this is in the church coming from somebody. This guy is a professor. Where did you, where was he? Southeastern?

Yeah, South Eastern Baptist.

Yeah, I mean, he's a professor in a seminary and is promoting this trash. Like, are you serious? So rational thought is considered oppressive now? And you're a Christian? Like, what are you? What is this?

This is just madness.

Yeah, well, they buy into the whole different worldview. And that's the reason why, you know, I wrote the article that we talked about is because what's really going on at a more basic, deeper level. Like I mentioned, it's it's not just the political stuff.

You know, it's a whole, it's an entire epistemology. It's a philosophical way of looking at the world that is completely anti Christian. But these guys, for some reason, have latched onto it either because, you know, maybe they're not regenerative believers.

You know, maybe, you know, they're just professing the faith, but they don't possess it. I'm not saying that that's the case. But you know, maybe that's the case. Maybe it's because they haven't really thought through the implications of what it is they're espousing.

You know, right. But, but it's completely at odds with Christianity, you know, because you were talking and you're saying, when is when is anyone going to take responsibility for their behavior? Well, what they would tell you is that the reason why you're saying that is because you bought into the dominating cultural narrative.

And you are, you're thinking in categories like responsibility, individual responsibility, which comes from a Western mindset, because Western philosophy and Western civilization has put an emphasis on the individual, whereas Eastern cultures, and, you know, places in Africa, and traditional indigenous cultures, put a focus on the community.

So even when you say, when is when are you going to take responsibility for your actions? They'll say, well, that's, you know, that's just your Cartesian Western influence way of looking at things. Seriously, you can't win.

It's absurd. Yeah, it's absurd, dude. You know, it reduces to power, because basically, what can you do at that point, other than bash each other's heads in with clubs? You know what I mean? Like, for all the talk of wanting to be civilized and wanting to get rid of what they call a hegemonic culture that suppresses all the cultures and is violent.

Well, when you get rid of rational discourse, what do you have left? You have abject violence and tribalism, which is the same thing that they're trying to say they're trying to avoid. Well, you can't avoid it by doing that.

You're going right back into it, you know?

Yeah, they'll always try to find a way to one up you somehow. It's just insanity. So yeah, that's very good. The third point, colorblindness is a problem, not a solution. We talked about this in the first part.

So if you want to go back and listen to our first episode on this, I suggest that you do that and kind of get the background to this because we kind of tore that one apart already. So, let's jump over to point number four, which is, I'll read it here real quick.

Interest convergence, not pure progress. Mullins relays that interest convergence is the idea that dominant groups only acquiesce to minority interests when those interests converge with their own. In other words, CRT proponents believe that, at times, changes in society affecting racial groups are wrongly identified as progress, when in reality, they have only come about because the changes that are in the best interest of the dominant culture, not because they are truly just fair or best for minorities.

Huh, so what's he saying there? We're all just a bunch of opportunists or what?

Interest convergence, not pure progress. Well, how can you progress if there's no way of establishing a hierarchy, right? You see what I'm saying? You see the contradiction there is, well, you don't want to help people progress.

You just want to do what's in your best interest. Well, isn't that all that we have left, right? If you get rid of the idea of transcendence, get rid of the idea of hierarchy, of one thing being better than another one, one culture, one way of looking at the world being better than another one, then all you have is interest, self-interest, and interest for your group.

So this is a contradiction in terms of the values that they hold. But again, is contradiction something bad? Well, they'll say, that's only because you're following Aristotle.

Wow.

So this is why they can hold these contradictions in their own mind, because who are you to say that contradiction is a bad thing?

Right. As if logic applies only to us and not to you. I mean, it's insanity. And this reminds me, this really reminded me of when I first started to study Gordon Clark and the, I don't know if it's a philosophy, but the concept of egoism, right?

And it's, I guess it's one of the basic economic assumptions to certain forms of economic philosophies. But because a lot of people denigrate the concept that all actions, all of our actions are self-interested in some way.

I think I heard Robbins saying that, right? Have you looked into that? What they've talked about regarding egoism, Clark and Robbins?

I heard Robbins talk about something in a lecture. And I remember being taken aback because I was, like I told you before in the last one, because of where I grew up, because of the cultural values that were instilled in me.

Right? We value community over the individual.

Right.

And that was just the thing that I took for granted. And then I listened to John Robbins saying, well, look at what Jesus says. He says, what profit is, you know, what is a profit to man?

Exactly.

If he gains the whole world and he loses his own soul, he's like, he's appealing to self-interest. And it just blew my mind. You know what I mean? Like, whoa, wait a second.

Right.

He's the son of God appealing to self-interest.

Exactly. Yeah. So in our culture, there tends to be like a cultural taboo where we think that self-interested actions are somehow bad. And it's like, they're not inherently bad. They're bad if you trample somebody else to get to it or to get it.

I mean, yeah, that's bad. That's sinful. But all actions being self-interested, that's actually an economic axiom, I think, that is biblically justified. Because we as humans, and you know, all of our actions are, as rational creatures, we do things that benefit ourselves and those whom we love and that kind of thing.

Of course, it shouldn't be at the expense of somebody else. But it sounds like these people are saying like, you can't help that. Everything is always going to, if it's benefiting you, then it's benefiting the people you represent.

And so that, in a sense, is going to violate or you're going to level down somebody else's value or whatever. And this actually reminds me of another economic theory that I studied in college as well.

I keep going back to my college days. It's so funny. Because there's an economic theory. I don't know if you're familiar with it. I think it's called world systems theory. And they say that this theory basically suggests that if you have a very affluent country like America, and we have a lot of affluence here and a lot of resource consumption.

So all that resource consumption, other countries have to pay for it. And so because we are so affluent and so wasteful and use up so many resources as a country, other countries end up having to pay for that.

And so that's why basically it's our fault that countries like Africa are in this dire state that they're in. Because we keep taking their resources. There's a limited amount of resources and everything that you use, somebody else is going to be disadvantaged if they're not in the same country that you're living in or whatever.

And it's sad because people who don't have hope in God, if you don't trust in God, all you have is what you see. And so it's a very carnal, it's a very empirical, sensual way of looking at the world. What we see is what we have.

But that contradicts the Bible plainly because Jesus said, seek the kingdom, seek the kingdom and His righteousness, and all of these things will be added to you. And I really appreciate that about Robbins as well.

He has a really, in his economic writings, his political writings, he says that because you embrace the countries that embraced Christianity tend to be more prosperous. And that's historically verifiable.

That's actually true. Like Australia and like America and a lot of the countries that haven't been Christianized or that haven't embraced the gospel, they tend to languish in a lot of poverty and unrest and things like that.

And so that's a very interesting, that's a fascinating topic in and of itself. But yeah, and you know, this is just, this is only, we've only covered what, like three, four points now? I mean, how much worse is this going to get?

Right?

Well, you know, just to continue talking about interest convergence and not pure progress, there's something I wanted to add there. Something that you'll notice with critical race theory and social justice is there's always a questioning of the motives of somebody.

There's nothing that's superficial, right? And by superficial, I don't mean it in a bad way. I mean, just like the surface level. So this is why when, you know, someone who's white, somebody says, hey, you're racist.

And they say, I'm not a racist. I have a lot of black friends. And they'll say, see, the fact that you said you have black friends proves that you're racist. Yeah, there's always like, you never get out of being racist, right?

You never get out of being sexist. You never get out of being quote unquote, homophobic or transphobic or whatever. And the reason why is because philosophically, again, in the background, you have the assumption that the idea in the enlightenment where you can speak directly what it is you're thinking and represent what it is you are and what you're experiencing to other people.

In postmodernism, that's completely done away with. So everything is subtext, right? Instead of it being the text that's being spoken, what's really being communicated is the subtext behind this wall of culturally acceptable terms and culturally acceptable linguistic norms.

And part of this derives from not only from Friedrich Nietzsche, but also from Sigmund Freud, right? When Sigmund Freud talks about the subconscious and the unconscious, the id, the ego, etc.

The superego.

Yeah, what you have in Freud is, well, when you're when you're involved in discourse every day in society, you can't talk about the base animalistic instincts that you have that you want to act on, such as murder, rape, incest, all those things.

So what you do is you find ways of talking about other things. But if you look close enough, through linguistic analysis, or, you know, psychoanalysis is what he called it, then you'll see what the true intentions are, because they're hidden.

They're lurking in the background. And these are the people that contributed to critical race theory, Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche, who rejected the idea that you couldn't be honest ever about what you are, because always in the background is lurking.

What's lurking there are the hidden intentions, which are always violent, the will to power, the will to dominate, the will to destroy, you know, and the people. So the people who are promoting critical race theory now, who are Christians, need to come to grips with this.

You know what I mean?

Yeah.

That's one of the reasons why they can say, critical race theory people can say, well, you fought for the rights of black people, you know, hypothetically, right? You fought for the rights of black people to get, let's see, to be able to vote.

And they'll say, yeah, but the only reason why you did that, they'll say, is because you benefited from it.

Mm hmm.

And it's like, is that really the case? Is it really the case that just because you can correlate the benefit of the people who promoted black people being able to vote, and, you know, you can correlate the movement for blacks to vote with the benefit that the whites receive from that?

Is it really the case that that's the reason why they did it? No, that's fallacious reasoning. You know what I mean?

Mm hmm.

But again, if you're saying it's fallacy, it's probably because you've been indoctrinated by Aristotle in the Western tradition.

Right. Yeah, there's always something that there's always something that they'll one up you with. That's really interesting, because, oh gosh, what were we just talking about? I went blank.

Sigmund Freud.

Yeah.

Unconscious.

Yeah, okay. Right, right, right. So, and it's funny because Freud and Nietzsche, like, hello, these guys were not upstanding Christians at all, you know, so they were fiercely opposed to Christianity.

I mean, come on, how are you going to be able, how can you reconcile these people's philosophy with Christianity? You can't. It's impossible. And we already showed that, like, you clearly showed it in the article, and we already showed that in the previous episode.

Like, there's no way this stuff can be reconciled with Christianity. And it's interesting, too, because, to some extent, I guess, because we're Calvinists, you know, we're Reformed, there is an element of truth, you could say, to Freud's, the fact that all men are by nature depraved.

They're all depraved, they're all wicked, they're all evil. Every, you know, there's no question that the Bible categorically condemns all human beings as being naturally evil. But what they deny, they deny God and regeneration.

And so, in denying that, you are denying the fact that people can actually be transformed by God and regenerated by God and have pure motives. And so, they'll always just assume, but no, because they literally deny the power of God and salvation and regeneration.

They're not Christian, you know, just in case people didn't know that. They're not Christian. And so, they deny the regenerating power of the Spirit operating in Christians that enables us to actually have pure motives, even though they may be still tainted with sin.

And I'm not saying we're perfect or anything, but we are enabled, we're given a new heart. And that's a fundamental Christian doctrine and aspect of salvation, regeneration, that's a primary doctrine right there.

You can't deny regeneration and still be a Christian. Like, that's just completely at odds with Scripture.

I don't mean to cut you off if I did.

No, go ahead.

Okay. Well, there's another thing, because you'll have these guys who claim to be Calvinists and they'll say, well, the noetic effects of sin, you know, and the effects that sin has on your psychology means that you can be the kind of person that Freud is talking about.

Well, you know, where everything that you do has ulterior motives that are bad. And it's like, well, that's not really what's going on with the doctrine of total depravity, right? The idea is not that in every single instance with our neighbor, we're, you know, we're seeking to devour them and destroy them.

No, our primary opposition is to God with total depravity. So that means in everything that we do, even if we have good intentions, which we can, and you know, if we were unbelievers, we could have good intentions.

But the good is only for our neighbor and for ourselves, right? And the sin is turning away from God and not being thankful. Like it says in Romans chapter one, not acknowledging who God is, not being thankful and worshiping ourselves and worshiping creation instead of the creator.

The idea is not that we can never have pure motives. You know, we can, but the purity isn't the purity that God's law requires, right? It's pure in the sense that what we're saying is what we mean. You know what I mean?

And so the guys who are Calvinistic trying to smash together the doctrine of total depravity and Freud, that's what they're completely getting all messed up, you know? And it's evil that they're even attempting to do that because they're not the same thing.

I remember Gordon Clark in one of his lectures, he talked about how Freud had a better anthropology than somebody else, I forget who it was, you know, because he said Freud at least recognized that man is wicked, you know?

And he was right. And we can agree with Freud on that point, like you said, and we can agree with Freud that we do sometimes, but not all the time, but sometimes we do conceal ulterior motives under, you know, under a friendly face, under amicable speech, right?

We say one thing and we mean another, like in the book of Proverbs, the Lord tells us that the wicked man, you know, he signals with his hands and he shuffles his feet and he speaks one way, but in his heart, he's another way, you know?

You can do that, you can do it, but 9 times out of 10, we're saying straightforward what we mean, you know? And when we're not doing that, it's pretty clear. But for Freud and for the critical race theory people, that's what's always happening.

Even when you think you have pure intentions, you're basically the puppet of your cultural assumptions and the culture that you live in.

Right. We're perpetual hypocrites. And that's a sad state of affairs, because if everybody's a perpetual hypocrite, then everybody's going to hell. Because the number one sin, and I would say the number one sin that Jesus despised more than anything was hypocrisy, and especially religious hypocrisy.

And so we all have a serious problem. If what they're saying is true, that we're all just perpetual hypocrites, then that means we're all going to hell, because God hates that pretty much more than anything else, especially religious hypocrisy.

And I'm really glad you brought up the issue of total depravity, because I know that's a misnomer, that people think that it means that you're completely wicked or that you're as bad as you can be. That's not what the doctrine means, like you were saying.

A better term is radical depravity, which means that every aspect of your being is corrupt. Sin has tainted every aspect of your being. It doesn't mean that you're as bad as you can be, or that we're all as bad as Hitler is.

It just means that we are completely affected by sin. And yes, as unbelievers, all we do is wicked and all we do is sin, because even the Bible says the plowing of the wicked is evil, because it's going against God and you're not acknowledging God and what you're doing.

And there isn't just the letter, but also the spirit of Allah that you have to take into account. Like Jesus said, if you lust, you've already committed adultery in the heart. There is both that you have to take into account.

And so that's a very helpful distinction. And this is one thing that is always fascinating me about the Bible and about God and about Christianity, is that it has a perfect system of checks and balances.

There's like book end doctrines that always help you to show you that if you're going too far in one direction, another doctrine is going to suffer for it. And that's one of those things that when you emphasize depravity so much, to the point where you say that everything Christians do is still sinful, then you're actually undermining God's power.

Because you're saying that God is not doing what He's promising to do when He gives you a new heart and causes you to obey Him. Because you will be able to obey, even if it's imperfectly, even if it's not fully perfectly the way Christ did, but He will empower you and enable you in a progressive sanctifying walk with His Spirit living in you.

He will enable you to walk more and look more like Christ. And so that's a very important distinction and difference that you see very clearly between critical race theory and Christianity. And it's again, not surprisingly, a fundamentally, it's a primary issue.

We just talked about regeneration. You can't deny regeneration and call yourself a Christian and you can't deny total depravity either. I mean, those are radically fundamental doctrines of the Bible.

And even consider this, like we haven't talked about this, but this is something that needs to be brought up to critical race theory proponents and social justice warrior, you know, ism proponents, is the idea like, look, if that's your view of communication, then what do you do with the scriptures?

What do you do with the doctrine of infallibility, the doctrine of inerrancy? What do you do with the doctrine of the purity of God's word? You see what I'm saying?

You know, oh, man.

If the writers of scripture are men, women are, you know, presumably all men, right. But, you know, just for their sake, we'll say men and women or whoever. If they're all humans like ourselves, and all we can do is communicate, you know, this added mixture of some good stuff on the surface, but really some really evil, nasty stuff underneath it, then the writers of scripture are not going to be any different because they're fully human.

Wow, that's a good point.

Scripture is corrupt too. You can't have an infallible pure word of God. You can't have proper exegesis. You can't have proper hermeneutical methods. And this is something that actually postmodern theologians, believe it or not, there is such a thing, have emphasized.

And this is why they go to things like process theology, they go to things like open theism, and they, you know, they become syncretist and inclusivist, because they deny that you can communicate clearly.

They deny that the writers of scripture are inerrant and infallible. And those guys, the postmodern theologians, are only a stone's throw away from the guys who are promoting critical race theory. All you need to do is take a few steps and you're in that camp.

You know what I mean?