Kevin Briggins,
There was recently a debate between Christian apologist Frank Turek, who is white, and Pastor Charlie Dates, who is black, moderated by Pastor Derwin Gray, who is also black. I use the word moderated loosely because Pastor Gray was not a neutral party. Throughout the debate, he consistently sided with Pastor Dates, frequently interrupted Frank Turek, and inserted his own rebuttals rather than facilitating an even-handed discussion.
One exchange was especially revealing. Frank asked how our society can move forward without embracing reverse racism. Pastor Gray responded:
“Racism is different than prejudice. Racism means there’s a group of people who actually have power over a whole other group. Prejudice is more individual … Culturally, for me, I don’t have the power to create laws or culture that are going to affect masses of people.”
This raises an important question. Why did Pastor Gray feel compelled to correct Frank’s use of the term reverse racism?
He clearly understood the biblical principle underlying Frank’s question. Scripture teaches that showing partiality is sinful. Christians are commanded not to judge people by outward appearance and not to discriminate based on ethnicity or skin color. Pastor Gray himself affirmed this biblical ethic when he said, “We as Christians should always, always say, ‘No, I want to treat you the way I want to be treated.’”
If he agrees with that biblical premise, why insist on distinguishing racism from prejudice?
The answer, I believe, is that Pastor Gray’s understanding of race and justice has been shaped more by secular sociology than by Scripture.
Historically, the word racism simply referred to racial prejudice. A racist was someone who believed one race was superior to another or who harbored prejudicial attitudes toward people based on race.
The now popular definition of racism as “prejudice plus power” did not emerge from biblical theology or even from traditional dictionary definitions. It originated with sociologist and socialist Patricia Bidol-Padva, who introduced the concept in 1970. Under this framework, racism is no longer merely personal prejudice. It becomes prejudice backed by institutional or societal power.
This redefinition has had enormous consequences. It has been used to argue that black people cannot be racist because we supposedly lack systemic power, while white people can be racist regardless of their personal beliefs or actions because they belong to the majority group. More importantly, this framework fundamentally changes where we locate the problem.
The biblical worldview teaches that racism begins in the human heart. Like every other sin, it flows from the corruption of fallen human nature. Jesus taught that sinful thoughts, hatred, and evil actions proceed from within the heart. The solution, therefore, is the transforming power of the Gospel, which reconciles sinners to God and teaches them to love their neighbors without partiality.
The sociological framework shifts the focus away from the heart and toward systems, institutions, and power structures.
Over time, the definition has expanded even further. Today, many advocates argue that racism does not even require racial prejudice. Any institution that produces unequal outcomes between black and white Americans may be labeled racist, even if no one within that institution harbors racist beliefs or intentionally discriminates. Under this definition, disparities themselves become evidence of racism. That represents a significant departure from the biblical understanding of justice.
The Bible consistently evaluates individuals according to truth, impartiality, and equal standards. Scripture condemns unequal weights and measures, partiality in judgment, and favoritism based on wealth, ethnicity, or social status. Justice is rooted in righteousness and the consistent application of God’s moral law, not merely in achieving equal statistical outcomes.
Once racism is defined primarily as structural power, the Gospel inevitably begins to appear insufficient.
After all, if the fundamental problem is not sinful hearts but oppressive systems, then changing hearts cannot be the primary solution. The Gospel may be welcomed as a starting point, but it must be supplemented with activism aimed at dismantling structures of power.
This helps explain why Pastor Dates frames the Christian response as “protest and prayer,” the subtitle of his book What Hath Justice to Do with Righteousness? Reclaiming the Intersection of Protest and Prayer. Prayer alone is viewed as inadequate because the deeper problem is assumed to exist outside the individual heart. The practical implications are significant.
Rather than asking whether someone is guilty of racial prejudice, hatred, or sinful partiality, the conversation shifts to questions about power, privilege, and group outcomes. Rather than examining whether laws are impartial or whether justice is administered fairly, the focus becomes whether statistical disparities exist between racial groups.
This shift also explains why Frank Turek struggled to gain traction when discussing specific policies and practical solutions. He was attempting to evaluate laws, principles, and biblical ethics. Pastor Dates was operating within a different framework altogether, one that prioritizes sociological analysis over biblical categories.
It is also telling that Pastor Dates acknowledged his book contains no specific policy proposals. That admission makes sense because the primary goal is not legislative reform but a continual posture of protest against perceived systems of oppression. The emphasis is on reshaping the cultural narrative rather than evaluating individual policies on their own merits.
This is the danger Christians face when secular sociology becomes the lens through which Scripture is interpreted.
The issue is not whether sociology can provide useful observations about society. It certainly can. Christians should not ignore historical realities or social patterns. The problem arises when sociology is elevated from a descriptive tool to an interpretive authority that reshapes biblical definitions of sin, justice, repentance, and reconciliation.
When that happens, biblical categories are quietly replaced with secular ones. Sin becomes oppression instead of rebellion against God. Justice becomes equity of outcomes instead of impartial righteousness. Reconciliation becomes activism instead of forgiveness grounded in the Gospel.
Christians should certainly care about justice, but our understanding of justice must always be defined by Scripture rather than by secular academic theories. Whenever sociology and Scripture come into conflict, the authority of God’s Word must prevail.
Pastor Dates and Pastor Gray illustrate what happens when sociology is allowed to shape the Christian worldview. Instead of allowing Scripture to define racism, justice, and reconciliation, those categories are reinterpreted through the lens of modern social theory.
The result is a vision of justice that begins to drift away from the Gospel rather than flowing from it.
About the Author; Kevin Briggins serves as the Managing Director of the Center for Biblical Unity and as a lay elder at Grace Auburn Church in Auburn, Alabama. A retired military intelligence professional, Kevin completed a distinguished 22-year career of service and holds a bachelor’s degree in Middle Eastern Studies. He is passionate about equipping Christians to think biblically about issues of race, culture, and unity within the church. Kevin and his wife, Shulonda, have been married for 19 years and are the proud parents of three daughters: Karis, Kinley, and Khloe. Together, they are committed to serving their local church and advancing the Gospel through discipleship, teaching, and faithful engagement with the culture.
