top of page

The Christmas narrative of the "woke church". Some reflections...

What you see above is an example of some of the debates and evaluations of neo-Marxist "woke" cultism in the evangelicalism and SBC entities that I'm regularly involved with. My portion of it is a summary statement of what he means with categories he uses. Mr. Lambert - supposedly a 'pastor' - uses very specific, thinly veiled language that relies upon the lexis, praxis, and pedagogy of neo-Marxian Critical Theories and Intersectionality. In short, the above is an example of the idolatrous ways that such so-called 'Christians' deconstruct the truth of Scripture so that it supports concepts that are antithetical to God and corrupt His Word. Let's walk through this idolatry for a bit, shall we?

1)'dark-skinned child' - Why make this statement? It seems discordant, doesn't it? Scripture affirms that Jesus is the Messiah, born of the Jews, but not only for the Jews. His melanin content is irrelevant to His mission. Scripture does not note 'dark skinned child' in its relating to us the valuable attributes of His humanity or deity. Now, below Lambert notes in the thread that if you reject his language and motives, then you must sinfully 'angered' and 'hate dark-skinned people'. No argument is permitted. No rationale quantifiable. This is a common tactic of affirmers of Critical Theories [here on out referred as CT ] - make a statement and if you differ on the statement with them you must be a racist. His purported attribute of Christ is not in the text - or anywhere in Scripture for that matter, so it means nothing - adds nothing - to the text. So why make it an emphasis? This is neo-Marxist Postmodern Deconstruction of Scripture to support the social constructs of Critical Race Theory and Critical social constructs of BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, People of Color].

2) "a scandalized mom" - This one is a mixture small bit of actual Ancient Near East [ANE] culture with a ulterior motive. In this string of statements, this particular statement has to support and strengthen the argument as whole. Otherwise, why use it? We can safely assume that there may have been some controversy around Mary's pregnancy given the Jewish culture that centered on marriage BEFORE sexual activity. The normal everyday activity that God as Creator has appointed is sex for procreation. Anything outside of that is so rare as to be disbelieved or a mythological. It's hard for us to grasp that with the advent of IVF and artificial means of pregnancy in our day. Now, the cultural emphasis on marriage before procreation in that day was actually a healthy one. Would that we held to such a moral today. There’s nothing in the text of Scripture - specifically the conception and birth of Jesus - that alludes to a scandal. Elizabeth celebrated when John leaped in her womb at the arrival of Mary [Luke 1:44]. Other than the Pharisees’ accusations of Christ being illegitimate later [John 8:31] We have no other evidence there was any gossip or such. There is no evidence in Scripture that she was mistreated in any way. It's just not there. When the Pharisees employed or created gossip, they were focused upon defeating the authority of Jesus with moral taint. With that being said, it’s not a focus of the text. If it means nothing to the text why make it an emphasis? Well, this one is the neo-Marxist Postmodern Deconstruction of Scripture to support the social construct of Critical Feminist Theory and its ‘victimhood’ culture.

3) "poor stepdad" - With this one, we know that Joseph was an adoptive father from the line of David, but he was not a stepfather. Mary was never betrothed to God. As such, she never was never divorced from Him, nor did God die and widow her. Henceforth, Joseph was never a "stepdad". I'm honestly not nitpicking. Every aspect of language that a participant in Critical Theories is deliberately meant to convey - clearly or circumspectly - their worldview. It's intentionally manipulative. That being said, we also don't know what Jesus' earthly family's living conditions were or how much Joseph earned. He was a carpenter. It was a noble trade. We can safely assume that his sons - and adopted Son - grew up in the trade as well and would have assisted him. Even in Ancient Near East, carpentry could bring a livable wage. The "poor" statement is nothing more that emotional manipulation and the "stepdad" statement is false. If they're untrue, and it means nothing to the text, why make it an emphasis? This one is the neo-Marxist Postmodern Deconstruction of Scripture to support the social construct of Critical Social Justice's obsession with wealth and poverty. It is also is a manifestation of their desire to justify the dissolution of the nuclear family by presenting the construct of a blended family as though it were the norm in the ancient world. Scripture never showed concern for nor stated poverty around the childhood of Jesus, and it never asserted that Joseph was a stepdad. We shouldn't either.

4) "childhood as a political refugee" is a pointed comparison/connection with illegal aliens and so-called "Dreamers". It evokes the false modern political narrative of children in cages [but only used against the political enemies of the ‘woke’]. Scripture does show concern for the stranger and pilgrim, but it also clearly states in Exodus 12:49 "There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you." The just law of our land accounts for political and religious asylum at points of entry. Illegally trespassing and then calling it ‘just’, doesn't a 'refugee' make. It's actually a rejection of God's righteousness and justice by applying those attributes to sin. Unjustly putting the income of citizens - without their consent - up as welfare surety for strangers is foolish and sinful [Prov 11:15 "Whoever puts up security for a stranger will surely suffer harm, but he who hates striking hands in pledge is secure."]. Using emotionally evocative language to hide criminal activity is also wicked. The language Lambert used here again is irrelevant to the text of Scripture. Matthew 2:15 states that it was to fulfill prophecy and show that Jesus is the true Israel when He went to Egypt and was brought back. It means nothing to the text to add to that, so why make it an emphasis? This one is the neo-Marxist Postmodern Deconstruction of Scripture to support the social construct of Critical Social Justice and the Socialist eradication of sovereign geopolitical borders. It's blasphemous to attach the person of Christ to things that are not delineated in Scripture.

4)"grows up breaking religious laws" is not true strictly true. What I mean is Gal 4:4 says He was born under the Law to redeem those under the Law. He could not have done that if He was an insubordinate youth. Jesus himself says in Matt 5:17-20 that He did not come to abolish or break the Law, but to fulfill them. That accounts for His whole life. He states that whoever relaxes one of the least of the Commandments and teaches others to do so is least. Luke 2:52 says that he increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man. Once older and in ministry, He rebuked extra-biblical legalism, but was never a lawbreaker. His healing on the Sabbath and other 'works' fulfilled the Law which permitted works of mercy and necessity [Matt 12:9-14]. His forgiveness of the woman caught in adultery [John 8:3-11] was in compliance with the just requirements of the Law. In fact, the adulteress could not be tried or convicted under the Law if the adulterer was not also convicted [Deut 22:22]. They lacked full proof for the death sentence. The Pharisees knew this, but were trying to get Him to break the Law and slander Him. Just because He was accused of breaking the Law by the Pharisees - and by Lambert below - doesn't mean Jesus actually did. So why use the language? Why does Lambert make it an emphasis? Remember the flow of his language so far. That is the context. This statement is meant to reinforce that. This one is the neo-Marxist Postmodern Deconstruction of Scripture to support their obsession with the destruction of traditional and societal mores. Not all traditions are wicked or against God. Paul calls the Gospel a biblical ‘tradition’ handed down [2 Thess 3:6], but commands us to war against human tradition based humanistic philosophy and empty deceit [Col 3:6]. Jesus rebukes these types of ‘tradition’ and extra-biblical requirements [Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8, 9, 13].

5) and lastly "executed for defying religious leaders" is patently false. Christ was crucified according the foreknowledge and predestination of God to atone for the sin of His people [Eph 1:3-14; Heb 2:10-15; 1 Peter 1]. Peter proclaimed this in [Acts 2:22-23]. Yes, they were concerned for their place and feared Rome, but their explicit stated reason for getting Him executed was what they considered His statements blasphemy in claiming equality with God [John 5:18; 1 Cor 2:8]. Under Roman occupation, they had no authority to crucify Him. Therefore they manipulated Pilate by declaring that Jesus was making Himself Caesar [Luke 23:2; John 19:12, 15]. If Jesus was not who He said He was, their judgment of blasphemy would have been correct, but they lied. He wasn’t crucified for defying them. He was crucified according to the plan of God. Defying human power structures and privilege was not why He was executed.

This version of Christ - and His birth narrative - that the "woke church" is creating, is dependent upon a worldview created by Critical Theories and the deconstruction of Scripture to support it. It is idolatry. It is heretical. It is blasphemy. Christians must reject it.

3 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page