Disclaimers: to my knowledge, I have never met Voddie Baucham, heard him preach, nor read his writings. I know of his close affiliation with several ministries, the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel, and some who regularly speak against social justice and Critical Race Theory. Two, in no way should anything in this review be interpreted as for or against various components of CT, CRT, Intersectionality or Critical Social Justice, except that I do not believe any of them should be totalized as a worldview. Third, page numbers cited are from a PDF proof and will not match the print version. Fourth, please read the footnotes.
Fault Lines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism’s Looming Catastrophe, by Voddie T. Baucham, Jr, Salem Publishing, 226 pages, 2021.
Many thanks to the multiple friends who reviewed early drafts, made suggestions to make it more clear. And as always, to my wife for proofreading. Any errors are mine alone.
Intro
In his highly-anticipated book, Fault Lines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism’s Looming Catastrophe, evangelist Voddie Baucham, Jr, attempts a theological Operation Overlord: attacks on multiple fronts in an attempt not only to secure a beachhead, but to drive his ideological opponents to ruin. The titular “lines” are less fault than battle with Baucham doing his best to exhibit shock and awe.
To call Fault Lines a polemic is to neuter the term. Despite his assertion to the contrary[1], it is difficult if not impossible not to see Fault Lines as an assault, a war-tome. Baucham, names names, with a clear intent of establishing who is right—he, John MacArthur, Tom Ascol, Owen Strachan, and Doug Wilson on one side—with “Thabiti Anyabwile, Tim Keller, Russell Moore, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, 9Marks, The Gospel Coalition, and Together for the Gospel (T4G) all being identified with Critical Social Justice” on the wrong side. On the “wrong” side he also cites David Platt, John Onwuchekwa, Ligon Duncan, and others.
“The result is a standstill,” he writes, “a demilitarized zone that exists, not because hostilities have ceased, but because we all tacitly believe there is no solution” (pg 137). It is over this demilitarized zone that Baucham fires mortar after mortar. Unfortunately, too many people will be distracted by the sound and fury to realize most of his projectiles are duds, crediting him with strategic hits on his opponents, when, in fact, there are few explosions. It is a Herculean effort with Sisyphean results.
His opponents might conceivably be on the wrong side if they all identified with Critical Social Justice, a term Baucham admits he borrowed from atheist writers. But Anyabwile, Keller, Moore, et al do not identify with it, and thus is the tenor of the entire book: assertions with little or misinterpreted evidence, non-sequiturs in place of proof, and conclusions snipe-hunting for connections. When he says cryptically on page eight, “But that’s only half the puzzle,” the reader can be understood for objecting 200+ pages later when so many pieces of it remain missing.
Baucham warns (pg 14), “[I]t is not a stretch to say we are seeing seismic shifts in the evangelical landscape. But is it an exaggeration to call this a coming catastrophe? I don’t think so. John MacArthur calls it ‘the greatest threat to the Gospel’ in his lifetime.” But when he then writes (pg 17), “I don’t think anyone would say that what we are dealing with here rises to the level of the Spanish Inquisition or the Protestant Reformation in terms of threatening our unity,” he tries to have it both ways. He cannot claim Defcon 1 importance whilst denying the same, and stoking passions that have sent innumerable Torquemadas into the fray.
Fault Lines is divided into a Prologue, Introduction, eleven chapters, and three appendixes. Two chapters are Baucham’s lived experience through which he would establish his authority to speak to the issue at hand.[2] Lacking scholarly credentials in the area, this is the better strategy. Using one’s lived experience as authoritative is, interestingly enough, a function of Critical Race Theory.[3]
It would not be possible to address all the errors and problems contained in Fault Lines without writing a critique longer than the book itself. Because of those limitations, I will address some major problems that render the book untrustworthy: undefined/conflated terms, poor research/bad scholarship, factual errors/misrepresentations. A section is reserved for his treatment of the “SBC Resolution 9” fiasco. Regrettably, in a world of “eat the meat and spit out the bones,” Fault Lines is a veritable boneyard with hardly a ham sandwich to be found.
In this review I will provide multiple detailed examples of why the book should be read with an extremely critical eye. Readers should be prepared to do much in-depth research to determine whether the claims made are accurate, or are the result of the author’s interpretation via preconception. Readers should also be on the lookout for logical fallacies, shallow interpretation, factual errors, biased source authority, and more. Baucham’s writing on the very first page is indicative:
Harvard Law professor Derrick Bell and some colleagues [in 1989] held a conference in Wisconsin, where Critical Race Theory was officially born. Bell’s protege, Kimberlé Crenshaw, introduced the idea of Intersectionality in her paper Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. Peggy McIntosh published White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. And two other Harvard professors, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, published their little-known but monumentally influential book, After the Ball: How America will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s.
All of these publications have one thing in common. They are all the product of the same worldview, Critical Social Justice (CSJ), which is the subject of this book.
Here’s an opportunity to see firsthand Baucham’s own fault line, the tectonic plate-shift that’s constant throughout the book.
He claims the papers presented in Wisconsin, along with a book that is unrelated to Critical Race Theory, are the mothers of Critical Race Theory (“where Critical Race Theory was officially born”). But this isn’t entirely accurate. Derrick Bell, the Founding Father of CRT, published Race, Racism, and American Law in 1972, nine years before the conference. Ideologically, Critical Race Theory was not born at the conference. It had already been in academia for years. [Correction from a reader: “Something like CRT was developing via Bell and CLS prior to the 1980s, but the phrase itself wasn’t first used until the 1989 workshop. Much of the “canon” existed due to the Harvard Alternative Course.” Delgado’s first edition was published in 2001. I have removed that sentence and edited the paragraph.]
Further, how can CRT and Intersectionality be both “born” from and be “the product” of Critical Social Justice, a concept with little academic reference, and which is newer than the aforementioned theories? Baucham’s source for the phrase “Critical Social Justice” is less than two years old. It can hardly have be responsible for academic theories developed in the 1960s and 70s (which would be required to influence the first CRT theorists).
The sloppiness with which the book is set up does not improve over his pages that follow. The Critical Social Justice he says the book is about, for instance, is not the same thing as the Social Justice the cover says the book is about. Shifting tectonic plates and all that. (See The Faulty Lines in Voddie Baucham’s “Thought Line” for a lengthy examination of that section.)
Source Authority Bias
Questions to ask when reading a work like this: Is it deeply sourced, essentially autobiographical, or a rant? How many footnotes? Are the sources authoritative on the subject matter? If it is history, are sound historical sources used?
After his opening, there are immediately more problems for this reviewer. Following the section above and a wildly-brief history of the Frankfurt School (see next section) he twice quotes Helen Pluckrose. Okay; but who is Helen Pluckrose and why should I see her as authority on the subject? Her book, Cynical Theories, is mis-cited twice (James Lindsay, a co-author, is not named). Why should I take their book as authoritative? Fortunately, I know of Pluckrose, Lindsay, and their book. These are not points in the author’s favor.
Baucham’s choice of sources and how he implements them at times reveal a kind of bias. In a lengthy section on police brutality statistics, the author cites a half-dozen or so sources, but fails to include other studies on the same subject that reached different conclusions (examples are given below). One study, he asserts, was attacked as “racist.” It was not hard to find evidence that the study was withdrawn when its methodology was proven faulty.
I surmise his target audience is the already convinced, those who view Voddie as authoritative and trustworthy, and his tribe (and others who will be compelled by the tribe to “read this book; it’s incredibly important”). This reviewer is none of those. I would have expected an overt effort to convince readers like me, but I was wrong.
On The Frankfurt School
Baucham spends all of four paragraphs on the history of Marx (and Conflict Theory), Antonio Gramsci (and Hegemony), The Frankfurt School (Critical Theory), then sums it up in a half-page of linguistic detritus. Subjects, schools, and streams of thought about which shipping containers of pages and forests of books have been written, get as much ink as a book report delayed until the night before it’s due.
Many people talk about the Frankfurt School. Most have heard it is somehow or another related to Marxism, ergo, it must be bad. Nothing possibly redeemable it would seem. Dr. Nicki Lisa Cole explains some of the founders’ concerns:
One of the core concerns of the scholars of the Frankfurt School, especially Horkheimer, Adorno, Benjamin, and Marcuse, was the rise of “mass culture.” This phrase refers to the technological developments that allowed for the distribution of cultural products—music, film, and art—on a mass scale. (Consider that when these scholars began crafting their critiques, radio and cinema were still new phenomena, and television didn’t exist.) They objected to how technology led to a sameness in production and cultural experience. Technology allowed the public to sit passively before cultural content rather than actively engage with one another for entertainment, as they had in the past. The scholars theorized that this experience made people intellectually inactive and politically passive, as they allowed mass-produced ideologies and values to wash over them and infiltrate their consciousness.
Sounds more like Neil Postman or Jacque Ellul than Karl Marx.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, addressing the Critical Theory with which Frankfurt would be associated:
“Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers of” human beings (Horkheimer 1972b [1992, 246])…In both the broad and the narrow senses, however, a critical theory provides the descriptive and normative bases for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms. (emphasis added)
Professor Alan Jacobs, himself a Christian who has written and taught on critical theory and literary theory for years, helps clarify in his article on misunderstanding critical theory:
Adorno and Horkheimer and friends had some influence, to be sure, but not nearly as much as, say, the structuralism that made its way into literary study via Claude Levi-Strauss’s anthropology, or the various psychological theories that stemmed from the work of Freud and Jung. Then came post-structuralism, deconstruction, feminism, gender theory, body theory, postcolonial theory, ecocriticism—all of which were critical and theoretical but usually had only minimal overlap with the concerns of the Frankfurt School. (The figure that I think most generative for Critical Race Theory, Franz Fanon, was in no way connected to the Frankfurt School’s critical theory, as far as I can tell. All of his guiding lights were French.)
Actually, for most of us, he doesn’t help clarify—and that’s my point.
Finally, Dr. Nathan Cartagena, a Christian professor and author of a series on CRT, Tweeted:
Folks acting like you can understand CRT without understanding decolonial movements in the 1950s and 1960s. I hear the choir now: “All you need to know is that CRT comes from the Frankfurt school…” Goodness. And again I hear the choir: “Ignore the Black Power, Chicano, and Red Power Movements; no need to consider the Third World Liberation Front; the Asian American Political Alliance and Asian Americans for Action are of no significance” Time and again these folks gesture at the Frankfurt School–dethatching it from the horrors of Nazi Germany—jump to 1989, a historically note a few “central tenants” of CRT, and then start talking about Critical Social Justice. So much easier to dismiss white supremacy, “whiteness,” structural racism, institutional racism, and CRT when you reason this way.
Critical Theory and its descendants are complex not simple, nor do they form a standardized, singular body of theory. Some actual Marxists contend that Critical Theory left its Marxist influence over the years.[4] That Baucham treated the Frankfurt to so few words—not even mentioning how its theories were used by the US government against the Nazis—indicates to me disinterest or inability to provide the required analysis to thoroughly engage his subject. This is telling given how hard he swings his hammer the rest of the way.
Undefined/conflated terms
Is the book about Critical Race Theory, Critical Theory, or Critical Social Justice? These are not the same, and one can be forgiven for not keeping up. CRT developed from CT but isn’t CT, and CSJ is not the same as either one. The latter phrase was used by DiAngelo and Sensoy in their 2012 book Is Everyone Really Equal? and has been stylized as Public Enemy #1 at New Discourses, but, to date is sparsely addressed in journal articles and universities (see UT Knoxville and University of Maryland, Baltimore County, for two exceptions).
For Baucham to switch back-and-forth from CRT to CSJ (and sometimes plain-vanilla “Social Justice,” and Intersectionality) throughout the book muddies the waters and weakens his case.
Of Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, and Critical Social Justice
In a work this antagonistic, the author would do well to clearly define terms. Baucham promises twice to define justice, but never does; not in a biblical or other sense. He quotes Thomas Sowell on “social justice” in a way that seemingly discounts his own position. He includes definitions of racism that support his point of view while omitting—from the same sources—definitions that contradict his position.
On page 10, he uses a statement (“definition”) from “the UCLA School of Public Affairs,”
CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color. CRT also rejects the traditions of liberalism and meritocracy. Legal discourse says that the law is neutral and colorblind, however, CRT challenges this legal “truth” by examining liberalism and meritocracy as a vehicle for self-interest, power, and privilege.
Baucham writes that many “discussions of CRT have referenced this definition, and with good reason,” that it comes from a source “that has led the charge for CRT in recent years, and “it is a case of proponents of CRT defining themselves.” Really?
If you search “Critical Race Theory” or “What is Critical Race Theory?” one of the top responses is the website Baucham from which the above quote was taken: https://spacrs.wordpress.com/what-is-critical-race-theory/. The site is named UCLA School of Public Affairs | Critical Race Studies. But, that website isn’t the UCLA School of Public Affairs at all. This one is.
The website Baucham cites is a one-off started by some UCLA students to explain how they convinced the faculty to create a single CRT course. The site was created in 2009 and hasn’t been updated since a 2010 article. Search Engine Optimization rather than influence is more likely the reason for its oft citing.
Voddie’s approach to CRT is not limited to use of simplistic definitions from non-authoritative websites. He fails to appreciate the changing nature of the discipline as well as the intramural disagreements about it. Evangelical professor Pat Sawyer, a faculty member at UNC Greensboro who both works with CRT and is a critic of its misuse, writes on The Exchange:
It is crucial to keep in mind that while there are unifying themes/elements (early CRT), core principles/key features/key concepts/tenets (as CRT has aged) that give meaningful, accurate explication of CRT, CRT resists essentialism. That is, there is no static, fixed canon of doctrines or methodologies of CRT that every CRT scholar adheres to or in the same way. To some extent the knowledge area is a reflexive, fluid, and contested space.
So when Baucham suggests those students are a case of CRT proponents defining themselves, he’s right: they defined themselves. But, as Sawyer notes, no other CRT proponent has to accept their definition.
Totalizing vs Utilizing
In chapter 4, Baucham ambitiously attempts to tie together CRT/CSJ/antiracism into what he terms a “cult.”
This new cult has created a new lexicon that has served as scaffolding to support what has become an entire body of divinity. In the same manner, this new body of divinity comes complete with its own cosmology (CT/CRT/I); original sin (racism); law (antiracism); gospel (racial reconciliation); martyrs (Saints Trayvon, Mike, George, Breonna, etc.); priests (oppressed minorities); means of atonement (reparations); new birth (wokeness); liturgy (lament); canon (CSJ social science); theologians (DiAngelo, Kendi, Brown, Crenshaw, MacIntosh, etc.); and catechism (“say their names”). (p 74)
First, what I think is good about Voddie’s attempt. He proposes a simple matrix to identify cosmologies of cults: original sin, law, gospel, martyrs, etc. That’s helpful. Any system of belief that fulfills all those roles in contradistinction to Christian scriptures could be called a cult. This would hold true for nationalism, capitalism, Communism, sports, the Church of Influencers, and, yes, even atheism.
Significantly, Voddie approaches his own process as utilizing from outside Christianity (in this case atheism) while painting his opponents as totalizing CRT (or Social Justice/CSJ/Intersectionality, take your pick).
New Discourses, for instance, is an organization started by atheists James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian with political operative and cruise trip organizer Michael O’Fallon.[5] Helen Pluckrose is an atheist author. John McWhorter is an atheist. Andrew Sullivan is a gay Roman Catholic [corrected from: atheist]. Saying, “James Lindsay and John McWhorter are both atheists, but both have been invaluable assets in my quest to become better equipped to address issues like CRT and CSJ (remember, I got the term “Critical Social Justice” from Lindsay)”[6] is an admission of utilizing non-Christian practioners. In his own practice, utilizing seems to be acceptable as long as you don’t totalize them, that is, embrace their cosmology from bow to stern.
The problem is, he has failed with every attempt to prove those on the other side of his battle line have totalized, despite his assertions to that effect. For Baucham to utilize atheist thought is fine, but anyone utilizing a concept that looks like CRT or CSJ? That is indicative of being on the way to abandoning the gospel.
It is an odd flex.
On the cosmological construct, he continues, “In case you’re wondering about its soteriology, there isn’t one. Antiracism offers no salvation—only perpetual penance in an effort to battle an incurable disease” (p 74). This much is true. “There is salvation in no one else for there is no other name under heaven, given among men, by which you must be saved” other than that of Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12).
This soteriological failure, of course, would also be true of all the potential cults I listed above: capitalism cannot save, sports cannot save, nationalism cannot save, and most definitely atheism cannot save. Yet all of them supplant faith in Jesus for many people. Andrew Sullivan’s piece cited in footnote 65 refers to “the cult of Trump,” but that particular false religion seems to have escaped the Fault Lines target area.[7] It would have been awkward, I suppose, given the number of people on Baucham’s side of the fault who embrace at least part of it.
The real question then, is whether CRT can be utilized as a tool, analytical or otherwise, without it becoming a totalizing worldview.[8] There is plenty of evidence that says yes.
There are many academic papers in this vein, among them:
- Critical race theory as theoretical framework and analysis tool for population health research.
- Can You Really Measure That? Combining Critical Race Theory and Quantitative Methods
- Critical Theory and Qualitative Data Analysis in Education (provides for how to use CRT as an analytical tool in college admissions policy)[9]
Sawyer warns against totalizing CRT while stating the fight against racism, for which CRT is often used, must continue “on every front”:
While a robust embracement [totalizing] of CRT is incompatible with biblical Christianity and will ultimately exacerbate racial division, and while it is a genuine threat to the Church and certainly not a red herring or mere distraction, we must acknowledge that it addresses a real and present concern in racism—a horrendous evil—that must be challenged and rebuked on every front.
And he also strongly affirms the need for repentance:
[T]hose of us who are actual Christians, who are White, need to take stock. We should take no comfort or any praise for never owning slaves or not approving of Jim Crow laws. Such protests are often (not always) cover for being content with more subtle forms of racism. Inasmuch as we are personally guilty in failing to love our fellow human beings of color and our fellow Christians of color as providence would dictate when it comes to listening and responding to their racial pain, fighting against racism (within and without), and seeking to correct the injustices against them, we need to repent.
But isn’t he practicing CRT or CSJ or something?
Baucham’s repeated assertions that CSJ/CRT is a worldview[10] (thus totalized by anyone who engages it) do not hold up. Even his chosen definition (UCLA students) asserts, “This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures.” This is not totalizing; it represents a way to look at power structures. It does not, by Baucham’s chosen definition, meet the definition of a worldview.
Biased Citations
In defining racism, Baucham attempts to show the broad construct (institutional racism, White Supremacy) is a late invention. In his telling, before the advent of CRT/CSJ, both racism and White Supremacy had limited meanings. Racism was essentially the same as bigotry or prejudice: hating or despising a person, or thinking one’s self better than another, because of differences.
In defining racism (pg 87), he writes,
When most Christians speak of racism, we are referring to the traditional, historic definition like that offered by Merriam-Webster, “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”
He includes a similar definition from the Oxford English Dictionary: “A belief that one’s own racial or ethnic group is superior, or that other such groups represent a threat to one’s cultural identity, racial integrity, or economic well-being…”
Baucham’s advancement of his position in this way is unsound. It’s as if, convinced of his opinion, he willfully omitted even basic definitions and historical facts that do not support it. Here’s the next definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary racism entry: the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another specifically: white supremacy; institutional racism.
Dictionary.com concurs: a policy, system of government, etc., that is associated with or originated in such a doctrine, and that favors members of the dominant racial or ethnic group…(also called institutional racism, structural racism, systemic racism). Among the definitions in the Cambridge Dictionary: policies, behaviors, rules, etc. that result in a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race.
It simply is not accurate to say the definition of racism has changed of late, nor is it due to CSJ influence. Systemic racism has been a topic of academic inquiry for decades.
What about White Supremacy? White Supremacy was the Klan. Well, and Nazis. He writes:
This [CRT’s interpretation] is not your grandfather’s version of white supremacy. It does not refer to the KKK or Neo Nazis (except when it does). This version refers to the very air one breaths in a culture created by and for white people. “Race scholars use the term white supremacy to describe a sociopolitical economic system of domination based on racial categories that benefits those defined and perceived as white.” [quote from DiAngelo, White Fragility]
Another reviewer can take up a review of White Fragility; this isn’t that, I have not read it. But is Baucham unaware that in the mid-1800s there was a war in the United States that featured a breakaway faction of states united in their defense of White Supremacy? This is before the Klan or Nazis ever existed. The Klan was birthed from White Supremacy to enforce it. If White Supremacy be the father, how then can it be the son?
Apartheid South African was a White Supremacist state. Did it arise from a chain of Klaverns on the perimeter of Johannesburg? White Supremacy does not depend on the brutalization of the Congo by the Belgians, the Klan, Neo-Nazis, the Atlantic slave trade, White Australia laws, Kristallnacht, Jim Crow, nor the Alt-Right for its origin. All of these things are the fruit of White Supremacy; they existed or exist to perpetuate it. No shift has taken place and, whatever problems might line the pages of White Fragility, the definition of white supremacy is not among them.
fides quaerens intellectum
Thanks for reading. If you enjoyed this consider a gift to support my writing through the Tip Jar below the footnotes. Secure transaction via Stripe.
[1]– “I am not at war with the men, women, and ministries I have named in this book. I love them. Some of them are actually long-time personal friends. But I am at war with the ideology with which they have identified to one degree or another.” (pg 214)
[2]– “Nonetheless, addressing this topic usually leaves me open to attacks from people who will accuse me of ‘being a sellout,’ ‘trying to curry favor with white people,’ not being informed about the struggles black Americans currently face, or just not understanding ‘the black perspective.’ Anyone who knows me will find those things laughable—so let me begin by telling you my story.” (pg 18)
[3]– Pat Sawyer, “What is CRT and Should We Be Concerned?”, see: idea 5.
[4]– “After the Institut re-established itself in Germany after the War, the main figure of the younger generation was Jürgen Habermas who continued to develop the “critical theory” in the Hegelian tradition of Adorno and Marcuse. Habermas was instrumental in the 1960s in developing the theory of “networks,” but in later years Habermas has focused on communicative ethics in the tradition of Immanuel Kant, and departed not only from the Marxist, but even the Hegelian tradition. Currently Axel Honneth represents the third generation, continuing the work of Jürgen Habermas, but with a partial return to Hegel, still quite remote from any reading of Karl Marx.” See: “The Frankfurt School and ‘Critical Theory’”
[5]– See Florida LLC reports 2019 and 2020. O’Fallon was a mover in the formation of the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel.
[6]– See pg 129.
[7]– Baucham references the following: John McWhorter, “Atonement as Activism,” The American Interest; John McWhorter, “Antiracism, Our Flawed New Religion,” The Daily Beast, April 14, 2017; James Lindsay, “Postmodern Religion and the Faith of Social Justice,” Areo, December 18, 2018; Andrew Sullivan, “America’s New Religions,” Intelligencer; December 7, 2018; Andrew Sullivan “Is Intersectionality a Religion?” New York Magazine; Elizabeth C. Corey, “First Church of Intersectionality,” First Things. As Baucham is wont to do, he says he is addressing antiracism, then proceeds to confuse multiple subjects.
[8] In this review I use totalize as a synonym for adopting an entire system of thought and utilize for engaging portions of a theory without its full acceptance.
[9] Graham, L., Brown-Jeffy, S, Aronson, R., and Stephens, C. (2011). Critical race theory as theoretical framework and analysis tool for population health research. Critical Public Health, 21(1), 61-93; Can You Really Measure That? Combining Critical Race Theory and Quantitative Methods Jenna R. Sablan; Critical Theory and Qualitative Data Analysis in Education, Rachelle Winkle-Wagner, Jamila Lee-Johnson, and Ashley N. Gaskew (eds).
[10]– a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worldview. Baucham uses the word 53 times.
