Of all the frustrating trends in evangelical discourse, this latest attempt to redefine Christian political engagement has been one of the worst. Coined the “woke right,” this newly-appropriated label actually functions as a paradox. This new trend claims that “woke” no longer strictly applies to those who advocate for social justice. Now, they claim that “woke” can also include those who argue against social justice. “Woke,” a term that has been around for almost a century, has always been unquestionably linked to Black sociopolitical advocacy, particularly embodied by the civil rights movement. Later on, to be “woke” meant supporting a wide range of Left-wing social issues, from feminism to LGBT+ advocacy. Not only did these proponents of social justice self-identify as “woke,” but the entire left wing embraced it. But despite the long-standing history of the term, some in the evangelical world mistakenly believe they can rebrand it.
Neil Shenvi, a Christian apologist and author of the book “Critical Dilemma,” recently claimed that the “woke” label could be applied to members of the Right as well. Borrowing from Kevin DeYoung and Doug Wilson, Shenvi’s latest article, What is the “Woke Right?”, attempts to piece together these assorted uses. Historically, such an attempt has been met with hostility and dismissal. Not long ago, some evangelicals attempted a direct attack with the label, hoping to smear Jack Posobiec. Not only did the Left-coded label fail to stick, but the undertaking backfired, leaving the majority of onlookers to believe that anyone claiming to be a classical liberal was the true “woke right.”1“The Failed Anti-Christian Nationalist Offensive” – Evangelical Dark Web, https://evangelicaldarkweb.org/2024/05/27/the-failed-anti-christian-nationalist-counter-offensive/
Whether this word was intended to be used as a pejorative or not, the Right-wing has strongly resented the label. To be “woke” is to be Left, and no one wants to be the Leftist. Yet Shenvi insists that his latest attempt to resurrect the “woke right” concept was never intended to be a slur. Given his earlier treatments of “wokeness” in the church, I can see why he believed that.
Reviewing “Woke Church”
Published in 2018, Eric Mason’s “Woke Church” challenged American evangelicalism to be more “woke.” Infused with black racial consciousness and social justice talking points, the book certainly made its mark in the world. Neil Shenvi, taking on the role of the Christian apologist, provided a short review of this book.
In his review, Shenvi notices that certain conservatives such as Thomas Sowell and Voddie Baucham are certainly “socially aware of issues that have systemic impact” yet have never been given the “woke” label. Baucham, in particular, is well-known for his critiques of social justice, regularly addressing cultural issues, yet he is clearly not “woke.” Shenvi’s observation on this distinction leaves him no choice but to conclude that the term “wokeness” means more than just an awareness of a systemic issue; it is also a prescription.
If they’re not considered ‘woke’, then the term is is not being used to refer to social awareness of race and injustice. It is instead being used to refer to a particular approach to race and injustice.
Neil Shenvi, “A Short Review of Mason’s Woke Church”2https://shenviapologetics.com/a-short-review-of-masons-woke-church/
Even though Eric Mason used a broad definition of “woke” — one that could have theoretically included conservatives like Thomas Sowell — it was still painfully obvious that such a term would never apply to the Right, as the end result of “being woke” is to advocate for social justice. As Shenvi points out, being “woke” was never about simply being aware; it was about reaching certain conclusions. So, in order for a man like Thomas Sowell to be “woke,” it would not be enough to notice racial disparities; he would need to reach a particular conclusion about the solution to those disparities (social justice).
Unfortunately, Shenvi’s short review is rather short. He gives the author a large benefit of the doubt, concluding that the “woke” evangelical movement is an amalgamation of positives and pitfalls. Five years later, Shenvi attempts to define what he calls a “woke right” phenomenon. This time, however, he would not make the mistake of being too specific.
Expanding The Definition
In defining the “woke right,” Shenvi first recalls his 2020 interpretation of the term—a definition that relies heavily on descriptive elements. This definition had four points and included a rather vague societal prescription within the third and fourth points.
1) society is divided into oppressed/oppressor groups along lines of race, class, gender, sexuality, etc via 2) hegemonic power. But privileged people are blind so 3) we need to defer to the lived experience of the marginalized to 4) dismantle unjust systems.
Neil Shenvi, What is the “Woke Right”?
In order to make such a definition applicable to the “Dissident Right,” Shenvi was forced to create what he calls an “analogous term.” Seeing as how the Right and the Left are clearly at odds with each other in terms of function, Shenvi believed that the two political aisles could be identified in terms of form. For the first and second points, regarding societal divisions and hegemonic norms, Shenvi’s analogous definition could certainly be used. A careful observer, however, will notice that points three and four of this definition clearly stray from this analogy-style pattern. For the latter half, the “woke right” definition shifts from an analogous term to an antithetical one.
1) society is divided into straight White men and their enemies via 2) hegemonic norms (“the Longhouse,” “postwar consensus,” “Judeo-Christianity”) but normies are blind so 3) we need to redpill them to 4) retake the West.
Neil Shenvi, What is the “Woke Right”?
In order for Shenvi’s definitions to function correctly, “deferring to the lived experience of the marginalized” must be analogous to “redpilling normies,” while the call to “dismantle unjust systems” must be analogous to “retaking the West.” These things could not be more at odds. Even if various critical theories could be considered analogous in that they highlight various racial divides in society, it is just as obvious that the solutions they then advocate for are diametrically opposed to one another.
The Left is still the Left, while the Right is still the Right.
Shenvi dismisses this argument entirely. “…if the term ‘woke’ refers to a particular set of ideas,” he writes, “then insofar as these ideas have been adopted by some on the right, it seems perfectly reasonable to talk about the ‘woke right.’” Yet, finding Leftist ideas that have been adopted by the Right seems to be easier said than done. Shenvi relies on a number of vague critiques and concerns to make his point, alluding to things like “ethnocentrism” and “identity politics” in his comparison. Substantively, however, Shenvi offers no meaningful juxtaposition. So, in what sense is “woke left” and “woke right” analogous? Given the provided ambiguity, the terms are similar in that both sides of the political aisle advocate for social and political change.
1) Society is divided into [two sides of a social issue] via 2) hegemonic power (“laws,” “societal norms”, etc…) but the majority of voters are blind so 3) we need to raise awareness of this [social issue] and 4) change the system that enables it
By broadening the definition to such an extreme, Shenvi inadvertently applies “woke” to everything that advocates for change. If “wokeness” can be defined as 1) identifying problems, 2) identifying the purveyors of that problem, 3) raising awareness, and 4) advocating for changes to a system that facilitates it, then every form of social critique will be a form of “wokeness.” This dubious definition reduces “wokeness” to a meaningless term and undermines the label so that no one can even attempt to use it without heavy contextualization. With definitions this loose, the failure of the “anti-woke” movement becomes apparent. To be “anti-woke” wasn’t just about resisting the Left-wing social justice movement; it was about resisting change entirely.
The Theo-Political Horseshoe
At the end of his “woke right” assessment, Neil Shenvi appeals to the infamous horseshoe political diagram. A lesser-known political theory, the horseshoe represents a world where the Left and the Right are analogous equivalents, a place where they have more in common with each other than with a political moderate. This same flawed political analogy was similarly referenced in a recent article by Andrew T. Walker. Titled “Christian ethics and moral symmetry,”3https://wng.org/opinions/christian-ethics-and-moral-symmetry-1716817839 Walker argued that a biblical worldview would oppose both the Left AND the Right. By placing his argument on a horseshoe model, Walker unwittingly argued that a Biblically-informed worldview required you to be a political moderate, upholding the status quo. Shenvi argues similarly:
Woke ideas are false and corrosive to the Christian worldview. They will poison the spiritual health of the church and the spiritual life of the individual. Therefore, it doesn’t matter which version of wokeness poses a greater political threat; both should be rejected on theological grounds.
Neil Shenvi, What is the “Woke Right”?
You know you are in trouble when a niche political extremism model is used as essential groundwork for a theological argument. In doing so, Shenvi cannibalizes his own thesis out of impotence. By resisting “wokeness” on theological grounds, Shenvi creates a scenario where any form of political advocacy is, in his view, unbiblical. Telling Christians that they have a moral imperative to maintain the status quo is certainly quite a take. But telling Christians they must maintain the status quo while sitting under an intensely progressive regime is uniquely vile. Shenvi decries “a pattern of reprehensible behavior” from his political opponents, all while binding others to political inaction in the name of Christ. Such hypocrisy is impossible to ignore.
Much of this “Woke Right” nonsense has already been addressed. Published in the American Reformer, C. Jay Engel responded to many of Neil Shenvi’s claims. “The Right Wing is not Woke,” he writes, “It’s also just not Liberal.”4https://americanreformer.org/2024/05/is-there-a-woke-right/ Yet instead of addressing understand these points, Shenvi was only capable of seeing things through his own 4-points-of-wokeness.5Shenvi writes: I’m not sure how else to respond to this article other than to point out that, in it, Engel clearly and repeatedly affirms that my characterization of his beliefs is entirely accurate, even if he dislikes the term “woke right.” He believes that 1) straight White men are the cultural center of America and are the target of “The Regime” 2) normies are blinded by Liberalism but 3) we can mobilize Heritage Americans to act in their own group interest and 4) retake America. This is exactly what I identify as “right-wing wokeness”! Engel clearly articulated the the problems with liberalism and gave guidance for the future of conservatism; so Neil’s admission — that he viewed such a stance as “woke” — tells us almost everything we need to know about his definitions. Though he may claim to make a distinction between postliberalism and the “woke right,” Shenvi’s response to Engel makes clear that he sees no meaningful difference in practice or definition.
Understanding the Dissident Christian Right is not particularly complicated, but for a person who is physically incapable of opposing the regime, comprehending such a movement might prove to be an impossibility. Maybe those who are incapable of resistance will inevitably become proponents of powerlessness.
Sources:
- 1“The Failed Anti-Christian Nationalist Offensive” – Evangelical Dark Web, https://evangelicaldarkweb.org/2024/05/27/the-failed-anti-christian-nationalist-counter-offensive/
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5Shenvi writes: I’m not sure how else to respond to this article other than to point out that, in it, Engel clearly and repeatedly affirms that my characterization of his beliefs is entirely accurate, even if he dislikes the term “woke right.” He believes that 1) straight White men are the cultural center of America and are the target of “The Regime” 2) normies are blinded by Liberalism but 3) we can mobilize Heritage Americans to act in their own group interest and 4) retake America. This is exactly what I identify as “right-wing wokeness”!
Leave a Reply