Social Justice and Critical Theory 2

The guise of objectivity

Premise 5: “Oppressor groups hide their oppression under the guise of objectivity.”

The claim being made is that there are no completely neutral observers who present us with totally objective ‘facts.’

Instead, oppressor groups ‘claim’ that their observations are neutral, but this claim is only a strategy to cloak their will to dominate.

One might think that this premise would be limited to controversial statements about politics or psychology, but some critical theorists are willing to take this claim to an extreme conclusion.

For example, the abstract of a recent paper on feminist glaciology (glaciology is the study of glaciers) argues that science can be “gendered” and that “the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.”

I know that sounds like a hoax, but it is a legitimate peer-reviewed article written by a sincere author.

And it’s fully consistent with the view of human knowledge put forward by critical theorists.

Intersectionality

Premise 6: “Individuals at the intersection of different oppressed groups experience oppression in a unique way.”

Here’s a quote from the authors of an influential book on critical race theory: “Imagine a black woman [who may be] a single working mother… She experiences, potentially, not only multiple forms of oppression but ones unique to her and to others like her.” 

The authors here are expressing the concept of intersectionality: the idea that our identities interact in complicated ways.

Where do we see intersectionality?

Here are two photos from the Women’s March in 2017.

This first sign provides a good example of intersectionality.

On the one hand, women of all color can find solidarity in their common experience of male oppression. But not so fast! 

The woman with the sign points out that a majority of white women voted for Trump.

Even at an avowedly anti-Trump event that was organized to protest his election, intersectionality is relevant.

Race and gender intersect so that shared gender is not necessarily enough of a basis for solidarity.

As the second sign declares: “Feminism without intersectionality is just white supremacy.”

Women of color will not necessarily have the same concerns as white women, so any feminist coalition needs to avoid centering the concerns of the dominant group.

I hope I’ve convinced you that critical theory helps to explain many phenomena. If we understand it, we can understand a lot of what’s happening in the secular social justice movement, in academia, in our culture, and in our politics.

III. Why is Social Justice and Critical Theory Attractive?

First, the greatest strength of critical theory is its recognition that oppression is evil. The Bible is emphatic in its condemnation of oppression in both the Old and New Testaments. 

Jesus himself is described as ‘oppressed and afflicted’; God identifies with suffering people and commands his followers to seek justice on their behalf.

Now, keep in mind that the Bible and the dictionary define ‘oppression’ very differently than critical theorists.

Nonetheless, when those in authority are using their power to crush and abuse the powerless, Christians should absolutely be defending the rights of the powerless.

Second, critical theory’s focus on groups rather than on individuals provides insight into how laws and institutions can promote sin.

Take chattel slavery in the U.S. or the Holocaust or apartheid in South Africa.

Clearly, these horrors shouldn’t be exclusively understood as individual acts of immorality.

In all of these examples, immorality was codified and written into law. 

The law then informed and shaped human moral intuitions, as it always does. 

Human beings were individually morally responsible for their actions, but laws and institutions and systems dramatically amplified the effects of human wickedness.

Finally, hegemonic power does exist and it can have an insidious effect on our norms and values. 

Here’s an example that will resonate with conservatives: think about how Hollywood and Madison Avenue define standards of beauty and sexuality.

Think about how hard we have to work as Christian parents to teach our children that women are not sex objects and that real beauty is internal, not merely external.

The way in which the entertainment and advertising industries shape how we understand human value is an example of hegemonic power with respect to beauty.

Next week, we will look at how the worldview of Social Justice and Critical Theory conflicts with a biblical worldview.

IV. Books For Study Further:

Critical Dilemma: The Rise of Critical Theories and Social Justice Ideology - Implications for the Church and Society

By Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer

Faultlines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism’s Looming Catastrophe

By Voddie T. Baucham Jr.

V. Conflicts Between Critical Theory and Christianity

A. Worldview

The first and most fundamental problem with critical theory is that it functions as a worldview.

A worldview is a story that answers our basic questions about life and reality.

Who are we? What is our fundamental problem as human beings? What is the solution to that problem? What is our principle moral duty? What is our purpose in life? A worldview is a metanarrative, a lens through which we view and interpret all other evidence and all other claims.

Christianity is one such worldview.

Christianity tells one comprehensive, overarching narrative about reality in four basic acts: creation, fall, redemption, and restoration.

Who are we? We are the creatures of a holy, good, and loving Creator God.  What is our fundamental problem as human beings? We have rebelled against God. What is the solution to our problem? God sent Jesus to bear the penalty of our rebellion and rescue us. What is our primary moral duty? To love God. What is our purpose in life? To glorify God.

This is the basic story that Christianity tells us and is the grid through which we ought to interpret everything else.

Critical theory also functions as a worldview., but it tells an alternate comprehensive, overarching story about reality.

The story of critical theory begins not with creation, but with oppression.

The omission of a creation element is very important because it changes our answer to the question: “who are we?”

There is no transcendent Creator who has a purpose and a design for our lives and our identities.

We don’t primarily exist in relation to God, but in relation to other people and to other groups. 

Our identity is not defined primarily in terms of who we are as God’s creatures.

Instead, we define ourselves in terms of race, class, sexuality, and gender identity.

Oppression, not sin, is our fundamental problem.

What is the solution? Activism. Changing structures. Raising awareness. We work to overthrow and dismantle hegemonic power. That is our primary moral duty.

What is our purpose in life? To work for the liberation of all oppressed groups so that we can achieve a state of equality.

As you can see, Christianity and critical theory answer our most fundamental questions about reality in very different ways. I worry that too many people are trying to hold on to both Christianity and critical theory. That’s not going to work in the long run. We’ll constantly be forced to choose between them in terms of values, priorities, and ethics.

As we absorb the assumptions of critical theory, we will find that they inevitably erode core biblical truths.

To provide just one illustration, Union Theological Seminary posted a Twitter thread in response to the recent Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel.

Their very first statement was “we deny the Bible is inerrant or infallible” because it “reflects both God’s truth and human sin & prejudice.” 

But how do you determine which is which?

They explain: “biblical scholarship and critical theory help us to discern which messages are God’s.” 

I commend them for their clarity here, but it shows exactly how critical theory strives with Christianity for pre-eminence.

These are two worldviews fighting. In the end, one will win.

B. Epistemology

Second, there is a difference in epistemology, that is, how we know the truth.

Critical theory often takes an approach to truth claims that is in conflict with Christianity.

Normally, when someone makes a claim about what is true, we require the claim to be supported by reason, logic, and argument.

We test that claim against the available evidence to determine whether it is true.

However, critical theory encourages an alternate approach to truth claims that is very popular but is logically invalid. Remember premise #5?

“Oppressor groups hide their oppression under the guise –the pretense- of objectivity.”

When someone makes a truth claim, the first question asked by critical theory is not “is this claim true?” but “What incentives does this person have to make this claim? What social or political agenda motivates this statement? How does this statement function to preserve his power and privilege?”

If you’re familiar with the work of C.S. Lewis, you’ll recognize the logical fallacy that he christened ‘Bulverism.’

Bulverism is a species of genetic fallacy; it dismisses a claim as false because of the assumed motives of the person making the claim. In the same way, critical theory bypasses the question of whether the claim is true and focuses the discussion on the claimant’s group identity.

If the person making the claim belongs to an oppressor group, then the response is easy: “Of course they would say that. They’re just trying to maintain their power and privilege.”

But what happens if the person making the claim belongs to an oppressed group? In that case, their claim is ascribed to ‘internalized oppression.’The subordinate individual has internalized and accepted the claims of the dominant group.

Now the response is: “Ah, you’re suffering from internalized oppression. You’ve been so thoroughly immersed in the dominant power structure that you’re unable to recognize it.”

If you’ve ever discussed pro-life arguments, you’re probably familiar with this reasoning. Let’s say that a man makes a deductive logical argument that abortion is morally wrong. What is the response to him?

Do people say: “That argument, while logically valid, is unsound. Premise 1 is false for the following reasons”? Sometimes, but not very often. Instead, what’s one of the most common responses that men will hear? “Of course, you would say that! You’re a man. You just want to control women’s bodies!”

But let’s say I grab my wife and she makes exactly the same argument: same premises, same conclusion. Now what’s the response? Internalized oppression. She has absorbed the values and norms of the Patriarchy without even realizing it.

Even if we grant that this approach to truth is a problem, is it really one of the most dangerous conflicts between critical theory and Christianity?

Yes, because it undermines any appeal to the Bible. One of the driving forces behind the Reformation was the idea that our theology has to be reformed to and brought under the authority of Scripture.

To do that, we need to be able to test theological claims against the Bible. Unfortunately, critical theory short-circuits this process.

If a person from an oppressor group suggests that our views are unbiblical, they can be dismissed as trying to ‘maintain their privilege.’  But if someone from an oppressed group suggests that our views are unbiblical, they can also be dismissed as having ‘internalized oppression.’

Do you think that the Bible teaches that abortion is wrong? That’s because “you’re trying to control women’s bodies.” Do you think that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin? That’s because “you’re motivated by homophobia.” Do you think that the Bible teaches that husbands have the responsibility to lead their family? That’s because “you’re trying to preserve male supremacy.”

The primary concern for people who have embraced critical theory is not appealing to reason, or argument, or evidence, or even to Scripture. Their primary concern is unearthing and deconstructing the hidden motives of their opponents, so that –according to critical theory- their claims can then be ignored.

C. Adversarial identities

Third, critical theory assumes an adversarial relationship between individuals that is profoundly antithetical to Christianity. Critical theory depends crucially on differentiating identity groups into ‘oppressor’ and ‘oppressed.’ Conversely, if all human beings shared some fundamental identity marker, that fact would severely undermine the dichotomy between oppressor and oppressed and would call into question the foundations of critical theory.

Yet Christianity offers not just one but three of these fundamental identity markers, which are shared by human beings across lines of race, class, and gender: we share a fundamental identity first in creation, then in sin, and then –for Christians- in redemption.

First, all human beings, whether male or female, black or white, young or old, are made in the image of God and therefore possess equal value and dignity. This idea forms a basis for solidarity between the powerful and the powerless, which threatens the divisions introduced by critical theory.

Second, the Christian doctrine of sin teaches that human beings are united in their rebellion against God. We share a ‘solidarity in sin’ just as we share a solidarity in the Imago Dei. To the extent that our identity is rooted in our common rebellion and our common need for mercy, that will undermine the sharp line that critical theory draws between victims and victimizers.

Finally, the New Testament talks very explicitly about the fact that, for Christians, the divisions between male and female, Jew and Greek, slave and free are all broken down. These differences are not erased, but they are demoted in importance. Critical theory insists on ‘solidarity in oppression’ while Christianity insists on ‘solidarity in redemption.’ Christians must insist that we fundamentally and irreducibly relate to one another not as oppressed and oppressor, but as brothers and sisters who have been (past tense) reconciled to one another in Christ.

According to the Bible, all human beings are made in God’s image, all human beings are naturally dead in sin, and all human beings need salvation in Christ. These doctrines of human solidarity are radically subversive to racism, sexism, and classism, but also to critical theory. And for exactly the same reason.

D. Hegemonic power

Fourth, critical theory is built on the rejection of hegemonic power. It sees singular narratives and a singular set of values and norms as inherently oppressive.  Unfortunately, the Bible is nothing but one giant, colossal hegemonic discourse from start to finish. God has all the power in the universe. God has told the true story of reality in the Bible. That means there is one true story of religion, one true story of morality, one true story of sexuality, one true story of gender, and so forth.

While Christians can and should celebrate the diversity that God has created with respect to non-moral issues, like food, music, and styles of dress, we cannot embrace diversity for diversity’s sake. For example, Christians can’t celebrate a diversity of views with respect to the deity of Christ or the sanctity of human life.  In the final analysis, there is only one true story of reality and only one valid set of moral values: God’s.  From the perspective of critical theory, this idea is completely unacceptable.

E. Moral Asymmetry

Fifth, I mentioned in section two that the designation of some individuals as oppressed and other as oppressors leads critical theorists to insist on a moral asymmetry between these groups. What is immoral behavior for an individual from an oppressor group can be moral for an individual in an oppressed group.

For example, here are a handful of Tweets from NYTimes columnist Sarah Jeong, which surfaced shortly after her hiring. I won’t read them aloud because they’re pretty vile, but obviously, this kind of language would be seen as horrifically racist if it were applied to any demographic group other than ‘white people’ or ‘white men.’ Yet many people defended these Tweets.  On what grounds?

Here’s Zach Beauchamp in Vox. “The underlying power structure in American society” is what differentiates these Tweets from ‘actual racism.’ Yes, Beauchamp admits, these statements would be racist if they were directed towards non-whites. But they’re not racist if they’re directed towards whites.

What should Christians think about this kind of moral asymmetry?

First, God’s commands to particular groups never violate God’s universal commands to all Christians. When Christians are told to speak the truth in love or to let no unclean speech come out of our mouths, that applies to all Christians, not just to privileged Christians.

Second, God’s particular commands are based on roles not power differentials. He gives some particular commands to parents, to children, to men, or to women, but never to ‘oppressed groups’ and ‘oppressor groups’ as such.

Third, when the Bible does give particular commands to certain demographic groups, it affirms that Christians should show respect and deference to authority structures (see Rom. 12, Eph. 5:21-6:9, Col. 3:18-4:1, Titus 2:1-10, 1 Pet. 2:18-3:7, etc…) . The Bible recognizes that those in power can indeed abuse their authority and that authority must be wielded justly, but never suggests that all authority should be resisted or is somehow illegitimate. Finally, the Bible is emphatic that Christians are to judge impartially, applying the same law to all people.

Consequently, the insistence of critical theory that individuals from different demographic groups should be held to different moral standards purely on the basis of their group identity is deeply unbiblical.

F. Summary

A worldview based on critical theory and a Christian worldview conflict not just with respect to a few isolated issues, but with respect to basic questions of epistemology, identity, power, and morality. It is impossible to reconcile the two. To the extent we adopt the premises of critical theory, we will have to abandon basic tenets of Christianity and vice versa.

In the next section, I’d like to provide some examples of ideas that are rooted in critical theory, but have achieved the status of ‘common sense’ for large segments of our culture and even for some Christians. I’ll trace the logical implications of these ideas and show how they end up severely undermining basic biblical doctrines.

IV. Logical Implications

A. “We should never challenge lived experience.”

First, consider the claim: “We should never challenge ‘lived experience.’” This claim is so popular in our culture. And certainly, we should be open to the possibility that our experiences may be limited by our privilege and not representative of reality. Yet serious problems arise for Christians who adopt this claim.