Christian Criticism of Critical Theories

Christian Criticism of Critical Theories

Critical Theory (CT) is a philosophical framework for understanding the world in ideological forces that are either categorised as oppressed or oppressor groups. Consequently, CT argues that the problem with the world is the oppressive group and seeks to perceive the world’s problems through that lens, and posits solutions in light of it. It is important to note that CT is the overarching framework, and there are specific Critical Theories (e.g., Critical Race Theory, Critical Gender Theory - a subbranch of Feminist Theory, Critical Legal Theory, etc.)

In my university course (Critical and Cultural Theory), I had the opportunity to publish 3x 300-350 word blog posts engaging with various critical theories that we learnt in the course. In this blog, I’ve shared two of my posts from the subject:

Verbal, Plenary Inspiration of Scripture: Limitation or Liberation? 

To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing […] [However] by refusing to assign a ‘secret,’ an ultimate meaning, to the text (and the world as text), liberates what may be called an anti-theological activity, an activity that is truly revolutionary since to refuse to fix meaning is, in the end, to refuse God and his hypostases–reason, science, law.” 

Roland Barthes, The Death of the Author (147)

The relationship between author and reader has undergone various revisions and iterations throughout history. In the excerpt above, Barthes accentuates his position, magnifying what I believe to be the central issue—viz., authority. To assert an “Author” to the text, one inadvertently states that the authority of interpretation belongs to the posited Author, not the reader. Conversely, by murdering the Author who poses various limitations on the text, the authority of interpretation has been transferred to the individual interpreter, thereby being “liberate[d]” from their authority.

Further, Barthes argues that such liberation is an “anti-theological activity”, a modus operandi governed by an atheistic metaphysic and epistemology that is hostile to “God and his hypostases”. Put differently, is it possible to affirm the evangelical doctrine of the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture while refusing to submit to the intent of the author—God—by positing a hermeneutic that is “anti-theological”? Within the epistemological framework of various critical theories, this dilemma may be perceived as a tension that can be sustained. However, from an evangelical perspective, such activity is “truly revolutionary”, rejecting God’s authority. Consequently, if we posit an evangelical understanding of Scripture, does that limit us to a politically retrograde censorship that closes an open system of knowledge when reading Scripture?[1] To the contrary, the evangelical worldview provides a sound epistemological foundation upon which to explore, contemplate and “open up knowledge” to study “God’s two books”.[2] When evangelicals acknowledge the truth of God’s Word, that very “truth [that] will set you free”.[3] Thus, affirming the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture and interpreting it with the authority of the Author when studying the Bible, is a pro-theological activity that liberates us from our pre-conceived representation of reality, thereby opening up knowledge to explore God’s two books.

History, Theology and Doctrine: New Historicism and the Christian Faith

“Christ died”—that is history; “Christ died for our sins”—that is doctrine. Without these two elements, joined in an absolutely indissoluble union, there is no Christianity.”

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (15)

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19 (ESV)

“Always Historicize!” is the resounding anthem of Jameson’s philosophy of history. “Christ died”—that is history; “Christ died for our sins”—that is doctrine, is the competing canticle of Machen’s Biblical-Historicism. When considering the philosophy of history, one inadvertently engages in a wider theological and teleological discussion. For the Marxist, the perennial process of historicizing undergirds the hope of a future revolution and utopia, for Marxist historiography is an interpretive endeavour. Marxist historians inevitably read historical accounts from an interpretive grid that represents the progress of historical events dialectically. They read history à la lettre—to the letter—paying careful attention to the ideological signifiers that are inculcated in each recount of historical narratives.

For Christians, however, the verity of Christ’s death—and his subsequent physical resurrection—underpins the very foundations of the religion. “If in Christ we have hope in this life only”—that is, if there is no historical certainty of the death and resurrection of Christ through which we can have hope for life to come—“[Christians] are of all people most to be pitied”, for such faith and preaching is in vain. The objective tone of the Apostle in these verses suggests that his articulation of history is not merely an approximation of what happened; instead, it is an assertion of what history is. Simply put, the Apostle Historicizes in absolute categories, while Jameson’s philosophy promulgates a perpetual process of historicizing. More importantly, the difference of approach is not merely a matter of historical principles, but a matter of great theological significance as history and doctrine is “in an absolutely dissoluble union”, without which there is no Christianity.

---

[1] Stiegler, Bernard, The Neganthropocene, 2018.

[2] Bacon, Francis, Advancement of Learning, 1605.

[3] John 8:32