Critical Theory vs Christianity
Persecuted Persons of Privilege – The Sage Continues
To disagree with me is an attack on who I am.
Each of us must take personal responsibility for our own sins.
Continued from the previous blog.
As a quick review, I have several issues with the author (Steve) of website named Abounding Joy and his concerns with Critical Theory and BLM.
- Steve transfers the discussion of Critical Theory from the social sciences arena (where it belongs) to the spiritual or supernatural realm (where it does not). That might be okay during bible studies he might attend, but by comparing Christianity with Critical Theory he has completely nullified any meaningful and reliable comparison between the two.
- Being supernatural by nature, his “christian views” are based on unverifiable beliefs that must be taken entirely on faith. On the other hand, most his made-up critical theory views have a historical basis and are verifiable. So, unlike the christian POV which are unchangeable, Critical Theory tenets can be acted on and changed.
- Steve is not exactly playing fair. Just as he did with secular humanism, Steve more times than not, completely misrepresents what Critical Theory stands for.
- He plays the Persecuted Persons of Privilege card. Notice how many times he says that Critical Theory calls him the oppressor and wants to overthrow him.
- He is mistakenly painting christianity as noble and without blame.
Steve’s blog continues…
How would Christians answer these questions and how would critical theorists answer them?
How can I tell if I’m a racist?
- Christian view: Do I love people regardless of skin color, culture, background, etc.? Am I partial on the basis of superficial differences like skin color?
(Two true statements, but this is not how evangelicals have historically viewed racism. Antebellum Pastor James H. Thornwell in 1861 wrote, “(W)e are profoundly persuaded that the African race in the midst of us can never be elevated in the scale of being. As long as that race, in its comparative degradation, coexists, side by side, with the white, bondage is its normal condition.” For a century and a half after emancipation, “skin color” was not considered just a “superficial difference”. Jim Crow laws were passed based solely on “colored” skin. This evangelical stance on racism wouldn’t change until the 1990s. More about that later.)
- Critical theory view: If you are a member of the oppressing group, you are a racist by definition, regardless of your behavior.
(As we mentioned before, Steve is a white, evangelical, heterosexual, male living in The South. I wish we knew more about his “behavior” during the civil rights movement. That would tell us a lot about him.)
What is oppression?
- Christian view: Oppression occurs when people with power and money take advantage of others who are powerless to stop them.
(Historically a true statement. But why does Steve consider this an exclusively christian view?)
- Critical theory view: Oppression occurs automatically and unconsciously whenever two groups of people interact, simply by the fact that one is part of an oppressing group.
What should Christians do who have personally experienced the pain of racism?
(Does he mean “non-white” christians who have personally experienced the pain of racism?)
- Christian view: Reject critical theory. Accept God’s Word. Expose the sin of racism. (How?) Find Christians of various races who will support you and pray for you. Confess that all of us have sinned.
(You cannot confess someone else’s sin. It’s not clear if Steve is confessing his past sins of racism.)
- Critical theory view: Work harder to overthrow the oppressors. (Which Steve seems to feel includes him.)
Is it OK to advance my goals by using violence?
- Christian view: The Bible allows for some violence in self-defense or to defend others.
(The violence we read about in Numbers 31 is not exactly in self-defense. The violence described in the conquest of the Holy Land is more like genocide. See my past blog.)
- Critical theory view: Violence against people who disagree with me is justified if it helps overthrow the oppressor group.
(Violence is also used by the oppressor group to keep the oppressed group in line. Remember those concerned citizens who “defended” their white christian nation by wearing hoods and terrorizing black communities?)
Is it possible for systemic racism to exist?
- Christian view: Examples would be slavery, Jim Crow laws, abortion, Nazi Germany.
(It’s important to note that historically white evangelicals supported slavery and Jim Crow laws until recently. Not exactly sure how abortion proves systemic racism, but he certainly snuck that in to his argument, didn’t he? Nazi Germany?)
- Critical theory view: It is constant. It is inevitable when two groups interact.
(By the way, contrary to what Steve believes, systemic racism did not disappear with the civil rights movement.)
Whom should I resist?
- Christian view: Satan and his demons. (unverifiable)
- Critical theory view: People who have power
(So, according to Steve, it’s better to resist an evil supernatural entity that we can’t see or even prove actually exists, than to focus on real evil people, with real power who are misusing their power to abuse those with less or no social power. The CRT view should read, “Resist people who are abusing their power and doing harm to marginalized groups.”)
How should I react to those who disagree with me?
- Christian view: Love them. Stay humble. Graciously try to help them see truth about Jesus.
(Why does Steve consider this an exclusively christian view? I just had to chuckle about the phrase “graciously try to help them see truth about Jesus.” What he’s implying is that christians are the passive, loving and humble ones who are being persecuted. Leave off the ‘about Jesus’ part and that also is a true statement. It should read, “Graciously try to help white christians see the truth that they have inadvertently supported and promoted racism for centuries.”)
- Critical theory view: Reject them. To disagree with me is an attack on who I am. (PPPC)
(Notice what Steve did there. He is trying to turn the tables. This statement, “Reject them, because to disagree with me is an attack on who I am,” is actually something that christians might say when someone, like me, questions their belief in the existence of God or the validity of their bible. To disagree with christianity is considered an attack, perpetrated by “Satan and his demons”, on christians everywhere. Try telling an evangelical that the bible is not the inerrant, infallible word of God and see what happens.)
What happens when so-called “oppressors” are successfully overthrown?
- Christian view: Authoritarian dictatorship. A few seize power in the name of the people.
(This is indeed a typical Marxist view. It’s curious that Steve writes this when historically it has been the Christian Right that has been trying to seize power and make America an authoritarian dictatorship based on theocracy.)
- Critical theory view: Supposedly, freedom and liberation. In truth, people who worked for the revolution are disillusioned as a new repressive elite emerges to claim power “on behalf of the people.”
(Steve is not exactly playing fair here when says what the critical theory view is. He interjects his own made-up evaluation of their views. To be more accurate to what Marx would say it should read something more like this.)
- Critical theory view: Freedom and liberation. The system would no longer favor a small group of people over the majority. Society could finally find a solution to this inequality. Workers would take control of their own labor and have access to a fair share of the profits of their work.
(However, the pressing question of current social critics of Marxism is whether a utopian society without inequity could actually exist.)
What should I think of identity politics?
(Let’s start by defining “identity politics”, as politics based on a particular identity, such as ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, denomination, gender, sexual orientation, social background, caste, age, disability, intelligence, and social class.)
- Christian view: It’s bad because instead of seeing individuals as created in the image of God and equal at the foot of the cross, (unverifiable) it sees them as members of either oppressed or oppressive groups. It tends to create divisions among us instead of uniting us as one people.
(True statement, but why does Steve consider this an exclusively christian view? It should also be noted that christianity also creates divisions among us. Christians don’t want to be “united as one people” with non-believers like me or even with other christians who might hold different, more progressive beliefs.)
- Critical theory view: It is good because it clearly separates the oppressed from their oppressors.
(Now this one has a glaring hypocrisy imbedded deeply in it. Look how he is painting christians as the ones who are accepting of everyone and for that they are being persecuted.)
Who is responsible for my personal behavior?
- Christian view: I am
(True statement. Why is this considered an exclusively christian view?)
- Critical theory view: The oppressor class (PPPC)
(He’s trying to paint Critical Theorists, i.e. BLM, as not taking responsibility for their own actions.)
What is racism?
- Christian view: The sin of showing partiality on the basis of skin color, cultural identity, etc.
(I have been reading a book by Pulitzer Prize winning author Frances Fitzgerald, entitled The Evangelicals: The Struggle to Shape America. According to Fitzgerald, this idea that racism is a sin is a rather new tenant for white evangelicalism. See end note 1.)
- Critical theory view: What all white people are guilty of because of their part in the fact that white people as a group are oppressors. People of minority groups cannot be racist.
(Boy, does Steve play the PPP card here. Steve is mistakenly implying that “all white people” are guilty of oppression simply because they are white, and not based on their beliefs and actions. In addition, where did he come up with the idea that people of minority groups cannot be racist?)
What is the place of reason and logic and investigation?
- Christian view: God is a God of truth. (unverifiable) He created us (unverifiable) with the ability to reason and investigate to discover Him and Truth.
(What if our ability to reason and investigate leads us to a different conclusion about God?)
- Critical theory view: Reason, logic, and investigation are tools of the oppressing group, and are not useful or permitted. To disagree with the oppressed group, for whatever reason, is to oppress them.
(This is also true of christians. To disagree with christians is to oppress them, as Steve has so clearly shown us.)
Is it possible for someone in the oppressed group to be suffering the consequences of his or her own irresponsible behavior?
- Christian view: Yes. Each of us must take personal responsibility for our own sins, regardless of our circumstances. (Change the word “sin” to “wrongdoings” and it is a true statement.)
- Critical theory view: No. Actions of the oppressive group cause the legitimate reaction of the oppressed, including violence and theft.
(Wait, what? Theft? Where did that come from? Is he actually saying that oppressed groups never take responsibility for their own actions, blame everything on the oppressor, and then resort to stealing? That seems like a rather raciest thing to say.)
Why is critical theory so appealing to Christians?
- Christian view: CRT uses words that appeal to Christians. Even though words are redefined, Christians recognize the problem of genuine racism, the problem of genuine oppression, the problem of the misuse of power, the problem of the poor, the problem of bigotry, the problem of guilt.
(Unlike Steve’s implacable belief that he is without blame, many (white) christians have come to recognize their contributions to the problems of genuine racism, genuine oppression, the misuse of power, the plight of the poor, and the reality of bigotry. and the problem of guilt.” As we can clearly see, Steve is not one of them.)
- Critical theory view: Christians who accept critical theory are simply finally recognizing the guilt that comes automatically as a result of being part of oppressing groups.
In conclusion:
This is where Steve abruptly ends his blog. You’ll notice that he never actually acknowledges that as a white evangelical heterosexual male from the South, he might be enjoying the benefits of social privilege not available to other christians of a different skin color. Over and over again he plays the Persecuted Person of Privilege card.
The consummate display of his innocent victim complex comes in another blog he published in 2020 entitled, Prepare to Be Bullied, where he writes that christians will be treated badly and bullied. According to Steve, he and his evangelical brethren will be called: bigots, hypocrites, homophobic, sexists, racists, and intolerant (probably because they are) but Steve says the reason for this persecution is because christians have chosen to speak “the truth” about what the bible teaches. Their opponents, however, reject God’s (and Steve’s) authority and defiantly choose to live their own lives.
End notes
The following two statements were written by Antebellum Baptist pastors about the condition of Africans in the southern community. My question is, would these statements be something that might cause modern Southern Baptists to feel at least a twinge of guilt.
“I have placed before my reader what is in the Bible, to prove that slavery has the sanction of God, and is not sinful.” Thornton Stringfellow, 1841.
“Should, however, a time arrive, when the Africans in our country might be found qualified to enjoy freedom; and, when they might obtain it in a manner consistent with the interest and peace of the (white?) community at large, the Convention would be happy in seeing them free.” Richard Furman, Southern Baptist Leader, 1822.
It would appear that in the 1990s, blacks finally “qualified to enjoy freedom”. According to Fitzgearld, facing declining membership, “the Southern Baptist Convention, made efforts to recruit non-Anglo members and churches. The initiative began with a dramatic resolution on the SBC’s 150th anniversary in 1995 apologizing for slavery, on which the denomination had been founded. It regretted the SBC’s failure to support the civil rights movement a century later and the fact that many congregations had intentionally, or unintentionally, excluded African Americans. The resolution denounced racism as a “deplorable sin” and quoted the Bible to the effect that every life is sacred and of equal and immeasurable worth, and that every human is made in God’s image.” Fitzgerald, p. 614. (1)
From Where I Stand
This is a dramatic and hysterical turnabout. When slavery was profitable for slave owners and put money in their pockets, it was sanctioned by God. But 150 years later, with the SBC membership dwindling and donations declining, it became clear that being racist kept money out of their pockets and suddenly, racism became a “deplorable sin”. Their apology for slavery, which was motivated more by finances than guilt, came a century and a half too late. In addition, their failure to support the civil rights movement in the 1960s, was three decades too late. They had over 150 years to do the right thing for the right reasons, but they did not. It took declining membership and dwindling donations to force them to do the right thing, but for the wrong reasons. It’s also important to note that Steve came out in opposition to racism only after it cost him nothing to do so. There is no honor in this.
- Frances Fitzgerald, The Evangelicals, The Struggle to Shape America, 2017.
- Gregory A. Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation, 2005.
- For more about how Antebellum Pastors used the bible to justify slavery see my previous blog.
From Where I Stand
Dale Crum