Greetings, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. Welcome to the Bryan Danesburg podcast, "Christian Living in a Complicated World." I'm your host, Bryan Danesburg lead pastor of Alliance Bible Church located in beautiful southeast Wisconsin. Last time, we covered the history, briefly, of critical theory. From Karl Marx to Antonio Gramsci to Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Theodore Adorno, and those in the Frankfurt School, to the French postmodern theorist Michel Foucault, Jean-François Liotard and Jacques Derrada. Critical theory is not new. It has a rich, ominous history to it. Under the umbrella of critical theory are ideologies such as post-colonial theory, queer theory, critical race theory, and intersectionality, feminism's and gender studies, disability and fat studies. So critical theory is expansive. Key to critical theory is summed up by the patriarch of critical theory, Antonio Gramsci, whom we talked about some level of detail last time. He writes this, "Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. In the new order, socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society." This notion is well established in a paper by Michael Karger and Breanne Faz entitled Women's Studies as Virus, in which these two critical theorists use the metaphor of a virus to visualize what the objective of critical theory is. Essentially, a virus looks for vulnerable receptors within the cell. It attaches to that cell and then it infuses that cell with its own RNA or DNA so the cell replicates the virus for the virus. Critical theory is a totalizing ideology. In other words, its goal is to, quote unquote, "wokify everything" from schools to media to sports to law, yes, even individual Christians and churches. Now, somebody may ask, "You've been spending all this time talking about critical theory but you haven't told us what it is. What is critical theory?" Well, on the one hand, it's the spring that feeds the modern day social justice movement. Now, let me be clear about this. Not all social justice causes or approaches are fueled by critical theory. Some of you need to listen to that carefully. Not all social justice causes or approaches are fueled by critical theory, but I would venture a guess that most are. Today, I want to talk about the doctrine of critical theory and offer a biblical critique of it. Some of the doctrine of critical theory you would have already picked up on from the previous episode, but I'm going to press into this a little bit more. What is critical theory? Distilled down, critical theory views societies through the lens of power, dividing people into oppressed groups and oppressor groups along various axes like race, class, gender, orientation, physical ability, age, oppressed groups are subjugated not by physical force or even overt discrimination, but through the exercise of hegemonic power. That's a concise definition I can give to critical theory, and I'll explain this definition as we proceed. But let's think about critical theory and the doctrine, I'm calling it doctrine, doctrine of critical theory. I think there are three basic tenets of critical theory that are important to understand. The first is something called the social binary. Social binary is the idea that society can be separated into dominant oppressor groups and subordinate oppressed groups along various axes of race, class, gender, et cetera. Every individual in society is divided into one of two groups, oppressor or oppressed. Your individual identity is then determined by the group you're a part of. If you're white, you're an oppressor, if you're female, you're oppressed, if you're heterosexual, you're oppressed, if you're homosexual, you're oppressed. Sociologist and critical theorist Beverly Tatum writes this. She says, "Each of these categories has a form of oppression associated with it, racism, sexism, religious oppression, anti-Semitism, heterosexism, classism, ageism, and ableism respectively. In each case, there's a group considered dominant or systematically advantaged by the society because a group membership and a group considered subordinate or targeted systematically disadvantaged." Now, I don't have time to parse out what each of these words mean under the new definitions they receive. Suffice it to say that equal outcome is a recurring theme. When there is inequity, it is assumed one of the isms is responsible and therefore is the presence of oppression. In most instances, it's not a matter of if racism or classism is occurring, but rather how is it manifesting itself? The ism is always assumed. If there's always an ism due to unequal outcomes, there's always oppression and every individual falls into the category of oppressor or oppressed. Now I want to try to connect this to the French Postmodern theorist Michel Foucault by example is to keep in mind modern day critical theory and critical social justice as a long genealogy. Somebody may ask, "Why for years and years were heterosexual relationships considered the norm?" Now, as a Christian, my reflexive answer is, "Well, that's how God designed things to work. Adam and Eve, man and woman, brought together." But under postmodern thinking like that of Foucault, external objective authoritative knowledge is unobtainable. And by the way, like I mentioned last time, postmodern thinking and much of the thinking that stands in the long line of critical theory and its genealogy is atheistic. Michel Foucault was a member of the French Communist Party. This is the taproot of critical theory. But to say God designed relationships to be between a man and a woman is to appeal to objective knowledge, which is unobtainable. So under postmodern thinking, knowledge or quote unquote truth is culturally constructed. The postmodernist would say heterosexual relationships as the norm were determined by the culture. Now, the critical theorist would advance this and ask, "Well, how did that culture determine heterosexual relationships would be the norm?" And the answer they have posited is, "Whomever is in power through the control of language determines what that culture defines as truth. Whomever is controlling the cultural practice is the oppressor, whomever has a different practice than what the culture considers to be the norm is oppressed." So the first doctrine of critical theory is the doctrine of the social binary. People are divided into two groups, oppressor and oppress, along various axes of race, class, gender, sexuality, et cetera, whomever has had the power through the control of language has established what is considered a cultural norm. By definition, that group is an oppressor. And those who practice cultural norms other than that are oppressed. The second doctrine is closely related, that's of hegemonic power. Hegemonic power is the imposition of dominant group ideology under everyone else in society. Hegemonic power is seen by contemporary theorists as a key component of oppression. So oppression is not defined solely in terms of violence, cruelty or coercion. Instead oppression includes supposedly neutral, universal and objective norms that are embedded in culture and benefit the dominant group. Iris Young, critical theorist, puts it this way, "In its new usage," notice right there that we've got a new definition, a new definition for oppression, "In its new usage oppression designates the disadvantage and injustice some people suffer, not because of tyrannical power coerces them, but because of the everyday practices of a well-intentioned liberal society. Its causes are embedded in unquestioned norms, habits and symbols." So take our heterosexual example again, why have heterosexual relationships been the norm? Because the culture constructed it to be that way. How? Through the exercise of hegemony. Those who have the power have determined, heterosexual relationships are to be the norm. Now in talking about marriage, we're using a category the Bible says a lot about with regard to right versus wrong or holy versus sinful. Remember critical theorists reject the Bible as an authoritative source because it's an appeal to external objective knowledge. So critical theory doesn't put boundaries around certain behaviors. Because critical theory rejects sources of authority and determining right and wrong, it can't qualify some behavior as right or wrong, rather it focuses on how behavior came to be seen as normal. How cultural norms came to be tells us who is oppressor and oppressed and who the hegemonic power behind the norming of the practice is. Now under this rubric, it seems to me that all cultural practices are then given moral freight. Every cultural practice falls into the category of oppressor oppressed because every cultural practice was formed by the group who has the power. Critical theory isn't so much concerned with the cultural practice itself as it is how the cultural practice came to be considered the norm. Now I've not been able to ask a critical theorist this question, but I think I've read enough of this to know the answer. In the U.S. we drive on the right side of the road, in the U.K. you drive on the left side of the road. If you're from the U.K. and you're living in the U.S. is driving on the right side of the road considered oppression, I would say according to critical theory, yes, according to critical theory, if you're from the U.K. and you're living in the U.S., you're part of the group who did not have the power and so you're forced to live according to the norms established by the group who has the power, you are oppressed. And those who constructed this quote unquote truth of driving on the right side of the road are oppressors. Third point of doctrine of critical theory is something called standpoint theory or standpoint epistemology. It's this idea that knowledge is culturally situated, that our social location as a member of either a dominant group or a subordinate group will influence our access to choose about oppression, oppressed people as critical theory defines oppressed, have greater access to true through lived experience while people from dominant groups are blinded by their participation in systems of oppression. So if I go back to this example of the U.K. and the U.S., why have we concluded the Brit who's forced to drive on the right side of the road in America is oppressed? Well because the subordinate group has access to choose about oppression, dominant groups don't have and the Brit has experienced this as oppression. So as a member of a subordinate group, if I feel oppressed, I'm oppressed. Jose Medina, a critical theorist puts it this way, oppressed groups do have a distinctive set of experiences and are better positioned and better equipped for a particular kind of epistemic subversion. As Mills puts it, hegemonic groups characteristically have experiences that foster illusory perceptions about society's functioning, whereas subordinate groups characterously have experiences that give rise to more adequate conceptualizations. Basically Medina is saying that oppressed groups have access to knowledge, oppressed groups don't have access to. There's a Christian thinker out there who has called this ethnic nosticism, ethnic nosticism. There's no question that every human being and every human society is blind spots. There's no question about that. But that includes oppressed individuals and oppressed groups. They too have blind spots. So here we have critical theory, big three doctrines, the big three doctrines, social binary, hegemonic power, standpoint theory, standpoint epistemology. Now let me get into a biblical critique of this and as I do, again, critical theory become a little bit clearer to you because we'll see it juxtapose and contrasted with what the Bible teaches. From a Christian perspective, how do we come to know truth? This is epistemology. This is a giant field of study within Christian universities and Christian scholarship. Critical theory emphasizes lived experience. If you're part of an oppressed group, you're privileged to know things others don't and this knowledge is elevated to the level of unchallengeable insight. Again, one pastor has termed this idea as ethnic nosticism. Nosticism was an ancient heresy that taught only certain people have knowledge of the real truth. They were the true enlightened ones. Well, critical theory kind of advances a similar idea, though it constrains it to those groups of people, critical theory labels as oppressed. They are the enlightened ones who have true knowledge. So however valuable lived experience is, sinners are still prone to interpreting personal experience poorly and it ought never be raised to the level of unchallengeable insight. Personal experience in the interpretation thereof is not authoritative. Additionally, there will be occasions where similar or identical lived experience isn't interpreted the same way by people who occupy the same group space. This has the net effect of creating distinct personal or communal truths that can be at odds with one another. I mean, we're familiar with this concept in Postmodernity's theme song of "You Have Your Truth, I Have Mine." The result is the destabilization of truth altogether. Now, certainly we should be quick to listen to all people and slow to speak. That's a lesson that every Christian needs to remind themselves of every day. Be quick to listen and slow to speak. However, being a member of an oppressed group as critical theory defines it does not make one's perspective authoritative. How do we come to know truth? Through the Word of God, the Spirit of God, working within the people of God, personal experience, however helpful it may be, is not authoritative. It must submit to the scrutiny of God's Word. Second, we need to biblically define the terms. The destabilization of language is a core character trait of critical theory. That was the focus of Herbert Marcuse's work in the Frankfurt School, which has been deeply influential within the critical theory community. Neil Shenvie, who I would say is among the top two or three Christian scholars who have interacted with critical theory more than anyone, has created a critical theory glossary on his website to help you understand how critical theorists define these words. Words like tolerance, marriage, authenticity, bigotry, discrimination, oppression are redefined. Herbert Marcuse, again, once said that his goal is to break the established universe of meaning, destabilize language and redefine the terms. So a good place for Christians to start is by asking simple questions like what do you mean by racism, which we'll do in the next podcast, by the way. As Christians, we need to use the scriptures to define these terms. Critical theory expands the definition of oppression because it's less concerned with the act than how the act became normalized, and it's less concerned about the intention of the one doing the acting and more interested in the impact of the action on others. So for a Brit to have to drive on the right side of the road in America is an experience of oppression. But would the scriptures conclude that? We need a thorough systematic theology of terms like oppression, racism, injustice, et cetera, so we know what qualifies and what doesn't. Third, what is a moral gospel issue versus an amoral cultural issue? A Romans 14 is a treatise on this. Suffice it to say, not every practice in society is moral in nature. I don't believe the scriptures support the idea that driving on the right side of the road is morally fraded. Or for a Brit to have to drive on the right side of the road is oppression. Once again, we have to turn to God's word to see where it draws the parameters. What is a true gospel issue or a moral issue versus a cultural practice that's neither here nor there? Not every practice within some culture has moral freight to it. Third, inequality does not equal injustice. Thaddeus Williams in his fantastic book makes the case for this. He writes this, 22 of the 29 astronauts in the original policy program were first borns. People living in the United States experienced 90% of the world's tornadoes. Asians are underrepresented in the NBA, NFL, NHL and Major League Baseball. Women are overrepresented in healthcare and attaining university degrees and in setting consumer trends that determine the actions of the world's biggest corporations. Men make up the overwhelming majority of soldiers who perish on the battlefield and have a virtual monopoly of the brick laying plumbing and carpentry industries. Jewish people being less than 1% of the world's population received 22% of the Nobel Prizes in chemistry, 32% in medicine, 32% in physics. The point is not that there's no such thing as racism or sexism or other vicious isms wreaking havoc on earth. Sinful isms inflict hurt on some people that other people groups never have to cope with. The point is that shouting systemic injustice at unequal outcome is too easy. In a world unlike ours with zero racism or sexism or any other evil ism, there would still be vast inequalities based on things as boring and undamming as geography, age, birthdays and birth order, shopping habits, desirately bricks and so much more. When we automatically assume damning explanations for unequal outcomes, we not only lock ourselves in a prison of never ending rage, but also dull our senses to the point that we'll be useless for the sacred task of recognizing and resisting the real racism, real sexism and other real vicious isms around us. In astute point to make, inequality does not mean the presence of injustice. It's worth noting that even God ordains inequality. I was born into this world with only so much potential for physical intellectual and aesthetic development. High school is where this was impressed upon me most. I remember walking into a weight room for the first time in my life, freshman gym class, skinny as a rail. I had a classmate who had never lifted a weight in his life either and I watched as he bench pressed 185 pounds as a freshman. I couldn't get 115 off my chest. Both of us are the same age, neither of us have ever lifted weights before in our lives. Why the inequality? I don't have the preaching voice of one of my colleagues or the beer growing capacity of another one of my colleagues. Because God is the one who ultimately shapes our lives, I have to conclude he's not interested in unlimited equality among us. And because God is also wise, I have to conclude that unlimited equality among us is a false ideal. But God does teach the equal personhood, value, and dignity of the human race, men, women, and children. And therefore, that must be the only kind of equality that matters to God. Fifth, the goodness of authority and the virtue of submission. Critical theory or wokeness sees difference as discrimination. If you're to boil all this down, it sees difference as discrimination. Roger Scruton, who's a British thinker, contends the emotional source of critical theory is resentment of those who control things. So this would be a good time for Christians to remember something. The scriptures affirm the goodness of authority and the virtue of submission. Let's start with the tri-personal God. Did you know the son submits to the father? This submission, this power imbalance, quote unquote, did not make Jesus any less God because of it. It doesn't mean Jesus has an inferior status. It clearly didn't impact his perfection. If the authority submission paradigm is built into the Godhead, why would we think authority and submission are something to be rejected or redefined? In fact, since human beings are made to image God, the rejection of authority and submission and simultaneously rejection of our mission to image God or to put it bluntly, the more we reject God's ordination of authority and submission, the less human we become. When we start with the fact that the goodness of authority and the virtue of submission are incarnated with the tri-personal God, it makes sense of all the other places where this type of relationship is to be manifested. We see this with Christians within society, submitting to governing authorities. We see this with Christians within the church, submitting to the leaders. We see this with wives, submitting to husbands, with children, submitting to parents. You're not guilty of oppression by exercising leadership if you are inhabiting one of these roles. So the biblical references and discussions are so replete, one walks away with the unmistakable impression that authority is good and submission is to be a common Christian response. So in our cultural milieu, the church has an opportunity to demonstrate an order, beauty, and paradigm that God thinks is for our good and will upon the final analysis, contribute to our flourishing. Sixth, racism is a sin. I don't want this to get lost in my critique of critical theory. Critical theory may be an unbiblical worldview, but that doesn't mean racism or other isms don't exist. While Christians nearly universally recognize that racism is a sin, they can rarely explain what makes it a sin. And to be quite frank, racism isn't even a biblical term. Again, that highlights the importance of defining our terms and using the scriptures to do so. Biblically, racism falls into the category of sins known as partiality. This partiality can take horrifically egregious forms as when we deny that certain human beings are made in God's image, or can take more subtle forms as when we mistreat or disdain people on the basis of the color of their skin. This partiality can be codified and systematized into law as it was done under slavery and Jim Crow, or it can be present only in our individual thoughts and behavior, regardless, racism is a sin because it violates God's commands regarding impartiality and judgment and love for neighbor. Why is it so important to define racism as partiality and then label it as sin? Well, the recognition that racism is sin undermines the common claim that people of color cannot be racist. Let me be very clear about this. Every human being is capable of showing partiality. Every human being is capable of showing partiality. We're going to get to more on that in the next episode. Number seven, a Christian's primary identity is in Christ, not in their demographic group. Most of your old enough to remember September 11th, 2001, the attack on World Trade Center, Pentagon, 3,000 Americans killed. There was a subtle evil that warmed its way into daily life, and I even noticed this in the college campus I was attending at the time. We came to label it as profiling. Because the terrorists were Muslims, suspicion in this country grew over the Muslim people as a whole, and I suppose the line of thought, albeit irrational, was the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims. Therefore, what's true of them is true of the whole group. Now, I'm a pastor in a worldwide denomination. I have friends who are missionaries, many of them to Muslim people, and they would say, well, just because the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims doesn't mean all Muslims are. It's unfair, uncharitable, and even sinful to treat a whole group of people as though they are guilty of the sins of small number within their group committed. And even the scriptures would defend them. When we have not individually and personally committed the sin of our fathers or those with whom we share the same group space, God has determined we do not bear the guilt of those people. To charge someone with sin they're not guilty of is slander. Your identity is not defined by the group you're a part of. It is not sinful to be white. It is not sinful to be male. It is not sinful to be able-bodied. Your identity is not defined by the group you're a part of. As an example, consider what a denial of that claim would entail for Jesus' sinlessness since he was part of many groups, males, Jews, Galileans. And we want to claim that he was guilty of the group's sin even though he was individually sinless. Of course not. This is where we could use a healthy dose of individualism. Not the Lone Ranger maverick I did at my way kind, but the kind that can allow a fellow image bear to stand before us as an individual before she is defined or deemed representative of some broader group. Number eight, the line between good and evil runs through the middle of every human heart. In my opinion, this is where critical theory is most dangerous. Rod Dreyer wrote a book entitled "Live Not By Lies." Much of it records interviews he did with those who lived under Soviet and Eastern European Communism. These folks are sounding the alarm bells over what's taking place in the United States, showing how it's mirroring what took place just as communism took over in those places. And this point in particular is what they are concerned about. Critical theory like communism draws the line between good and evil, between groups of people, between black and white, between heterosexual and homosexual, between men and women. It labels one as good and one as bad and calls for actions to be taken against the bad. In critical theory thought, some of those actions are radical. But what do the scriptures teach us? They teach us every human being is made in the image and likeness of God and is therefore worthy of dignified treatment. Every human being is owed, dignity and respect, white, black, heterosexual, homosexual, men, women. Simultaneously, every human being is sinful, flawed and messed up and in need of God's forgiveness and personal transformation. This means every human being is a mixed bag. This means every people group is a mixed bag. Sultanese and who knew quite a bit about the dangers of drawing the line between good and evil between people groups said at best. Gradually, it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states nor between classes nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart and through all human hearts. The line between good and evil runs through the middle of every human heart. Last, ninth, critical theory offers an alternative meta-narrative. Though the terms are different, critical theory has a shape or categories that mirror Christianity. For example, Christianity talks about original sin. Every human is sinful and fallen by virtue of the fact that we are descendants of Adam. The theory uses racism in the same way, that is to be white as the new original sin or to be male as the new original sin or to be heterosexual as the new original sin. If you occupy the group space, critical theory says as a presser, that's what makes you a sinner. Within Christianity, we talk about the law and the Old Testament was the law of Moses for the people of Israel and the New Testament is the law of Christ. It's living in accordance with God's commands. Critical theory is parallels doing the work of anti-racism. Within critical theory, the opposite of racism is not being racist. It's doing the work of anti-racism, which requires much from the individual. It's strenuous. And these sorts of parallels go on and on. Christianity has martyrs. John the Baptist, Stephen. Critical theory has martyrs. Trayvon Martin, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor. Christianity has means of atonement, the cross of Christ. Repentance, faith. Critical theory has means of atonement, reparations. He talks about the new birth. Critical theory speaks of wokeness. Christianity has theologians, so does critical theory. Now just in case you're wondering about soteriology, which is the doctrine of salvation, Christianity offers salvation by grace through faith in Christ. Critical theory doesn't offer one. There is no grace in critical theory, only perpetual penance in an effort to battle an incurable disease. Critical theory is a thoroughly works-based system. And this is where the gospel of Jesus Christ offers a far superior story to that of critical theory. Before Martin Luther encountered the grace of God, he lashed his own back until it was bloody. He slept without a blanket in the sub-zero German winters, and he sat in a confessional booth six hours a day, all to earn the status of a very good person. Today, we virtue signal, we hashtag our solidarity, we self-sensor lest we utter blasphemy. This is what penance looks like in the twenty-first century. We have become a sort of collective Martin Luther in our quest to be very good people. We can never do enough justice to earn the not guilty sentence. Critical theory's standards, quite frankly, are cruel. There is no redemption. There is no forgiveness. There is no grace. There is no salvation. It's a game you can't win. Now God's law also brings infinite responsibility and infinite guilt. But the difference is Jesus and the gospel of grace. Jesus satisfies the infinite responsibility we had by living a perfect life for us. Jesus satisfies the infinite guilt we had before God by dying in our place. The death our sins deserve. So quit doing penance before creatures and take your infinite guilt to the infinite creator who alone has the authority to declare us not guilty through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If there is one message that generation needs to hear today, it's this. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. That is the good news we have to declare to this weary generation. Now for all my criticisms of critical theory, it's not to say that racism doesn't exist. It does exist, but it's not what critical theorists would like you to think it is. The Bible has a different approach to defining it and solving it, and we'll look at that next time. I'll leave you with this. Colossians chapter 2 verse 8, "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." Thanks for tuning in. We'll see you next time. [Music] [Music] [Music] (gentle music) You
