XPost: alt.christnet.theology, alt.philosophy, alt.religion.christianity   
   XPost: alt.politics.religion, soc.history   
   From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   Christianity and Critical Theory, Part 1: Marx and Frankfurt   
   May 21, 2019   
   Brad Mason	   
      
   Introduction to Part 1   
      
   I have been asked multiple times for my thoughts on Niel Shenvi and   
   Pat Sawyer’s article, “The Incompatibility of Critical Theory and   
   Christianity.” In short, I believe it is a great article and I am   
   genuinely appreciative of the work they are doing. But what has   
   brought me some discomfort throughout their project is the sense that   
   they are offering a characterization of Critical Theory, rather than a   
   faithful explanation or definition; maybe even a caricature? In   
   particular, treating the identification of “oppressor” and “oppressed”   
   as the definitive core, or premise, of Critical Theory seems more a   
   collocation of a common theme pulled from disparate quotes than that   
   which has (and does) distinguish Critical Theory from its   
   “traditional” competitors.   
      
   For one, Critical Theory was self-consciously developed as a response   
   to “Traditional Theory,” i.e., dogmatic materialism, empiricism,   
   positivism, idealism, and Enlightenment thought in general. But it is   
   these latter systems of thought that historically introduced the   
   questions of human freedom, the critique of subjugation, and the   
   oppressor/oppressed paradigm into moral and political philosophy. To   
   be clear, Marxism and Critical Theory did not invent the categories,   
   nor the historical conundrum of exploitation, but rather sought to   
   answer the “why?” and “how?” and provide the escape that Enlightenment   
   thought was historically unable to provide. Further (and we will   
   discuss this in detail later), the narrative of “oppressor” and   
   “oppressed” is an explicit Biblical theme running through the whole of   
   the Scriptures as well—the whole history of fallen humanity, from the   
   institution of the war between the seeds to the consummation of the   
   Kingdom of God.   
      
   It is my opinion that the best way to distinguish Christianity from   
   all worldly systems of thought is to accurately understand their   
   arguments, see them for what they actually are, and then subject them   
   to Biblical critique, distinguishing their truths from their error,   
   rather than illegitimately defining them by non-essential aspects   
   which appear to match the views of those we want to critique. I   
   believe Shenvi and Sawyer wholly agree with this perspective.   
      
   (Necessary note to the reader: As this is, unfortunately, a charged   
   subject, I must say up front that nothing that follows in this post is   
   an endorsement of the ideas presented. I intend to subject them to   
   critique in a following article; I am here only seeking to accurately,   
   though briefly, explicate. Further, I pray that neither Shenvi or   
   Sawyer interpret this as an attack on their work. I mean it when I say   
   they are greatly appreciated.)   
      
   Read it all here: https://t.co/ysqdLKm6cs   
      
      
   --   
   Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa   
   Web:  http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm   
   Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com   
      
   For information about why crossposting is (usually) good, and multiposting   
   (nearly always) bad, see:   
   http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)