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: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)