Critical Grace Theory

[Falco Knotwise]

Here’s an article that discusses an appropriate reaction to Marxist and neoMarxist critical theory from a Christian perspective. Just looking for some reactions to the article. Could be interesting.

https://eppc.org/publication/critical-grace-theory/

[temporal1]

^^Much appreciated, the title, alone, is uplifting.
i’ll be reading several times, no doubt.

[barnhart]

This is a good article. I could quibble around the edges but the main point seems to be that critical theorists are engaging usefully in an endeavor similar in some respect to the biblical writers but from a non biblical world view. Aspects of their criticism of the flawed, sinful and oppressive nature of culture and social systems are indeed factual and salient even if the conclusions they point towards are wrong. It seems to contradict claims from Reformed theologians that calling out sin in culture or social systems is a negation of personal guilt and therefore salvation itself.

All in all it seems to be a good balanced voice that was needed a year ago.

[Falco Knotwise]

This is a good article. I could quibble around the edges but the main point seems to be that critical theorists are engaging usefully in an endeavor similar in some respect to the biblical writers but from a non biblical world view. Aspects of their criticism of the flawed, sinful and oppressive nature of culture and social systems are indeed factual and salient even if the conclusions they point towards are wrong. It seems to contradict claims from Reformed theologians that calling out sin in culture or social systems is a negation of personal guilt and therefore salvation itself.

All in all it seems to be a good balanced voice that was needed a year ago.

Thanks Bernhardt. I think a year ago it would have been asking too much. CRT is a powerful ideology with a long neoMarxist pedigree going back over a century, being suddenly pushed on us, with defenders calling anyone suspicious of it racist defenders of white supremacism. Not exactly fair. Carl Trueman is one of the brightest minds out there on this subject, and it took him a year to write such an excellent critique, and he’s part of a “think tank” in Washington, DC. How were the rest of us supposed to have these tools a year ago? I remember personally saying don’t be taken in by a political fad. Give the church time to digest it. If it became controversial, I think that’s partly because of its presentation. Secular critical theory thrives on controversy. That’s in its DNA, imo.

What I get from this article is the lack of any positive content to secular critical theories. Biblical critical theory involves individual responsibility so as to lead to repentance and reconciliation — redemption. That is still lacking in secular critical theories meaning its goals are defined always in negative, revolutionary terms. Anti racism, anti patriarchy, anti colonialism, etc. Destruction of institutions is defined very well, it’s positive content always very vaguely, because it has no such positive content as provided by Christianity.

How could a “critical grace theory” remedy that, in practical terms? Could it have any effect, realistically?

[Falco Knotwise]

Addendum:

These are some snips from the article I think bring out the clearest principles of his Critical Grace Theory.

Israel was captive to systematic idolatry.

Isaiah here lays bare the internal contradictions of Israelite idolatry, mocking the self-deceptions as Marx would millennia later when commenting on the ideological mystifications of class domination.

The apostle Paul continues in the Old Testament’s critical tradition. In Romans 1, he points to the fact that fallen man has perverted his religious instinct and its natural orientation to worship of the true God. This perversion occurs because we fabricate idols, and by venerating them we direct our attention away from God the creator. Instead of looking upward, idolatrous man looks downward and is bewitched by and enslaved to worldly lusts. Paul recounts the disastrous consequences: the abandonment of natural sexual relations between men and women, and then all manner of wickedness, from envy to actual murder. Our moral depravity and social dysfunctions arise from a fundamental rejection of the truth of God in favor of the lies of idols.

Biblical criticisms of systemic problems brings into focus our culpability — “social conditioning” does not exculpate. We are not hapless tools of a system that dominates our individual agency and thus absolves us of individual responsibility. Thus, the biblical critique is not only cultural but also spiritual.

Because the scriptural mode of critique focuses on culpability, the second key element follows: repentance and forgiveness. In other words, biblical critical theory does not end in “critique”; it aims at transformation through grace.

the purpose of secular critical theories—which is not merely to expose the world’s ideological captivity but to effect its transformation—resonates with what Isaiah and Paul are doing.

The basic hopelessness of the visions espoused by modern critical theorists offers the clearest instance of this opposition. Christianity is a religion of hope, and our hope has a definite shape and content: repentance, faith in Christ, and the consummation of all things in him. By contrast, secular critical theory is utopian in the literal sense of urging us to work to create a “nowhere,” a state of fulfillment lacking in content.

From the early days of the Frankfurt School, which spawned many strands of today’s academic cultural critique, critical theory has been marked by an inability to articulate a positive social vision in anything but the vaguest terms. The lack of a positive vision occurs because, unlike Christianity, critical theory denies that the world has an intrinsic moral shape. The mavens of critique have no conception of the good that needs to be restored. Thus, the positive criteria for social change remain undefined beyond reference to vague but appealing language such as equity, inclusion, and social justice.

I want to note especially his neat summary of Romans ch. 1.

“Paul recounts the disastrous consequences: the abandonment of natural sexual relations between men and women AND THEN all manner of wickedness, from envy to actual murder. Our moral depravity and social dysfunctions arise from a fundamental rejection of the truth of God in favor of the lies of idols.”

Giving up natural relations is perhaps an easily recognizable consequence of the loss of piety, but it is not necessarily the worst, just one milestone on the downward trajectory of depravity — “AND THEN all manner of wickedness, from envy to actual murder.”

Unless we somehow repent and return to pious practices, this may just be the beginning of the “AND THEN.”

The Bible doesn’t say “AND THEN” can be contained by government programs. That isn’t the gospel message as far as I can tell. A spiritual malady requires a spiritual remedy.