I don't think that "critical theory" and "questioning presuppositions" are synonymous.
Even though Trueman was questioned about a particular example of lying for the greater good, I don't think that he is saying that "critical theory" and "lying" are synonymous when he says that critical theory is based on a foundation that cares about power but not truth. Not believing that there is such a thing as absolute truth does not necessarily equate to condoning lying
"Biblical critical theory takes a very different approach. Read Isaiah and Paul and you immediately see that the purpose of their critiques is the restoration of God’s creation and its fulfillment in God’s covenant. Natural law and similar concepts can give us a substantive picture of the moral structure of creation."
I agree that we should make room for some of the theses of critical theory. My critique is that it often doesn't go deep enough. Is racism structural? Of course it is. And so is greed, lust, and host of deadly sins. These sins are woven into the very fabric of our society, and it is difficult to even notice them or notice how they shape our thinking and actions. Thus, I think Christians have a much more radical critical theory in this regard, because we have a much more profound and complex view of sin. Ah yes, and forgiveness, which from what I understand, isn't of much interest in critical theory circles. Happy to be shown on that last point.
Christians: The Bible is inspired by God. We need to study it to figure out what He means by all of this.
Critical theory: A text is just a text, and author intent isn't really a thing. Authors, the past, and reality itself are all just constructs. (See Foucault "What is an Author").
_____
Asking "Why do we do this?" predates critical theory.
Critical theory is about denying reality. The previous essay from the guest writer professor was a little too smooth, too hip, trying to engage more with getting college students' attention perhaps than being accurate.
For Christians it is appropriate to be reflective about culture with going too far by reaching for critical theory, which is destructive.
Almost everything else on Aaron's site is worth reading, but this topic has been a miss.
Good article. While critical theory has often been used towards anti-Christian and left-wing efforts, this doesn’t actually mean that critical theory is inherently anti-Christian or left-wing. There’s been a whole bunch of articles in recent years to defend Foucault from a right-leaning perspective, which I appreciate.
I honestly don't understand how you can take that small protion from Trueman and draw the conclusions taht you drew about him or the topic at hand.
His point was that it is never appropriate for a Christian to lie (e.g. repeat a falsehood about Haitian eathing dogs) because it serves the greater good of "getting the discussion going".
You don't even seem to know that Trueman has been in the U.S. for many years and somehow attribute his commentary about society at large to being British when the answer he gives is veyr limited in this context.
I'm left bewildered how you built upon this very limited context to create the post about the importance of critical theory or that sometimes culture needs to be destabilized.
Your "quote" is more of a pretext for what you wanted to say than anythinhg that Trueman said that invited the kind of response and reading into him motives that he just goes along witth what the cultue is giving us.
I would like to hear Aaron Renn on any of Trueman's books, not just his short writings. Trueman is broad enough that you could read a lot of Trueman but not get at the focus of the books.
You have to watch the video of the interview for my comments to be accurate *in context*. The issue is not whether any Haitian anywhere has eaten a cat or a dog (or maybe even someone else's pets).
The issue was, in the context of Tureman's remaks, someone stated that they knew they were repeating a falsehood and stated that the falsehood was justified on the basis that it "got the discussion going".
Aaron somehow used that limited context and created an entire narrative about the need for critical theory in other contexts or that Trueman, being British, was not accustomed to disrupting the status quo.
You write: "I want to interact with one particular four minute segment of it, in which he argues that Christians cannot make use of Critical Theory. "
where does Carl Trueman state that Chrsitians cannot make use of Critical Theory in this video?
He is given a leading question by Kevin Deyoung where he is asked *specifically( about some on the right who are willing to compromise truth for the sake of the larger good.
He interacts specifivcally with that point about the fact that it is never appropriate for Chrsitians to engage in lying for a larger point.
Over and over, his point is not about "critical theory" in theory but about the idea that "gettig the discussion going" is more important than being truthful.
It is within *this* context that he says:
"If you’re a conservative, and you want to engage in Critical Theory stuff, then you’re engaged in a raw power struggle where truth doesn’t count. You have chosen the game that you are playing at this point. Circling back to the Christian dimension of this, I don’t think that’s an option for a Christian."
The "critical theory stuff" he is referring to is unfair language, lying, etc, for the bigger good.
Neither of them engage more broadly in something akin to works such as Chrsitian Critical Theory or using the tools of philsophy to critique the current culture.
At best you could accuse Carl of being a bit casual or unguarded when he refers to what people are doing in political discourse as "critical theory stuff" but the context is clear that he is only referring (at that moment) to the naure of discourse in public and the willingness of both sides to think that truth or accuracy can be sacrificed because the greater good is served.
By the way, you write: "My impression is he’s very influenced by the British evangelical tradition that’s much more culturally and politically accommodationist"
Your impression belies the reality that he is widely known as someone who pokes the Evangelical bear on a lot of topics. It's odd that someone who is culturally and politically accomodationist would write a book taking on the bultural moment, which is the very thing you accuse him of encouraging Chrsitians not to do, but to just "go along" and "suffer."
He literally says in the clip, "If you’re a conservative, and you want to engage in Critical Theory stuff, then you’re engaged in a raw power struggle where truth doesn’t count"
Yes, and as I notd it, he says that "iterally" after he is specifially referring to the *kind* of behavior he is discouraging. Again, you could say that he may be sloppy in ascribing bad behavior to "critical theory stuff" because he is speaking off the cuff about aa particular issue.
Eitehr way, two things are still true:
1. Yuo'd need to establish form a broader context (e.g. his book) that he sepcifically enjoins Chrsitans that ciritical theory in all its forms is a form of lying and that Christians can't do it. Given Trueman's care as a scholar it is doubtul he ever does this and I'm planning on getting the book.
2. It has zero to do wtih Trueman being British and not wanting to go against the status quo.
Candidly, I've considered you a pretty careful thinker up to this point and this is beneath yoru normal care to represent ideas accurately.
Christians can't use Critical Theory because such tools are part of a total system where Truth is not the goal (perhaps not even possible) instead power is the goal. Christian dont need Critical Theory in order to challenge the status quo where the status quo is unjust. The Bible is full of such challenges long before Critical Theory was ever dreamed up.
I don't think that "critical theory" and "questioning presuppositions" are synonymous.
Even though Trueman was questioned about a particular example of lying for the greater good, I don't think that he is saying that "critical theory" and "lying" are synonymous when he says that critical theory is based on a foundation that cares about power but not truth. Not believing that there is such a thing as absolute truth does not necessarily equate to condoning lying
Trueman on Critical Grace Theory
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2023/11/critical-grace-theory
"Biblical critical theory takes a very different approach. Read Isaiah and Paul and you immediately see that the purpose of their critiques is the restoration of God’s creation and its fulfillment in God’s covenant. Natural law and similar concepts can give us a substantive picture of the moral structure of creation."
I agree that we should make room for some of the theses of critical theory. My critique is that it often doesn't go deep enough. Is racism structural? Of course it is. And so is greed, lust, and host of deadly sins. These sins are woven into the very fabric of our society, and it is difficult to even notice them or notice how they shape our thinking and actions. Thus, I think Christians have a much more radical critical theory in this regard, because we have a much more profound and complex view of sin. Ah yes, and forgiveness, which from what I understand, isn't of much interest in critical theory circles. Happy to be shown on that last point.
Christians vs Critical Theory
Christians: The Bible is inspired by God. We need to study it to figure out what He means by all of this.
Critical theory: A text is just a text, and author intent isn't really a thing. Authors, the past, and reality itself are all just constructs. (See Foucault "What is an Author").
_____
Asking "Why do we do this?" predates critical theory.
Critical theory is about denying reality. The previous essay from the guest writer professor was a little too smooth, too hip, trying to engage more with getting college students' attention perhaps than being accurate.
For Christians it is appropriate to be reflective about culture with going too far by reaching for critical theory, which is destructive.
Almost everything else on Aaron's site is worth reading, but this topic has been a miss.
Good article. While critical theory has often been used towards anti-Christian and left-wing efforts, this doesn’t actually mean that critical theory is inherently anti-Christian or left-wing. There’s been a whole bunch of articles in recent years to defend Foucault from a right-leaning perspective, which I appreciate.
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2021/05/how-we-forgot-foucault/
https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-bleak-genius-of-michel-foucault/
I honestly don't understand how you can take that small protion from Trueman and draw the conclusions taht you drew about him or the topic at hand.
His point was that it is never appropriate for a Christian to lie (e.g. repeat a falsehood about Haitian eathing dogs) because it serves the greater good of "getting the discussion going".
You don't even seem to know that Trueman has been in the U.S. for many years and somehow attribute his commentary about society at large to being British when the answer he gives is veyr limited in this context.
I'm left bewildered how you built upon this very limited context to create the post about the importance of critical theory or that sometimes culture needs to be destabilized.
Your "quote" is more of a pretext for what you wanted to say than anythinhg that Trueman said that invited the kind of response and reading into him motives that he just goes along witth what the cultue is giving us.
I would like to hear Aaron Renn on any of Trueman's books, not just his short writings. Trueman is broad enough that you could read a lot of Trueman but not get at the focus of the books.
You really think it's a falsehood that Haitian ate dogs when there are videos of it happening online?
This is the problem with *context*.
You have to watch the video of the interview for my comments to be accurate *in context*. The issue is not whether any Haitian anywhere has eaten a cat or a dog (or maybe even someone else's pets).
The issue was, in the context of Tureman's remaks, someone stated that they knew they were repeating a falsehood and stated that the falsehood was justified on the basis that it "got the discussion going".
Aaron somehow used that limited context and created an entire narrative about the need for critical theory in other contexts or that Trueman, being British, was not accustomed to disrupting the status quo.
I watched the entire video, which I also linked to, and too noted on it.
You write: "I want to interact with one particular four minute segment of it, in which he argues that Christians cannot make use of Critical Theory. "
where does Carl Trueman state that Chrsitians cannot make use of Critical Theory in this video?
He is given a leading question by Kevin Deyoung where he is asked *specifically( about some on the right who are willing to compromise truth for the sake of the larger good.
He interacts specifivcally with that point about the fact that it is never appropriate for Chrsitians to engage in lying for a larger point.
Over and over, his point is not about "critical theory" in theory but about the idea that "gettig the discussion going" is more important than being truthful.
It is within *this* context that he says:
"If you’re a conservative, and you want to engage in Critical Theory stuff, then you’re engaged in a raw power struggle where truth doesn’t count. You have chosen the game that you are playing at this point. Circling back to the Christian dimension of this, I don’t think that’s an option for a Christian."
The "critical theory stuff" he is referring to is unfair language, lying, etc, for the bigger good.
Neither of them engage more broadly in something akin to works such as Chrsitian Critical Theory or using the tools of philsophy to critique the current culture.
At best you could accuse Carl of being a bit casual or unguarded when he refers to what people are doing in political discourse as "critical theory stuff" but the context is clear that he is only referring (at that moment) to the naure of discourse in public and the willingness of both sides to think that truth or accuracy can be sacrificed because the greater good is served.
By the way, you write: "My impression is he’s very influenced by the British evangelical tradition that’s much more culturally and politically accommodationist"
Your impression belies the reality that he is widely known as someone who pokes the Evangelical bear on a lot of topics. It's odd that someone who is culturally and politically accomodationist would write a book taking on the bultural moment, which is the very thing you accuse him of encouraging Chrsitians not to do, but to just "go along" and "suffer."
He literally says in the clip, "If you’re a conservative, and you want to engage in Critical Theory stuff, then you’re engaged in a raw power struggle where truth doesn’t count"
Yes, and as I notd it, he says that "iterally" after he is specifially referring to the *kind* of behavior he is discouraging. Again, you could say that he may be sloppy in ascribing bad behavior to "critical theory stuff" because he is speaking off the cuff about aa particular issue.
Eitehr way, two things are still true:
1. Yuo'd need to establish form a broader context (e.g. his book) that he sepcifically enjoins Chrsitans that ciritical theory in all its forms is a form of lying and that Christians can't do it. Given Trueman's care as a scholar it is doubtul he ever does this and I'm planning on getting the book.
2. It has zero to do wtih Trueman being British and not wanting to go against the status quo.
Candidly, I've considered you a pretty careful thinker up to this point and this is beneath yoru normal care to represent ideas accurately.
Christians can't use Critical Theory because such tools are part of a total system where Truth is not the goal (perhaps not even possible) instead power is the goal. Christian dont need Critical Theory in order to challenge the status quo where the status quo is unjust. The Bible is full of such challenges long before Critical Theory was ever dreamed up.