Third, critical theory functions as a worldview. It answers our most basic questions: Who are we? What is our fundamental problem? What is the solution to that problem? What is our primary moral duty? How should we live?

What we are presented with is exactly the same; what we experience it as is radically different. A great deal is at stake in the differences between these experiences, and so the terrain of competing theories today—or what is sometimes called the culture wars, a term that is itself a prime example of seeing-as—is in large part “the struggle of antagonistic social interests at the level of the sign,” at the level of the meaning we attach to things.” [11] Though the assumptions and commitments informing this view of a systemically racist society go by multiple names, here I’ll use “Critical Race Theory” (CRT) as a general term to capture the set of concerns. (To be clear, lamenting the presence of systemic racism does not necessarily make one a CRT proponent.)And you’ve done a good job of explaining why we call it the Keller Center for Cultural apologetics and what We’re hoping to make normative is that association in the church with the will go authority with insightful and deep cultural critique, keeping those things with an evangelistic goal. Now, you do not follow Tim’s exact pattern of subversive fulfillment. Borrowing again from our friend Daniel strange. Could you explain how you differ? I note in here, I’ll just quote the way you describe in the book, I propose to reframe the schema in terms that remain closer to the flow of Paul’s thought, one diagnosis of cultural values to a presentation of the scandalous cross, three of the cross rejected as the antithesis of cultural values, and for the cross revealed as the fullness of cultural values. Why do you disagree with him here? An argument against the liberal notion of “color-blindness” is made by Jayne Chong-Soon Lee, “Navigating the Topology of Race,” 441–49. ↩ This may seem cynical? But again, I don’t see the work of critical theory as providing me a foundation for what justice is. Rather uncovering the power at work in the frame enables one to see the hierarchies, the abuse and the resulting antagonisms at work in a construct. When applied to race (critical race theory), gender (some queer theory), sexuality, politics and economics, it gives one the skill to unwind the antagonism, relieve the anger, and allow Jesus to reconcile, heal the division within gender constructs. It makes space for God in Christ to work and make things whole. One last question, Chris, which is probably too big to be even possible. But you know, hey, we’re already way into this interview. So why not just you know, keep escalating things?

How do specific doctrines help us engage thoughtfully in the philosophical, political, and social questions of our day? In contrast, critical theory is associated with a metanarrative that runs from oppression to liberation: We are members either of a dominant group or of a marginalized group with respect to a given identity marker. As such, we either need to divest ourselves of power and seek to liberate others, or we need to acquire power and liberate ourselves by dismantling all structures and institutions that subjugate and oppress. In critical theory, the greatest sin is oppression, and the greatest virtue is the pursuit of liberation. Keller says that, for critical theory, “the main way power is exercised is through language—through “dominant discourses”… Language does not merely describe reality—it constructs or creates it.” I think Dr. Keller is accurate as much as a generalization can be. But whereas Keller sees this aspect of critical theory as detracting from a theory of justice, I see it as a tool for helping us to see things we are blind to. I find discourse analysis as useful in unfolding both the contingency and the formative effects of a sociological discourse. In other words, it helps us see how the way we talk, use words, behave in certain ways embodies learned and unspoken assumptions in matters such as racism, sexuality, gender, socio-economics, etc. Serres understood figures as algorithmic operators, “complex functions for producing an infinite variety of outputs from infinite possibilities of inputs.” [16] These structures and patterns are also generative. Different senses of meaning arise when one puts different words in a relationship using these structures and patterns. When repeatable patterns in space and repeatable rhythms in time are deployed beyond literature and language to include creation, ideas, systems, and behavior, they become helpful in analyzing culture. Watkin says this work mirrors God’s work in creation, where he organizes space and creates rhythms. Second, Watkin moves from sound biblical exegesis to sound cultural exegesis (we will discuss his method later), drawing upon a stunning array of sources. His formal training is in French Studies (Cambridge University, M.Phil., Ph.D.). He has published widely in French studies, philosophy, and theology. (He has several volumes in the P&R Great Thinkers series on French Philosophers.) He is a Senior Lecturer in French Studies at Monash University in Australia, a renown global research institution. All this breadth is displayed in BCT, but never arrogantly or excessively. Watkin’s biblical and accessible response to various cultural issues would also warrant the book’s price.you can look at the way that he tried to come to terms with something that was new, and learn from that, or how we can come to terms with our different thing that is equally new. Yeah. Oh, absolutely. Rather than beginning at a single moment in time, critical theory began as a confluence of several intellectual streams that came together to form a larger body of thought. The first of these streams is often referred to as the Frankfurt school (or the International School for Social Research) that originated in Goethe, Germany, during the 1920s and ’30s. Men such as Theodor Adorno, Eric Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, and Max Horkheimer, working in different disciplines, were some of the early architects of the movement, with Jürgen Habermas becoming one of the better-known, later luminaries. 6This school was something of a multi-disciplinary think-tank focusing on contemporary social issues such as power, oppression, wealth, identity, and politics. The school was eventually forced to relocate due to pressures from the Nazi party, which perceived it as a threat to its political agenda. The overlapping timelines of Nazi ideology and the Frankfurt school are important to note, as the latter sat in stark contrast with the former. One was an ideology of oppression through totalitarianism; the other sought liberation for the oppressed through philosophical reflection on power structures and how change comes about. Both movements were highly political and were a threat to one another in different ways. What does it mean to ‘understand’ a philosopher? As a beleaguered PhD student finding my way in the forest of modern and contemporary French thought I remember what it felt like finally to come to terms with a particular thinker. This sensation almost invariably came at the moment when I began to discern the characteristic ‘moves’ of the philosopher in question, to see the ways in which, time and again, they approached disparate subjects in distinct and recognisable ways, such that I came to be able to predict in a general sense the likely contours of their response to any given question. Not that they became predictable, not that they ceased to surprise me, but nevertheless I was able to fit what I was reading into an emerging understanding of the pattern of their thought. Once I began to understand how a philosopher thought in general, it became easier to understand what he or she thought about any theme in particular. [13]

Dr. Keller summarizes Critical Theory’s understanding of the individual is these words: “neither individual rights nor individual identity are primary … it is an illusion to think that, as an individual, you can carve out an identity in any way different or independent of others in your race, ethnicity, gender, and so on. Group identity and rights are the only real ones.” Watkin believes that a close, attentive reading of Scripture reveals the significance of creation and redemption similarly. [14] While God can never be domesticated or mastered, we have in Scripture access to as much revealed divine truth as we can handle this side of glory. God is showing us in Scripture patterns in creation and redemption. Figures arise out of careful contemplation of Holy Scripture. Figures are at the center of Watkin’s theory. When all the types of figures combine, they form the world of meaning for an individual (more below).

Paul on Greek ‘wisdom’ and Jewish ‘signs’

Watkin locates his primary scholarly contribution in BCT in mapping his cultural and theological insights “onto the Bible’s storyline from Genesis to Revelation.” [2] He hopes “this fresh arrangement is in itself significant.” [3] He also sees himself advancing a new way to do cultural apologetics that others can build upon: “By exploring biblical and late modern figures in a framework of biblical theology, I have provided a crudely drawn map, the finer details of which others can complete in ways I never could.” [4]