Critical Dilemma of Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer
How PhD Scholars Distort Critical Theory to Dupe Christians
The academic field of Critical Theory has been a subject of intense debate and scrutiny, particularly among conservative Christian circles. Two figures that have gained attention in this discussion are Dr. Neil Shenvi and Dr. Pat Sawyer, both of whom have expressed their views on the matter. However, their perspectives should raise questions in how they misrepresent and oversimplify Critical Theory.
This article is here to provide you with some much-needed clarity amidst the hot mess that is the "Critical Dilemma" presented by both PhD holders Dr. Shenvi and Dr. Sawyer. We'll dive deep into their claims and scrutinize them to see if they can withstand the heat of real critical analysis. But let's be honest, it's hard to take anyone seriously when they're fear-mongering about the supposed threat of "cultural Marxism." So, let's get in the lane of Shenvi and Sawyer, grab a mango or a cup of coffee, and be ready to unpack the mess that these two have brought to the table.
Understanding Critical Theory
It's impressive how some people can take complex and diverse academic fields and boil them down to a single boogeyman term like "cultural Marxism." It's almost as if they don't want to engage with the actual ideas and instead prefer to use scare tactics to dismiss anything that challenges their worldview.
Critical theory is a diverse and interdisciplinary field that draws upon various disciplines and theoretical frameworks, including but not limited to Post-Colonial Studies, Queer Theory, Critical Pedagogy, Whiteness Studies, and Critical Race Theory. The field seeks to examine and critique the social, economic, and political structures that perpetuate inequalities and injustices in society. While Marxism is one of the theoretical lenses used within the field, it is not the only one. The notion that these fields represent a monolithic ideology of “cultural Marxism” is a misrepresentation and simplification of complex scholarly work.
Moreover, using terms like "cultural Marxism" to describe Critical Theory is like trying to milk a bull - it might sound like it could work, but it's actually completely useless and potentially harmful. It is inaccurate and unsupported by academic research, but it has also been associated with harmful conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic tropes, yet they continue to propagate it as if it's a legitimate academic term. Not only is it inaccurate, but it's a lazy and irresponsible way to engage with complex and diverse areas of scholarship.
Critical Theory: Addressing Social Inequality, Not Spiritual Matters
Forcing Critical Theory to answer questions such as why sin exists, how creation came into existence, and why Jesus had to die on the cross is like complaining that a chef doesn't know how to fix a car - sure, they might both use tools and have some overlap in their skills, but they're fundamentally different fields with different areas of expertise. Similarly, Critical Theory is a framework for analyzing power structures and social inequality, not a comprehensive worldview that addresses religious or spiritual matters like sin, creation, or salvation. It's not that Critical Theory is deficient or lacking in some way - it's just not meant to answer those kinds of questions. So, while it's always good to have a broad range of knowledge and expertise, maybe these PhD scholars need to focus on their own area of specialization before they start critiquing others!
It also important to recognize that Critical Theory is not inherently opposed to religious or spiritual beliefs, including Christianity. In fact, many scholars and activists working within Critical Theory have explicitly drawn on religious traditions and values in their work.
Critical Theory: Resisting Simplistic Categories and Prioritizing Multifaceted Perspectives
The claim that the goal of Critical Theory is to either divest oneself of power or acquire power is an oversimplification. While power relations are certainly a key focus of critical theory, critical theorists often critique the ways in which power is distributed in society and may seek to challenge dominant power structures that operates to marginalize and exclude certain groups of people, the goal is not simply to acquire power for oneself or to dismantle all structures and institutions. Rather, Critical Theory seeks to understand the ways in which power operates in society and to challenge oppressive structures in order to create a more just and equitable society, rather than simply pursuing liberation at all costs.
It is not accurate for anyone to reduce critical theory to a simplistic narrative of oppression and liberation, as it includes a range of theories and approaches that are constantly evolving and adapting to changing social and political contexts.
Critical Theory is not limited to Class, Race and Gender
Both Dr. Shenvi and Dr. Sawyer present a biased and limited view of Critical Theory. Yes, it is true that Critical Theory emphasizes power dynamics and intersectionality, it is not accurate to say that it cannot be confined to a single issue such as class, race, or gender. In fact, critical theory can be applied to a wide range of issues and social structures, including but not limited to capitalism, religion, and environmentalism.
Furthermore, they both presents a narrow and misleading understanding of how Critical Theory approaches oppression and social change. Critical Theory seeks to dismantle oppressive norms and structures, it does not necessarily view all dominant groups as oppressive or all subordinate groups as victimized. Rather, Critical Theory emphasizes the complexity and intersectionality of power dynamics, and recognizes that people can occupy both privileged and marginalized positions in different contexts.
They both even imply that Christians who embrace critical theory must reject biblical teachings on various issues, which is not necessarily true. Critical Theory may challenge certain traditional interpretations of scripture, it is possible to hold a critical theory-informed perspective while still upholding the core tenets of Christian faith.
Critical Theory does not dismiss the importance of objectivity and reason
Dr. Shenvi keeps perpetuating the distorted idea that Critical Theory doesn’t value objectivity and only takes “living experiences” into consideration. He seems to think that the idea of “lived experience” as a source of knowledge is a bad thing. However, the Gospels that both Shenvi and Sawyer use to mislead Christians are also lived experiences of people. Somehow, those are to be valued, but the experiences of the marginalized and oppressed are discounted because they don’t support his views. This is where Critical Theory steps in takes “lived experiences” into consideration along with objectivity.
It is a gross distortion to present Critical Theory as a school of thought that discounts the value of objectivity and morality. But we see both Dr. Shenvi and Sawyer do just that. That should show us their selective reading of Critical Theory. It appears to me that despite holding PhDs, they have failed to present Critical Theory accurately. It is unclear whether this is due to incompetence or a deliberate attempt to mislead the Christian community in order to gain support.
And let's not forget about the attempt to pit critical theory against Scripture. The idea that critical theory somehow undermines the function of Scripture as the final arbiter of truth is just plain ridiculous.
Finally, let's not be fooled by the misleading narratives that Critical Theory is developed to destroy Christianity. Its purpose is to examine oppressive structures and reveal the power dynamics that perpetuate them. Instead of fear-mongering and misrepresenting these theories, perhaps Dr. Shenvi should stick to his lane of expertise in Theoretical Chemistry and Dr. Sawyer to focus less on what Black People do. It's time to confront the real problems in our society and churches, such as the marginalization of others by white culture, instead of denying their existence or distorting them for our own gain.