AP

Authors: Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer

Publisher: Harvest House

Year: 2023

Reviewed by Mark Powell

There have been a growing number of books published on what is referred to pejoratively as ‘Wokeness’ or more formally, as Critical Theory, but Critical Dilemma (Harvest House, 2023) by Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer is without doubt one of the very best at examining the topic. Indeed, if there were only one book you were to read on the subject then this would have to be it. As such, I will seek to not only review Critical Dilemma but also supply a short summary as to some of its most helpful insights.

Almost 500 pages in length, Critical Dilemma covers the issue from every conceivable angle. And while some might be put off by the book’s length, it is actually one of its greatest strengths. Because truth be told, this is an extremely complicated topic which cannot be reduced to a simplistic analysis. That said, the book is so clearly written that it remains engaging and thoroughly “readable” to the very end.

Understanding a Convoluted Topic

There is so much to benefit from and say about Critical Dilemma that it is difficult to know where to begin. The level of research and interaction with the secondary literature on the subject is immense. The problem is, the issue is so convoluted that it requires an extra level of scholarly care and academic analysis. As the authors themselves state:

…everyone—especially Christians—should speak with as much precision as possible. For example, we should not use terms like cultural Marxism, socialism, critical race theory, intersectionality, antiracism, and critical theoryinterchangeably. If we do, it will open us to easy accusations of carelessness, superficiality, and ignorance.

Shenvi and Sawyer are absolutely right, especially when it comes to this topic. The careless use of language can undermine one’s argument when speaking to someone who holds to a ‘critical’ worldview. In this regard, the authors make use of an insightful illustration which is worth quoting in full.

To appreciate the importance of this point, imagine an atheist attempting to critique Christianity and saying, “Christianity started in 1517, when Martin Luther was excommunicated for believing in the Trinity.” Even if the atheist had some sophisticated objection to Christianity, that single sentence would be enough to destroy his credibility. If we began to gentle explain to him that he’s confusing the Reformation with Christianity and that Luther was not excommunicated until 1521, and that all Christians, including Luther and his opponents, believed in the Trinity, he might insist that we’re splitting hairs. “After all,” he could complain, “Protestantism is a subset of Christianity and the dates are close enough and Luther was excommunicated over some doctrine—it doesn’t matter which one.” These rejoinders would hardly inspire confidence amongst Christians with even a minimal amount of historical or theological background knowledge.

Sadly, this is often what happens when people discuss “woke ideology” and it seriously undermines the legitimacy of their concerns. Shenvi and Sawyer suggest that we use the term contemporary critical theory to cover the many perspectives within the movement. What’s more, they also helpfully identify four key ideas which this multifaceted movement shares:

1. The Social Binary: Society is divided into dominant/privileged/oppressor groups and subordinate/marginalised/oppressed groups along axes of race, class, gender, sexuality, physical ability, immigration status, religion, and so forth. Included in this central ideal is the concept of intersectionality.
2. Hegemonic Power. Oppression and domination are not limited to cruelty or overt acts of injustice, but also include the ways in which dominant social groups impose their values, traditions, norms, and ways of being and doing on society such that they are accepted as natural, normal, or even God-ordained. Contemporary critical theory emphasizes that this oppression and domination is structural—that is, it is manifested and applied via social institutions and systems.
3. Lived Experience. The lived experience of minoritized and oppressed groups rivals and at times is prioritized over objective evidence and reason when it comes to understanding the world. The lived experience and the consequent experiential knowledge of the minoritized and the oppressed yield special knowledge and insight relative to social analysis in general and justice issues in particular.
4. Social Justice. Social justice is concerned with the transformation of society via the emancipation and empowerment of marginalised and disenfranchised groups. Social justice requires us to dismantle the systems, structures, and hegemonic norms that create and perpetuate the social binary.

These four themes are common in the following sub-sets of “Critical Social Theory”: Postcolonialism, Critical Race Theory, Marxism, Queer Theory, Critical Pedagogy, Cultural Studies, 2^nd and 3^rd Wave Feminism and Neo-Marxism. Shenvi and Sawyer also provide a helpful timeline as to when each of these critical traditions developed:

Tackling the Giant

The book itself is divided into three distinct parts: Understanding (chapters 2-7), Critiquing (chapters 8-12), and Engaging (chapters 13-15). In my review, I will follow their own structure and seek to bring out the most pertinent insights.

Part 1: Understanding.

Critical Dilemma begins with a concise historical examination as to how, as a society, we reached this particular point philosophically. The authors state that while the intellectually underpinnings go back about a hundred years, a key cultural catalyst was the Black Lives Matter movement, coinciding with the controversial presidency of Donald Trump. 

Shenvi and Sawyer provide an excellent survey of the key figures within the critical tradition, including: Karl Marx (1818-1883); The Frankfurt School (founded 1923); Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937); Paulo Freire (1921-1997); Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002); Michel Foucault (1926-1984); Judith Butler (1956-present); and Kimberle Crenshaw (1959-present). Each one of these authors built upon and developed the thinking of those who came before. Marxism and Critical Theory share a parallel worldview as the following figure illustrates:

As can already be seen, one of the greatest strengths of Critical Dilemma is how Shenvi and Sawyer summarise a lot of complicated concepts and explain them carefully and understandably. For example, note the following table to show many of the oppressed and oppressor groups that constitute the social binary according to contemporary critical theory:

Following on from this, chapter 5 contains an excellent explanation of Critical Race Theory, and why church leaders in particular should be concerned. My own observation is that many in the church are not aware of how different and competing a worldview CRT is to Biblical Christianity. After the tragic death of George Floyd, too many Christians unthinkingly jumped on the #BlackLivesMatter bandwagon under the assumption that they were being ‘compassionate’. And yet, as quickly became known, it was run by avowed Marxists.

Shenvi and Sawyer^[1] once again give the following helpful summary of the four central ideas undergirding Critical Race Theory scholarship:

1. Racism is endemic, normal, permanent, and pervasive.
2. Racism is concealed beneath ideas like colour blindness, meritocracy, individualism, neutrality, and objectivity.
3. Lived experience is critical to understanding racism.
4. Racism is one of many interlocking systems of oppression, including sexism, classism, and heterosexism.

Chapter 6 provides another competent examination on the related topic of ‘Queer Theory’. Something which should be of immediate concern to all is the transgressive goal of queer theory, especially into the realm of paedophilia. Note the following ‘important warning’ that the authors themselves give:

In this chapter, we’ll occasionally quote from queer theorists who are discussing paedophilia or other issues of sexuality in extremely disturbing terms. For the sake of our readers, we have chosen to use brackets to obscure sexually explicit and graphic material. We will also preface these redacted quotes with trigger warnings. Please take them seriously. However, readers must understand that queer theorists are often quite forthright about their goal of destabilising and deconstructing all gender and sexual norms, even (perhaps especially) those that express fundamental, common-sense moral principles. Grasping this point is crucial to understanding queer theory, which is why we have included this material.

I was a little disappointed at this point that the authors didn’t interact more with the work of Michel Foucault, whose professional and personal life was focused on redefining and transgressing this particular sexual norm. While Critical Dilemma does acknowledge that Foucault was “the godfather of queer theory” it would have strengthened the book greatly to especially explore this aspect of his life. As was reported in The Times and also Aljazeera:

Rumours of Foucault’s sexual abuse of children have long been known to Tunisians, but recently there has been a new devastating account by well-known French essayist Guy Sorman.

In an interview with the French public TV channel France 5 on March 5, Sorman confirmed that while visiting Foucault, he “witnessed what Foucault did with young children in Tunisia … ignoble things. The possibility of consent could not be sought. These were things of extreme moral ugliness.”

In a second interview with the British newspaper The Sunday Times on March 28, he recalled that “they were eight, nine, ten years old, he was throwing money at them and would say ‘let’s meet at 10pm at the usual place’”, a local cemetery in the town of Sidi Bou Said, north of the capital Tunis. “He would make love there on the gravestones with young boys. The question of consent wasn’t even raised.”

Shockingly, Foucault practised what he preached…

Positive Insights of Critical Social Theory

One of the greatest strengths of Critical Dilemma is that it points out what we can learn from the movement. While the theory as a whole is flawed, Shenvi and Sawyer believe that there are some aspects which can be legitimately affirmed. As the authors state, “…affirming the true insights offered by critical social theorists will help us understand the appeal of critical social theory.”

Shenvi and Sawyer suggest that there are seven key things we can appreciate from Critical Social Theory:

1. It focuses its analysis on how power works in society. As the authors explain: “Given the realities of hegemonic society and the genuine marginalization and disenfranchisement of certain groups, critical social theory can illuminate not only how we got here but how the continued abuse of power is maintained and recycled for the status quo…Such an analysis can cause those in power to wake from their complacent stupor, and it can give comfort to those who want to better understand the macro context of their marginalization and what to do about it.”
2. It forces people to learn about the past and how what occurred led to oppression and subjugation of certain groups in society. However, the authors make the important caveat, “We recognise the writing of history is fraught with issues of power. We also recognise that CST itself pushes revisionist history, which is a feature of CST, not a bug. So how should we respond? First, we should get acquainted with historiography, and second, we should read widely.”
3. CST “compels us to consider how oppression and disenfranchisement from the past has lingering effects today when it comes to resource and wealth accumulation.”
4. “CST places an emphasis on Black and Brown voices, recognizing that those voices have been historically muted and marginalized.”
5. “Given CST’s emphasis on praxis, it highlights the importance of activism to bring about social change.
6. “Queer theory forces a consideration of how the LBGTQ+ community has been historically mistreated (at points brutalised) by society. This knowledge is critical in how to consider the LGBTQ+ community today.
7. “CST takes on a number of macro ideological standpoints governing society, some of which are very important but do not offer the provocative woke soundbites that the often-ravenous media so desperately desires. For instance, critical pedagogy addresses neoliberalism head on. Neoliberalism, simply put, prioritises and centralizes money as the final determinant of any matter…[But] The unfettered free market is complicit in porn, abortion, divorce, and a host of other social ills.”

Shenvi and Sawyer explore these issues thoroughly and the analysis is both insightful and helpful. 

The Motte and Bailey Strategy

One insight in particular which I especially appreciated was the analysis of the rhetorical debating strategy known as the “motte and bailey”. Shenvi and Sawyer offer a very good explanation which is worth quoting in full since it is used so often in contemporary social justice debates:

Philosopher Nicolas Shakel used the metaphor of the motte and bailey to call attention to how postmodern scholars would habitually make bold, outrageous, and indefensible claims (the bailey). When they were challenged on these claims, they would retreat to some modest, common sensical assertion that was more easily defended (the motte). As soon as the criticism was repelled, however, they would immediately go back to their original, radical claim as if nothing had happened.

Something very similar happens in discussions of the claims we are about to review. For example, an activist might make a radical claim like “All Whites are racist” (the bailey). However, when challenged, they might retreat to a more modest statement like “All I mean is that all Whites participate in systems that perpetuate racial disparities” (the motte). However, once their interlocutor agrees that this latter claim is more reasonable and wanders away, the original claim that “All Whites are racist” is reasserted without qualification.

The key to defusing this strategy Is to recognise It. Rather than attack the motte (the modest, defensible claim), we should point out that the motte and the bailey are entirely different, thereby preventing a retreat from the bailey to the motte.

Part 2: Critiquing

Before critiquing CST the authors provide an important excursus in chapter 8 on the nature of Protestant Theology in general and the evangelical worldview in particular. All readers will appreciate this chapter because it illustrates not only how the authors themselves are aware of their own worldview, but also why CST is so attractive—and ultimately, dangerous—to evangelical Christians. This is because it plays very much to the moral sensitivities of conservative believers. In particular, we aim to be loving and compassionate, and rightly despise the abuse of power. These are the very things (from a secular point of view) which CST aims to do as well. 

The fundamental problem with CST though, is that is not just another worldview, but as an increasingly number of Christian and secular writers have identified, is functionally developing into a whole new religion. In this regard, Shenvi and Sawyer helpfully point to the writings of Carl Trueman, Helen Pluckrose & James Lindsay, Elizabeth Corey, David French, Andrew Sullivan, and John McWhorter – all worth following up for those who are interested in reading more. 

The following graph provides a helpful summary of the differences between CST and Christianity:

In short, Shenvi and Sawyer rightly perceive that CST and Christianity are competing religious metanarratives:

Problems with CST

We now come to the nub of the issue. Critical Dilemma identifies four main problems with the movement:

1. Not all Hegemonic Power is Oppressive. Contrary to CST, there are social norms which are “natural, just, and God-ordained.” What’s more, not “all social hierarchies are unjust and oppressive.” (Exodus 20:3-17; Micah 6:8; Matthew 5:21-7:6; Marl 12:29-31; Galatians 5:14; Romans 13). 
2. Lived Experience is not Authoritative. Critical Dilemma makes the excellent point that one’s experiencing cannot be the final authority on matters of life and faith. As the authors state: “Without the objective truth claims of Scripture that can be reliably known through exegesis, reason, and study, doctrinal decline will be inevitable. If sola scriptura is replaced by sola lived experience, we’ll be left with the twenty-first century American version of the book of Judges, in which “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6).
3. Privilege can be positive. Critical Dilemma argues that it is not always the result of injustice or oppression. Often a majority position can achieve much good. What’s more, the most potent source for future success is located in the nuclear family. As the authors state: “One of the major demographic predictors of an individual’s success if their family structure—that is, whether they were raised by two married biological parents. Study after study shows that this family background is strongly correlated with the avoidance of negative outcomes, including teen pregnancy, incarceration, behavioural and emotional problems, drug use, and abuse, neglect, and mistreatment. Yet contemporary critical theorists, taken as a whole, don’t often comment on or incorporate into their analysis the tremendous positive role that family structure plays on life outcomes, except to problematize the heteronormative or patriarchal or Western assumptions that are supposedly baked into the nuclear-family model.
4. Identity in Christ. Rather than view people as sub-groups, the Bible presents a unified anthropology. People are made in the image of God, fallen as sinful human beings, redeemed through Christ’s atonement and brought into one spiritual family of the church (Galatians 3:28).

Problems with CRT

Many readers will find this chapter the most challenging of all. My observation is that a lot of Christians championed the #BlackLiveMatters movement without really understanding what they were supporting. It is difficult to do justice to their critique, but to pique the reader’s interest let me offer some of their most salient conclusions as to why CRT “is at cross purposes with Christianity”:

1. CRT’s ideological support of the social binary—that the primary way to view the world is through an oppressor/oppressed lens.
2. CRT’s inordinate emphasis on lived experience as it pertains to epistemology (knowledge—what we know and how we come to know what we know).
3. The susceptibility of those who embrace CRT’s approach to lived experience to commit eisegesis, illegitimately reading racial concerns into the test of Scripture where they do not exist or using one’s race, gender, class, ethnicity, or any other demographic marker as a hermeneutical (interpretative) lens to understand the meaning of Scripture.
4. CRT’s commitment to standpoint theory and the valorisation and prioritization of minoritized voices relative to social analysis as standard practice.

In short, Shenvi and Sawyer argue that that first, “CRT is incompatible with Christianity in its core commitments. CRT’s understanding of law, morality, justice, the role of lived experience, and sexuality are in conflict with Christianity.” And second, “Many evangelical authors…demonstrate the doctrinal decline that is unavoidable when someone embraces the basic outlook of CRT.”

Intergenerational Guilt?

For me, the best chapter of all in Critical Dilemma—and worth the price of the book alone—was chapter 11 which is an extended excursus on the subject of “Collective, Ancestral Guilt”. This is an aspect which undergirds so many discussions around race, whether it be reparations over the African slave trade to America, or the recent referendum in Australia on The Voice. Even amongst Christians, such as Peter Adam and Michael Jensen, there is a serious theological misstep that people today are guilty of the crimes of their ancestors, even though they themselves have not committed the wrongful action themselves.

Shenvi and Sawyer’s handling of this neglected aspect was excellent, with an extended treatment on neglected passages such as Ezekiel 18:14-20, Deuteronomy 24:16 and Jeremiah 31:27-30. These passages clearly state that it is morally wrong to punish the children for the sins of their fathers.

I was surprised to read in a review of Critical Dilemma published in The Gospel Coalition, where the reviewer George Yancey from Baylor University believes that Shenvi and Sawyer’s Critical Dilemma is itself guilty of a critical ‘misstep’. As Yancey states:

“…I wasn’t convinced by their case in chapter 11 against a role for collective, ancestral guilt. This concept can be misused by activists, but too quickly dismissing the social relevance of historical racial injustice can create barriers to reconciliation. Shenvi and Sawyer are correct to note that moral guilt is resolved for each individual through Christ alone. However, in Scripture we see God’s judgment of all Israel for Achan’s sin (Josh. 7) and Daniel’s confession of the ancestral sin of his people (Dan. 9). A deeper conversation about collective guilt, especially in social terms, needs to take place to understand what role it may, or may not, play in race relations.”

However, there are two problems with this critique. The first is that it conflates collective guilt with ancestral culpability. And while the Bible affirms the former, it unambiguously refutes the later. What’s more, Shenvi and Sawyer clarify that, “It is important to note here that Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel are confessing their own sins alone while acknowledging the sins of those they are representing.” 

This truth is also picked up in the Ten Commandments where we are told, “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me…” Exodus 20:5. In Short, ongoing rebellion results in ongoing guilt and hence, ongoing repentance.

Problems with Queer Theory

This is one of the least controversial chapters of the book but sadly, it is the aspect which has been the most insidious in infiltrating the church. The authors present a thoroughly biblical case for gender and sexuality. It would have been good if they had have engaged with Christian authors who seek the “blur the lines” in this regard. An excellent model of this can be found in Rosaria Butterfield’s book Five Lies of our Anti-Christian Age(Crossway, 2023). AP’s review of which can be found here.

Part 3: Engaging

The final three chapters aim to bring the whole project together. It does this in a way which affirms the seriousness of the issue, while also exhorting readers—especially those who are Christian—to engage with those who hold to a contemporary critical worldview in an informed and respectful spirit. Their final paragraph is worth quoting in full:

Our job as Christians is to oppose contemporary critical theory in our generation, trusting the ultimate outcome to God. We should not aim to be culture warriors, but ambassadors for the gospel (2 Corinthians 5:20), showing people that their ultimate problem is sin and that the ultimate solution is Jesus Christ. It is this gospel of the unmerited counter-conditional love of Jesus that sends Christians out into the world to love the widow and the orphan, to defend the rights of the unborn, to feed the hungry, and to seek just laws. It is this gospel that creates the church, that transforms hearts, that changes actual oppressors into servants, and that breaks down the wall between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female, Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian. May we keep this gospel pure and keep it central. Because if we lose the gospel, we lose everything.

Conclusion: You really should buy this book!

Critical Dilemma is a volume that belongs on every Christian’s bookshelf. It not only a comprehensive, clear and compelling presentation of the topic, but a prescient warning as to why critical theory is such a clear and present danger to the church.

^[1] Sawyer provides an excellent overview of CRT here. https://churchleaders.com/voices/404648-voices-with-ed-stetzer-what-is-crt-and-should-we-be-concerned-part-2.html/4.