A few years ago, I was teaching a Bible study at my current place of ministry, Olney Baptist Church, in Montgomery County, Maryland. I forget the Bible passage we were looking at. It’s been several years. But I vividly remember one of the ladies in our study group objecting to the lack of female representation in the Bible.
I was a little taken aback by the comment. Thankfully, one of the other ladies in the study pointed out that, even though the writers of the biblical books were all male (at least as far as we know), these men had wives, mothers, and sisters. They had women in their lives. Therefore, it’s not as if they were oblivious to or unconcerned with women’s perspectives.
To that, I added that God — being the One who created both men and women in His image — is the ultimate author of Scripture. Thus, this really comes down to a matter of confidence in God.
She was not persuaded.
Since that time, I’ve noticed this perspective become even more prominent in evangelical circles.
At the time of this writing, the issue of whether women should be pastors is once again roiling the evangelical community. The most recent flashpoint is the decision of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee to eject Saddleback Church (founded by Rick Warren) and four other churches over the issue of women pastors.
This led me (and, I’m sure others) to renew my study on this issue. I’ve been reading Scripture (obviously), several commentaries, and passages from several books on the topic as well as watching or listening to podcasts and interviews. As I was enjoying some of these programs, I of course noticed that the discussions were generally dominated by male theologians and pastors.
For many observers, this is a serious problem.
And for that, we can, in large part, thank the growing influence of a general approach known as “critical theory” for this increased awareness. And this approach has impacted every area of society, including the church.
The relationship between critical theory and biblical interpretation has become increasingly contentious in recent years. While some argue that critical theory is a necessary tool for understanding the Bible in the context of modern issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion, others see it as a threat to the traditional authority of scripture.
As debates continue to rage on, it is worth exploring the question:
Should critical theory inform biblical interpretation?
I do have some strong feelings on this issue, but I want to be fair in this article. Therefore, I hope you will walk with me patiently through this issue, and take the time to (as Stephen Covey once said) “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.”
Let’s begin.
What is Critical Theory?
Socrates once said that the beginning of wisdom lies in the “definition of terms.” While I would obviously agree with Solomon that the beginning of wisdom is the “fear of the Lord” (a point to which we will return later), I agree with Socrates that defining terms is essential to effective thought and communication.
Therefore, allow me to turn to some experts to help us define our terms:
“Critical theory was first defined by Max Horkheimer, a philosopher and sociologist who co-founded the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, also known as the Frankfurt School, in 1923. Along with other leading members of the Institute, including Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, and Jürgen Habermas, Horkheimer sought to understand and critique the culture and society of his time, with the aim of making it more just and equitable. Critical theory is marked by an interdisciplinary approach that draws on Marxist thought, psychoanalysis, and other fields, with a focus on the ways in which power and oppression operate in society. It has been influential in a range of academic disciplines, including sociology, political science, philosophy, cultural studies, and literary theory.”
Ritzer, G. (2019). Critical theory. In The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of social theory (pp. 1-7)
“Critical theory refers to a range of approaches that focus on exposing the underlying power relations that structure society, and on the ways in which culture and ideology reinforce or challenge those power relations.”
Parker, Martin. 2002. “Critical Theory.” In The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, edited by Bryan S. Turner, 121-137. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
“Critical theory is a method of inquiry that seeks to understand power relationships, social injustices, and the systemic nature of oppression. It is concerned with exposing and challenging the underlying assumptions that support these phenomena in order to promote social change.”
Kellner, Douglas. 2016. “Critical Theory.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication.
As we can see, critical theory is more of an approach than a focused area of study. And it has expanded over time to address issues related to various areas of study and marginalized groups. For example, critical race theory emerged in the late 1970s as an approach to examining the ways in which race intersects with power, privilege, and oppression. Similarly, critical queer theory examines issues related to gender and sexuality and how power structures affect the lives of LGBTQ+ individuals. Feminist critical theorists have argued that dominant groups use power to maintain their dominance over women. They have also argued that traditional gender roles and patriarchal structures contribute to the oppression of women and that social institutions such as law, religion, and the media reinforce these structures.
In essence, critical theory has been adapted to explore the experiences of different groups seen as marginalized and to interrogate the underlying power structures that allegedly maintain those experiences.
Is Critical Theory a useful tool for studying History?
In order to answer that, we have to be honest about the risks inherent to looking at life and history through a critical theory lens. And most of those risks can be summed up in the following simple statement:
There is more to life and history than a struggle between classes or groups. A whole lot more!
“One danger of the hyper-critique associated with the later stages of Critical Theory is the reduction of the social world to a binary opposition between oppressors and oppressed. While this is a useful heuristic device for exposing the oppressive elements of society, it runs the risk of promoting a simplistic, essentialized view of social relations.”
Schirato, Tony, and Susan Yell. Communication and Cultural Literacy: An Introduction. Sage, 2000
Not only that but there are clear signs that critical theory has become a sort of fundamentalist orthodoxy in the minds of many academics and activists.
“One danger of critical theory is the potential for it to become a new orthodoxy, a set of dogmatic beliefs that are not open to challenge or critique. This would be ironic, given the critical impulse at the heart of the theory.”
Chandler, Daniel. Semiotics: The Basics. Routledge, 2017
Ironic it may be, but it is happening. And one way this is playing out is that we increasingly see each other and understand issues in the framework of people’s identities, particularly as those identities relate to race, gender, sexuality, and other categories that lend themselves to discussions on the rights and interests of those viewed as marginalized.
This leads to what is often called “identity politics,” and there are huge problems when we see history exclusively or primarily in that light. Here’s how a Johns Hopkins University professor put it:
“The problem with identity politics is that it reduces individuals to one-dimensional tokens of their particular identity category. It stifles the diversity and complexity of individual experience, and treats people as if they were simply members of a group rather than unique individuals with their own talents, aspirations, and struggles.”
Yascha Mounk, The Atlantic, “The Problem with Identity Politics,” September 2018
When a person steeped in critical theory and identity politics views Thomas Jefferson, they don’t focus on (or, sometimes, even see) his immense, individual contributions to American history. Rather, they view Jefferson as a white male landowner who enslaved African Americans and is therefore representative of the privileged, oppressor class in early American history.
Yes, there were enslaved persons at Monticello. And, yes, Jefferson’s legacy includes his participation in the dreadful, evil institution of slavery that infected early America – and still is practiced in parts of the world today. That’s definitely got to be part of the picture. But…
It’s not the whole picture.
There is more to Thomas Jefferson than his participation in slavery.
Taking this to a biblical example…
There’s more to King David than his adultery with Bathsheba and his conspiring to (successfully) murder Uriah to cover it up.
Are those things part of his story? Absolutely. Are they the whole story? No!
Perhaps an even better example, if marginalization is in view, would be the practice of polygamy in the Old Testament — with Solomon being the leading example. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. And I think most feminists would call this an egregious display of male privilege and a bitter example of extreme patriarchy in the Ancient Near East.
But…
Does this mean we toss out the Book of Proverbs?
Or Song of Songs?
Or Ecclesiastes?
Can we learn some good things from Solomon (and appreciate the positive aspects of his legacy) even though we disapprove of his polygamy?
To the extent that critical theory encourages us to broaden our view of history to include more people and more perspectives, I welcome it. And, in that sense, I believe there may be some value in (at times) using at least aspects of critical theory as tools to better understand history.
And this can certainly include church history — ancient, medieval, and modern. It’s certainly true that the Bible has been used to justify the unjustifiable, and quite often that included the abuse and oppression of women and people of color. We can’t ignore that part of church history. We must confront it and learn from it.
Nevertheless, it’s very easy to take good intentions too far — just as the Pharisees took a good thing (the Law of Moses) and went so far with it that they missed the One who fulfilled of the Law.
Tunnel vision leads to blind spots.
What’s more, I find it difficult to endorse a framework that stems from one of the most anti-Christian, failed, and murderous ideologies in history, namely Marxism. As Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, pointed out when the SBC debated Critical Theory at its 2019 annual meeting:
“Both critical race theory and intersectionality are a part of the continuing transformative Marxism that is now so dominant in higher education and increasingly in policy. Critical race theory emerged from worldviews, and from thinkers who were directly contrary to the Christian faith.”
Albert Mohler quoted in an article on The Baptist Courier, June 19, 2019
Is Critical Theory a useful tool for Biblical Interpretation?
Some certainly think so.
“The study of ancient texts, especially those considered sacred or foundational, has been transformed by critical theory and its focus on power, domination, and the marginalization of subaltern groups. This has led to new interpretations that challenge traditional readings and expose the ways in which dominant groups have used texts to maintain their power and privilege.”
Susanne Scholz, “The Future of Biblical Scholarship: A Feminist Perspective,” in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, p. 423
Sounds compelling, right? And to be clear… the Bible is not a friend to racism, sexism, or any form of bigotry.
Nevertheless…I see a big problem. Note how (in the preceding quote) the pursuit of truth seems to take a back seat to concern over how texts are “used” or how certain groups benefit and how others might be disadvantaged.
To answer the question of whether critical theory has anything worthwhile to say when it comes to better understanding the biblical text, let’s go back to the Old Testament and how God structured the priesthood for the children of Israel.
The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and his inheritance. Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the Lord is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them. (Deuteronomy 18:1-2, KJV)
Note that God denies land to “all the tribe of Levi.” In the ancient world, you needed land to survive, let alone thrive. Without land, you were dependent on those who owned land. You were destined to a life of dependency and (in almost every case) servitude. Talk about marginalization!
And yet…
God just asserts that the Levites – all of them! – are to have “no part nor inheritance with Israel!”
Let that sink in.
God made it so the Levites were to be the priestly tribe and they were to be supported by the offerings of the people to the Lord. The Lord was to be “their inheritance.”
But what if someone from the tribe of Dan wanted to be a priest? Or the tribe of Judah? Isn’t that discriminatory?
Answers: They couldn’t (no matter their wishes). And yes, it was.
And too bad!
Come to think of it. Wasn’t it a wee bit “discriminatory” for God to favor Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, and the children of Israel over all the other nations and tribes of the earth?
Yes, it was.
And too bad!
God can do whatever God wants to do. Don’t like what God does? Well…
Too bad!
Those are examples, of course, of discrimination based on (you might say) status. Discrimination based on belief and conduct is throughout the entire Bible! It’s the most common discrimination you’ll see in God’s word. And you can’t ignore it.
You must accept it!
And so must I!
In light of that…
How exactly does critical theory help us in understanding the revelation of God?
I’m all for studying languages, history, and archeology in order to get at the original meaning and context of biblical passages, but when it comes to which people are adequately represented and which are “marginalized”…
If God is at the center of our focus and if we recognize that all Scripture is “God-breathed,” how much should it matter?
I don’t mean to be cruel or insensitive in saying that. I believe everyone is made in the image of God and equal in value before God. And as a citizen of the United States, I support civil rights for all.
But when it comes to understanding the Scriptures, the only things that matter are:
a) What does that passage mean?
b) What does God want me to do with that passage?
Everything else is a distraction. And it can quickly fall into the satanic trap of “Did God really say…?” The same trap Eve fell into in the Garden of Eden. Therefore…
I’m not convinced that critical theory is helpful to biblical interpretation. Indeed, I believe it can be counterproductive, even toxic to pursuing biblical truth.
So, on the issue of women pastors, it doesn’t really matter whether enough women are represented in the conversation on what certain biblical passages mean. What matters is whether the participants of said conversation (whoever they may be) are committed to pursuing the truth of God’s revelation. That is what matters!
The same is true for any Bible passage — no matter the issue or issues at stake!
Don’t believe me?
Read the pastoral epistles and then tell me whether Paul was more concerned about Timothy and Titus “rightly dividing the word of truth” or having a certain degree of demographic or identity representation at the table when the “word of truth” was taught or preached.
And the Bereans weren’t commended for asking questions about apostolic diversity or raising concerns over sufficient representation of various racial or gender identities. No, they were commended for receiving the word with “all readiness of mind” and for the fact that they “searched the scriptures” to ascertain the veracity of what they were hearing.
What matters is what God says. Period.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom
Want to acquire knowledge and wisdom? The Book of Proverbs is clear on the starting point:
- The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Proverbs 1:7, KJV)
- The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. (Proverbs 9:10, KJV)
The beginning of knowledge and wisdom isn’t the definition of terms (sorry, Socrates), nor the pursuit of diversity, equity, and inclusion (the mantra of critical theory advocates and woke progressives everywhere).
Nope!
The beginning of knowledge and wisdom is found in our reverential awe and fear of Almighty God!
This is important because there are times when we don’t understand God. There are times when we might not even (personally or emotionally) agree with God. And there are times when standing with God is unpopular and might cause us to face resistance or even persecution.
If we truly fear God, we will put all our fears, prejudices, preferences, and agendas on the altar before Him and seek His face and His truth. We will subordinate our will to His will.
The questions you must confront are simple:
- Do you put your trust in the word of God or the word of people?
- Do you care more about God’s opinions or people’s opinions?
- Will you trust God even when you don’t fully understand Him?
- Will you trust, follow, and obey God even when it’s not popular to do so?
I know my answers to those questions.
What are yours?
If you enjoyed this article, you may also like:
“What Does the Bible Say About Racism?”
“Should We Honor a Slave Owner? Wrestling with George Washington and Slavery”
“Don’t Become a Bigot Yourself in Your Opposition to Bigotry”
“You Are Not Unsafe if You Hear or Read an Opinion That Upsets You”
And you may wish to check out these books:
- Fault Lines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism’s Looming Catastrophe by Voddie Baucham
- Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins of America by Thomas G. West
If you wish to support my ministry…
- https://www.olneybaptistchurch.com/give 👈
- https://www.buymeacoffee.com/briantubbs 👈
Please Note: As always, the views expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the church I’m honored to serve as pastor. The views are mine and all comments, concerns, and questions should be directed to me.
