The Dilemma of Critical Dilemma

Note: I realize that this book was released a year and a half ago. Yet considering how many conservatives are seemingly not aware of the issues with it, I believe this polemic will still be valuable.

Neil Shenvi’s most recent book, Critical Dilemma: The Rise of Critical Theories and Social Justice Ideology for the Church and Society, co-written with UNC Greensboro education professor Pat Sawyer, is – quite frankly – as needlessly bloated as its 16-word title. Published in 2023, the book explains the myriad branches, brands, and flavors of critical theory (CT) as it is currently advanced and institutionalized, parses the good from the bad as it relates to evangelicalism, and encourages readers to walk a charitable razor’s edge of accepting any possible “good” idea sourced from “contemporary critical theory” (the book’s novel term for describing the underlying concepts that unify the various breeds of CT) while explaining how and where evangelical theology in particular opposes these ideas.

Yet the book itself ironically suffers from its own peculiar expressions of unbiblical epistemology:

• It eschews the epistemologically exclusive approach of biblical Christianity in favor of postmodern epistemological expansion in confronting the false doctrine of CT.
• It legitimizes the atomization/pulverization of CT’s sociological/ideological knowledge areas.
• It uncritically allows the presuppositions of leftism in its charitability towards critical theorists.

Along the way, Critical Dilemma (particularly in chapter seven’s discussion of “positive insights” of CT) trips all over itself trying to find common ground, requiring the employment of many of the same terminological and categorical errors CT itself relies upon, ironically proving itself useful as a synchronistic open back door for the unbiblical ideology it purports to challenge – the exact lump-leavening ungodliness that biblical epistemology is equipped to guard against.

Biblical Epistemology and Discernment

Foundational to the Christian’s pursuit of the singular unifying Truth of God is the opposition of all ideas or conceptions that reject God’s revealed truth, whether they are wholesale rejections or partial rejections. Walking in the Truth is a narrow walk. The Christian relies on the Word of God as a supernatural and sufficient source of truth in need of nothing from worldly systems or sources that may manage to come across God’s truth incidentally. The Christian has no need to “eat the meat and spit out the bones” while growing in knowledge of God’s creation and (in the case of CT) can safely throw out the woke baby with the Marxist bathwater. Biblical epistemology demands the Christian reject any attempt to incorporate “insights” from godless systems like CT, no matter how true they may be in isolation, knowing that (1) all false and poisonous ideologies say some true things in order to confuse and disarm the faithful, and (2) no godless ideology offers a necessary truth that is not also available through righteous systems and by righteous means. The Christian, in possession of the revealed Word of God and the power by which the Spirit wields this Truth in the hearts of men, has no need to affirm the incidentally true moral/ethical claims of the godless as a strategy to soften the hearts of the lost and convince them to change their views. The Christian especially needs not do this to draw Spirit-filled believers away from the siren song of critical theory. In both cases, he leans not on his own understanding nor his rhetorical ability, but on the power of the Spirit to do His work. As the old Yiddish proverb sometimes attributed to Benjamin Franklin says, “A half-truth is a whole lie.” The Christian unhesitatingly cuts out the partially true ideological cancer just as he cuts out those that are totally false. He purges the evil from among himself and the brethren.

Diamond in the Rough Epistemology

Yet Dilemma does precisely the opposite. In a pre-answer to and rejection of the biblical epistemology described above, the book claims that “Christians do not have to fear or shun actual truth regardless of its secondary epistemic location – that is, regardless of the identity of the secondary source making the particular truth claim.”¹ Yet the Bible clearly instructs believers to judge the source of false teaching rather than just the teaching itself. Paul tells the Roman church to “watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). Paul was not warning about obvious false teachers. Rather, they were those presenting the same threat to the church described in 2 Peter, those “who will secretly bring in destructive heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1) – secretly not by way of whispering wholesale falsehoods, but (like CT) by smuggling in error alongside apparent truths.

Yet Dilemma argues the value in Christians affirming CT’s “positive insights” for the purpose of “understanding its appeal.”² Apparently unwilling to accept that it is the lies of ideologies like CT that attract adherents, Shenvi and Sawyer insist that it is CT’s truths that draw adherents and therefore must be affirmed in order to appreciate and understand its attractiveness. They insist that only abject absurdities like ten-sided triangles could possibly result in the wholesale rejection of CT – anything less than “grass is purple”-level falsehood must be carefully and generously engaged with on its own terms.

Intersectional Epistemology

In establishing its credibility for the credentials-impressed and/or the too-long-didn’t-read crowd,³ Dilemma spends four chapters providing detailed and generously uncritical descriptions of the people and ideas associated with the history and assorted variations of CT. These chapters begin the list of notable scholars with likely the only name readers not already versed in the history of the critical tradition will recognize, Karl Marx. Yet in keeping with the book’s “charitability,”⁴ deftly gives CT the benefit of the doubt as an at least partial rejection of the notoriously bearded pariah (and insulates it from anyone attempting to disqualify it as Marxism) by expanding on critical theorist Joan Alway’s claim that CT “responded” to Marxism, stating that “part of Critical Theory’s intellectual campaign is to critique, amend, expand, and reject aspects of Marxism.”⁵ Followed by Marx’s ideological successors (the Frankfurt School, Antonio Gramsci), the five 20th-century scholars that follow, likely unknown at the “CT is Marxism” popular level, are described in positive terms that border on advocacy. Dilemma describes the “profound intellect and deep humility” of Paulo Friere (who wrote a forward to James Cone’s book advocating Black Liberation Theology) and the concern Pierre Bourdieu had for the marginalization of those with no “cultural capital” before reminding readers again that a deep-dive understanding of the finer points of CT’s historical development is necessary for Christians not to obtusely respond to CT with the “familiar tools” of traditional sexual ethics or anti-postmodernism.⁶

In non-critically detailing the origins of CT, the scholars who developed it, and its myriad ever-intersectionalized “knowledge” areas, Dilemma legitimizes both the categorical credibility of CT’s current and future manifestations and reinforces the necessity of the Dilemma’s epistemological demands – that is, its claim that Christians must substantively understand and engage with every unbiblical concept birthed from the dark recesses of CT’s godless foundations lest we render outselves impotent to challenge the ideologies of God’s enemies. Enemies who stand ready to add one more intersectional axis to their dissertation on critical black lesbian underwater hegemonic power dynamics as interpreted through native American slave traders of the Caribbean colonies the moment we think we’ve successfully addressed it (respectfully, of course) on its terms. Such rules of engagement, incidentally, position academics like Shenvi, Sawyer, and the evangelical institutionalists who platform them in the position of being the defacto experts on Christian engagement with CT who calmly chide the rubes ignorant enough to keep calling it “Marxism,” while also granting special dispensation to evangelical leaders they deem wise and sophisticated enough to give CT its day in court.

Shenvi and Sawyer ensure their readers that, much to the frustration of Christians without the time to explore every nook and cranny of CT, attempting to engage the topic within the bounds of reliable terminology is a fool’s errand. They write, “First, we should focus on ideas rather than labels for several reasons. Focusing on ideas prevents people from playing an endless, unresolvable semantic shell game that rejects every label offered and dances around the underlying issues.”⁷ CT, they insist, is a beast that is impossible to contain within popular-level terms like “woke,” “antiracism,” or the most unhelpful bugaboo of all, “cultural Marxism,” which Carl Trueman’s introduction insists is “likely to fail at…persuading those attracted to CT for the right reasons (the aspects of truth it seems to grasp) that it is still…ultimately bad for the church and inconsistent with biblical Christianity.”⁸ Every term is “problematic” according to Dilemma, and no matter how much critical theorists rely on the slippery and ever-changing definitional permutations of equity, intersectionality, systemic oppression, heteronormativity, cisgenderism, social justice, colorblind racism, white supremacy, whiteness, white privilege, male privilege, cisgender privilege, nonbinaryism,⁹ etc., Christians must not attempt to corral the scattered and (supposedly) novel ideas of CT under the same umbrella as past false teachings that are directly addressed by scripture and/or past work of Christian apologetics. Rather, they, like the academic class, must take every idea within CT seriously, no matter how blatantly idiotic it obviously is.

Relying on Leftists

The epistemic neutrality and consequently predictable leftist subversion within Dilemma is made additi onally evident in the experts/voices the book chooses to cite. Progressive Baptist pastor Thabiti Anyabwile (“Ron Burns” before he changed his name to an African-sounding one as a black nationalist only to inexplicably keep it upon his conversion to Christianity) is quoted positively from his 2007 and 2015 books as critical of Black Liberation Theology,¹⁰ with no warning about Anyabwile’s clear history of leftism. Anyabwile has openly advocated for woman preachers, racial reparations, endorsed pro-choice politicians, and most recently openly endorsed the radical leftist presidential ticket of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Readers treated to the endorsement by contextual omission who respond by trusting Anyabwile as Dilemma does would unwittingly be running headlong into Anyabwile’s destructive leftist teaching. Positive reviews and endorsements of Anyabwile’s books were written by Shenvi in 2019 and 2020 and remain on his website – again, with no warning of the dangers of Anyabwile’s leftism.

Notorious progressive and Kamala endorser David French is relied upon as a 2018 critic of intersectionality,¹¹ similarly absent any warning for readers against French’s notorious decline into leftism, which has seen him support gay marriage, so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors, and famously call subjecting children to drag queen gender confusion a “blessing of liberty.”

In its section defining evangelical theology, Dilemma addresses the existence of “numerous joint statements on issues of theological and social importance in recent decades,”¹² including 1987’s Danvers Statement and 2017’s Nashville Statement, both arguing for biblical sexual ethics in the church and society at large. Notably absent from this section is 2018’s Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel (also called the Dallas Statement), with which numerous conservative evangelical leaders addressed their concerns about social justice, critical race theory, cultural Marxism, Rauschenbuschism, and intersectionality. The absence of any discussion of a statement by well-known evangelical leaders addressing the exact issues Shenvi and Sawyer’s book addresses may very well be the most pointed and petty evidence of Dilemma’s Trojan Horse purpose – to provide an acceptable and defensible critique of CT to serve as insulation for those evangelical leaders who play footsie with wokeness as they seek the approval of the world around them. Incidentally, the Dallas Statement was decried in 2018 by critical race theorist Jemar Tisby, who recommended that the signers of the statement be avoided. Shenvi and Sawyer do just that.

Playing By the Left’s Rules

Perhaps the most pernicious and grievous error of Critical Dilemma is that while positioning itself as a fair-minded response to CT, it regularly and consistently accepts the definitional and ideological premises of the left. The book lets the left define the playing field for the discussion, granting with zero pushback many of the concepts, terminology, and historical claims of the left, and regularly encourages Christians to grant these etymologically while knowing full well that these “truths” come with preloaded conceptual meaning.

The book encourages Christians to affirm “systemic injustice,” stating that evil is “not merely a matter of individual, personal attitudes and actions” and that “Critical social theorists rightly recognize what the Bible itself affirms: that laws and systems can also be unjust.”¹³ Yet “systemic injustice” as a concept of CT is a mechanism through which people groups can be held collectively, legally responsible for the potential actions of other members of the group. This is categorically different from the Bible’s teaching that individuals are to be held accountable for their own sin. Even the verses Shenvi and Sawyer reference here describe laws enacted and actions taken by individuals in power, not “systems” or collectives. By encouraging Christians to affirm the idea that societal “systems” can be unjust, the book cedes the primary distinction between biblical justice and CT’s “justice.”

The continuation of this error is seen a few pages later as Shenvi and Sawyer recommend “defeating” the extreme claims of CT by, for example, granting the existence of outcomes like racial disparity without condemning the systems that cause the outcomes.¹⁴ Shenvi and Sawyer attempt to show how Christians can defeat an extreme claim like “all whites are racist” by granting the more “reasonable” claim that “all whites participate in systems that perpetuate racial disparities.” Yet the truly subversive claim of CT within this example – that racial disparity is a wrong that needs correction and that anti-marxist systems like marriage and capitalism perpetuate (ongoingly cause) this wrong – slips right by Shenvi and Sawyer, whose strategy results in trying to defend the weak claim that participants in a system that causes negative racial outcomes are not indeed racist due to their participation. The strategy leaves untouched the claims CT happily affirms – that is, the inherent racism of marriage, private property, and inheritance.

In describing what CT gets right and its valuable and positive insights, Shenvi and Sawyer unquestioningly grant the validity of leftist and unbiblical concepts like “marginalization,” the gay (or LGBTQ+) “community,” and “black and brown voices” (even while Dilemma disapproves of these kinds of racial categorizations elsewhere). The authors assume what might be called “woke right” positions on economics (blaming the free market for pornography the same way the left blames it for poverty¹⁵), encouraging Christians to affirm the true things critical theorists say¹⁶ (recently, Shenvi has publicly warned of the risk of openly affirming true things Hitler said), and stating without qualification that race may very well play “the main role” in our culture¹⁷ (a core tenet of critical race theory).

The book provides a logical defense for racial preferences in hiring (by recommending that a hirer might, in theory, use “race” as a substitute for cultural or language qualifications),¹⁸ recommends that colleges “repair the damages” done by past prejudicial policies against blacks by “broadcasting its [now not racist] attitude” along with additional race-based marketing strategies, so long as it stops short of simply expelling white students.¹⁹

The book states that “Christians must reject the idea that justice is predicated on equality of outcome” right before encouraging leaders to “ask questions about whether a particular law, policy, or procedure is unintentionally creating barriers [that are causing disparate outcomes among racial groups] that can either be mitigated or removed,”²⁰ a suggestion premised on the idea that equality of outcome among racial groups is a marker of justice.

Similarly, the book advances the notion that a so-called “colorblind” perspective is flawed because it “can lead to a type of erasure of non-White people’s experiences, especially those of black people.”²¹ Somehow the book’s encouragement to avoid using blanket racial hiring preferences and instead see “race” as a proxy for cultural/language qualifications (not using color in place of individual attributes) is overturned a mere three pages later in favor of going along with a person who demands they be treated in accordance with what their color “experiences.”

“Hegemonic power” is perhaps the most loaded concept that Dilemma calls on Christians to accept. While Shenvi and Sawyer insist that Christians see its “reality” and be concerned about the problems it supposedly reveals,²² they support this insistence by describing how influential the advertising and entertainment industries are. Yet these examples are merely indicators of influence pressing against the free will of individuals, not demonstrations of control over the oppressed by the oppressor class – the defining characteristic of “hegemony” as advanced within CT. Any Christian granting the validity of “hegemonic power” may very well think they are acknowledging the influence of advertising, yet unwittingly they are granting one of the fundamental concepts of Marxist collectivism.

Cart Before the CRT/I Horse

The above examples of the epistemological minefield that is Dilemma are hardly exhaustive. And inevitably, there is content within the book that, when examined in isolation, directly challenges or contradicts its issues as presented above. Yet rather than serve to counter this critique, the allowance of so many potential positional permutations demonstrates the uselessness and danger of the epistemologically expansive approach the book employs. Much like Pat Sawyer adminttedly uses components of CT and critical pedagogy in his work²³ while he is inexplicably considered an expert opponent of these same ideas, Neil Shenvi supported the SBC’s Resolution 9 that described critical race theory and intersectionality (CRT/I) as “useful analytical tools” while voicing opposition to claims that CT’s ideas were inseparable from worldview, yet now he claims in Dilemma that not only are these ideas not tools, but they “provide a consistent, coherent way to view all reality.”²⁴

After Resolution 9’s passing, Shenvi told pastor Tom Ascol that he thought it was a “good resolution that he hoped would pass” based on his agreement with the specific, technically correct language, yet he understood why it was opposed by those who knew the resolution’s developmental background (believing that the “tools” of critical race theory and intersectionality could not be divorced from the unbiblical worldview they supported). When challenged by those concerned that CRT/I led to an unbiblical worldview, Shenvi was quick to assert that it was actually worldview that led to CRT/I, an ideological subordination that makes it easier to claim CRT/I can be “useful” without necessarily having to adopt its associated worldview. Or, as Shenvi and Sawyer write in Dilemma, “One could, in principle, accept 25 percent of the claims of contemporary critical theory and reject the rest without adopting contemporary critical theory as a worldview lens through which to understand and interpret the world.”²⁵ Yet this caveat followed the claim that the ideas of CT are “totalizing,” and that they “will seek to…subsume every other aspect of our thinking.”²⁶ Is CRT/I a tool? Is it a worldview? Should Christians expect it to stay safely in a little corner, or slowly grow to consume all aspects of a Christian’s worldview? Readers can find clear support for both sides of all of these questions in Dilemma. And this problem makes the book a bigger source of problems than solutions.

The mishmash of claims, qualifications, partial restatements of and/or slightly modified versions of previous points, and definitional shifts is enough to make any reader’s head spin. The book’s near-constant employment of “technically correct when disconnected from common use,” which mirrors Shenvi’s defense of his support for Resolution 9,²⁷ leaves readers hopelessly in possession of hundreds of potentially acceptable ideological mixes of CT and Christianity.

Does a reader want the freedom to adopt some “useful” ideas of CT in order to endear themselves to the contemporary woke zeitgeist yet deftly avoid the label “Marxist” from ignorant fundamentalists? Critical Dilemma is the book for them. That is, if they have the time to untangle it to make any sense of it at all. The primary utility of the book seems to be credentialling Shenvi and Sawyer as “experts” with the power to both absolve leaders of credible accusations of wokeness and launder in a wide array of potential combinations of biblical truth mixed with CT error.

1. Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer, Critical Dilemma: The Rise of Critical Theories and Social Justice Ideology for the Church and Society (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2023), 205. ↩︎
2. Ibid. 206. ↩︎
3. Both the certifiably woke and unwoke-but-less-informed popular-level theological voices appear among the book’s endorsers. ↩︎
4. In the forward, Carl Trueman describes the book’s engagement with critical theory as “charitable,” a term used within endorsements by K.A. Ellis, Danny Akin, and Keith Plummer. ↩︎
5. Shenvi and Sawyer, Critical Dilemma, 69. ↩︎
6. Ibid., 88. ↩︎
7. Ibid., 25. ↩︎
8. Ibid., 2. ↩︎
9. Ibid., 25. ↩︎
10. Ibid., 268, 272. ↩︎
11. Ibid., 280. ↩︎
12. Ibid., 255. ↩︎
13. Ibid., 207-208. ↩︎
14. Ibid., 209-210. ↩︎
15. Ibid., 212. ↩︎
16. Ibid., 213. ↩︎
17. Ibid., 217. ↩︎
18. Ibid., 224. ↩︎
19. Ibid. ↩︎
20. Ibid. ↩︎
21. Ibid., 227. ↩︎
22. Ibid., 289. ↩︎
23. Ibid., 286. ↩︎
24. Ibid., 285. ↩︎
25. Ibid. ↩︎
26. Ibid. ↩︎
27. Shenvi argued that a ministry for unwed mothers being different from women’s, singles, or pregnancy ministries qualifies as “intersectionality,” with no mention that critical theorists use the concept for legal and justice issues. ↩︎

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us

Save

About Author

David Morrill

See author's posts

If you value journalism from a unapologetically Christian worldview, show your support by becoming a Protestia INSIDER today.