Skip to main content

A Brief Contrast between the Gospel in Paul's Letter to the Romans and Critical Theory

Introduction

Consider four distinctions between the Gospel in Paul's Letter to the Romans and the basic views of Critical Theory.

The Gospel and Humanity

    Scripture: 'All'

Fundamental to an understanding of the Gospel is that all divisions of humanity are in the same situation, whether with respect to their plight or their salvation.

Romans 3.23 (ESV): 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God....'

Romans 1.16 (ESV): the Gospel is 'the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.'

    Critical Theory: 'Two Groups'

Critical theory divides the world into two groups: the privileged and the victims.  Those who have must have because they were privileged, not because they earned it.  Those who do not have must not have because they are victims.  

The Gospel and Justice

     Scripture:

Justice is impartially giving all people what they deserve.

Romans 2.11-13: 'For God shows no partiality.  12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all    who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.'

    Critical Theory:

Injustice is systemic.  The privileged have unjustly acquired what they they do not deserve, and the victims do not have what they justly deserve.  Justice must be partial, giving those in the class of victimhood preferences over those in the class of privileged oppressors.

The Gospel and Mercy

    Scripture:

Mercy is giving people what they do not deserve.

Romans 11.32 (ESV): For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

    Critical Theory:

Social justice is taking what the privileged have away from them and giving it to the victims, or the descendants of the victims.  Those with privileged identities are oppressors.  They deserve only to be cancelled.  There is no place for mercy for them.  Giving victims what they deserve is not mercy but social justice.

The Gospel and Grace

    Scripture:

Grace is giving people mercy because justice is served.

Romans 5.8 (ESV): ‘but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.’

Romans 6.23 (ESV): 'For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.'

    Critical Theory:

Grace is injustice. There must be no grace.  The privileged oppressors are forever unjust by virtue of their identity groups.  They must not be given grace.  Victims are forever deserving reparations.  What they take from others, they deserve.  The cross is a symbol of injustice, not grace.

Conclusion

Such is the challenge of proclaiming the Gospel in the West.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Alasdair MacIntyre and Tradition Enquiry

Alasdair MacIntyre's subject is philosophical ethics, and he is best known for his critique of ethics understood as the application of general, universal principles.  He has reintroduced the importance of virtue ethics, along with the role of narrative and community in defining the virtues.  His focus on these things—narrative, community, virtue—combine to form an approach to enquiry which he calls ‘tradition enquiry.’ [1] MacIntyre characterises ethical thinking in the West in our day as ethics that has lost an understanding of the virtues, even if virtues like ‘justice’ are often under discussion.  Greek philosophical ethics, and ethics through to the Enlightenment, focussed ethics on virtue and began with questions of character: 'Who should we be?', rather than questions of action, 'What shall we do?'  Contemporary ethics has focused on the latter question alone, with the magisterial traditions of deontological ('What rules govern our actions?') and tel...
Post a Comment
Read more

Was Jesus’ Criticism of the Pharisees’ Ethic Its Legalism or Lawlessness?

The popular understanding of the Pharisees is that they were legalists.  This is not, however, Jesus’ criticism of their ethics, even though the charge of Pharisaic legalism comes from a (mis)reading of the Gospels.  The Pharisees are cast in popular imagination as the quintessential example of legalists, overly focussed on rules and promoting works in order to attain righteousness apart from God’s grace.  The latter view, that Judaism overall and the Pharisees in particular advocated works righteousness, has been loudly criticised in light of numerous texts in second temple Judaism, celebrating God’s grace in choosing the Jews, not self-righteous works. [1]   Be that as it may, the Pharisees have remained the foil to Christian ethics precisely over their purported legalism—a focus on unloving, unforgiving rules and regulations that also places norms above, purportedly, higher moral principles.  Jesus’ ethic is contrasted as an ethic of forgiveness, mercy, love...
Post a Comment
Read more

Early Christian Views on Wealth, Possessions, and Giving

[The following post continues notes and studies on the issue of wealth, poverty, and Christian ethics.  It originally appeared in an online publication: Rollin G. Grams, 'Early Christian Views on Wealth, Possessions, and Giving,'   Explorations (Fall, 2010), an online publication of the Robert C. Cooley Center for the Study of Early Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.  Online:  https://www.scribd.com/document/41882213/The-Cooley-Center-Articles-Early-Christian-Views-on-Wealth ]  For several reasons, study of early Christianity in Protestant circles is on the rise.  Ecumenical dialogue, for instance, requires a return to the common ground of Christian writers prior to the great schisms of the Church throughout history.  Also, an increasing interest in worship and spiritual disciplines has sent some Protestants on pilgrimage to more ancient and liturgical forms of the church.  Recent challenges to long-standing Christian practices...
Post a Comment
Read more