Intersectionality and Christianity

About a month ago I read a five-part article by apologist Neil Shenvi and found it to be the most relevant analysis regarding the cultural conflict in America that I have read this year. I highly recommend reading A Long Review of Race, Class, and Gender when you have time. Read all five parts as parts 3 through 5 cannot be missed.

Here is a sampling:

Part 3 – the Ugly

Critical theory summarized

Critical theory unifies the essays in this anthology. Since critical theory is an interdisciplinary project that spans decades and dozens of distinct fields, defining it can be challenging. Moreover, since it often functions as a worldview (that is, as a comprehensive, interpretive framework for understanding reality), its tenets are often implicitly adopted rather than being explicitly stated. However, I’ll try to list a few of its fundamental assumptions, providing quotes from the book to illustrate each point (see below; more available on request).RaceClassAndGender

– Premise 1: human relationships should be fundamentally understood in terms of power dynamics, which differentiates groups into ‘oppressors’ and ‘the oppressed’
 Premise 2: Our identity as individuals is inseparable from our group identity, especially our categorization as ‘oppressor’ or ‘oppressed’ with respect to a particular identity marker
– Premise 3: All oppressed groups find their fundamental unity in their common experience of oppression
– Premise 4: The fundamental human project is liberation from all forms of oppression; consequently, the fundamental virtue is standing in solidarity against the oppressor

The four principles outlined above are not a random assortment of disconnected beliefs. Instead, they form a unified, coherent framework for viewing everything about our lives, from our identity, to our fundamental problem (oppression), to our fundamental moral duty (fighting for liberation), to the basis for unity between individuals (common oppression/solidarity). If we adopt them, they will dramatically influence how we think about many important issues, from poverty to abortion to human sexuality.

Part 4 – Critical theory and Christianity

In the last section, I gave several general reasons to reject the tenets of critical theory. In the next few sections, I’ll focus on reasons for Christians in particular to reject critical theory.RaceClassAndGender

Both Christianity and critical theory are worldviews; that is, they are comprehensive, coherent ways of looking at reality. However, I believe that they are mutually incompatible. To the extent that a person adopts a Christian worldview, they will have to abandon the basic tenets of critical theory if they are to remain consistent.

The first conflict between critical theory and Christianity relates to the issue of identity. Identity (that is, how we view ourselves and others) plays a tremendously important role in critical theory and in postmodernism. Critical theory would insist that gender, race, ethnicity, class, age, etc… are fundamental components of our identities. However, from a Christian perspective, there are three far more fundamental categories of identity which critical theory ignores. What is more, this omission is not accidental; it is a consequence of critical theory itself. As a result, we cannot simply tack Christianity on to critical theory, or vice versa. One will have to be rejected.

The three categories I have in mind are: 1) human beings as the imago Dei, 2) human beings as sinners, and 3) human beings as united in Christ. (continued…)



Dialogue between ex-Christian who converted to humanism and Christian





Saturday 7th April 2018 – 02:30 pm

Bart Campolo is the son of high-profile Christian speaker, author and sociologist Tony Campolo. Bart became a Christian in his teens and went on to run an inner city Christian youth ministry. However Bart recently announced that he had lost his faith altogether and become a Humanist chaplain.

Justin interviews Bart alongside Sean McDowell. Sean also has a well-known father in ministry – Josh McDowell. But when Sean experienced his own crisis of faith he found the rational basis he needed to support his faith. Justin chats to Bart about the reasons for his deconversion as spelled out in a recent documentary ‘Leaving My Father’s Faith’, and Sean responds to Bart’s newly adopted Humanist perspective.

The value of a human: Atheism vs. Theism

  1. either atheism or theism is true
  2. if atheism is true then there is no objective standard by which to measure human value and no duty to protect innocent humans.
  3. If theism is true, then a foundation for the intrinsic and objective value of human individuals exists as well as a duty to protect humans.
  4. Individual humans are objectively and intrinsically valuable and it is our duty to protect individual humans.
  5. therefore atheism is false.

Thought of the Day and Unrelated Articles

Thought of the day:

Memes are good conversation starters…But NOT good arguments.

Unrelated Articles of the day: (you do not need to subscribe to WSJ to read this, just type the title “A Liberal ‘Gets’ Religion” in Google search) (podcast)

Coercion and cultural bias against conservative religious groups?

-U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report-

-New American Bar Association Rules-


Crusades vs.Jihad?

I found This Article to be helpful on comparing the oft-cited atrocities of the west in the name of “Christianity” to the holy wars of Islam. there is a stark difference between Islam and Christianity that detractors of the west and Christianity should take seriously if they want to be intellectually honest.

I also recommend Paul Copan’s book Is God A Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God for an honest discussion about the God of Christianity as well as a rebuttal of many arguments against God by the “new Atheists”.

Article on Evolutionary Psychology

Interesting article. A lot of it was over my head but it is always nice to re-confirm infighting and disagreement among naturalists. Scientists dont have the corner on truth. Science is a term broadly used today to mean “truth” (scientism). This is false however as science is merely a methodology that provides raw data. Scientists are humans who have just as many biases and dogmas as any joe on the street. The author notes how “evolution” has been used by scientists as a method of gaining power and advancing political agendas throughout recent history. On a side note, if only physical explanations of human consciousness and behavior are available (as naturalism postulates), then I would like the author to offer an alternative-more plausible option than evolutionary psychology.