My comments in this post build off of parts one, two, and three. We dive back into our interaction with CRT in order to understand three final problems with this system.
Fifth, CRT destabilizes truth, making it narratival rather than absolute. We see the postmodern dimension of CRT here. CRT emphasizes “my truth,” which when possessed by an unprivileged person becomes a weaponized tool of cultural change. Postmodernity, we recognize, is not actually “soft” truth, though; it is actually “hard” truth, very hard indeed. Yet there is no deeper ontological grounding for postmodern truth, and for CRT; rather, CRT simply asserts its commitments without foundation beyond the personal.
Point - Narratival - Relative - Truth - Truth
It is difficult to underplay how significant this point is. If we make truth narratival and relative rather than theistic and absolute, we lose truth. If we lose truth—true truth, normative and norming truth—then we lose the super-structure of the gospel and the Christian faith. Christianity depends upon truthfulness; truthfulness is grounded in the character and identity of God. To personalize and relativize truth is to take truth out of God and ground it in us. Doing so means that truth claims are merely the opinions of one group; CRT oddly makes the claims of a single person representative of their entire ethnic or racial group, eliding the fact that people of different ethnicities differ wildly in their viewpoints.
This general viewpoint means that reading theology, for example, can become little more than a matter of identifying a given author’s background and ethnicity. Theology and biblical interpretation thus morphs into sociology. This is deeply damaging to the pursuit and adjudication of truth. Can we bring our biases and background into our work to its detriment? We surely can. Is it healthy to read a wide range of voices? It definitely is. Does this possibility of...
Wake Up To Breaking News!
Does it ever seem that life has become one long rerun?