Biblical Critical Theory - Interview with Dr. Chris Watkin 

I heard of the book. I was skeptical. I really appreciate this conversation with Dr. Watkin. I really appreciate the style and approach toward philosophy and culture in the light of scripture

Have him debate James Lindsey.

I’m REALLY looking forward to this book!! Thanks for this convo.

I’ll definitely be interested in reading this with regard to its engagement with philosophy as well as culture. In my own reading, I’ve been noticing some unexpected parallels between folks like William Alston’s work in the analytic tradition and Paul Ricoeur’s in the Continental tradition, which if I heard correctly might be explored in some fashion Watkin’s book (though perhaps not between Alston and Ricoeur in particular). As one who migrated from the Lutheran to the Anglican tradition some time back, I’ve also been trying to determine how to orient myself to Christ and culture questions, as there are still many ways in which I struggle to see things through anything but the two kingdoms model I was raised with. (I’m also a sucker for anything having to do with Augustine, since he was my gateway drug into philosophy in college.) Sounds like this book could be some great food for thought.

Thanks Michael for this discussion, eagerly waiting this book and nice to have some Ra ra.

I'm not sold on Critical theory, at least not how it is manifesting itself in Canada, but I'm pretty sold on Prof. Watkin. Even if I have to read The City of God. Book ordered.

Early in the interview around the 12 to 13 minute mark, Watkin makes an analogy between Christianity and CRT and post-modernism and CRT. The former, he neglects the ways in which we actually do have healthy conversations about using "Christianity" or at least particularly streams of Christianity as a basis. The unity founded on shared principle (based on creeds, organizations, communities, or rivers of thought and practice) is a jumping off point for conversation about real things. One need not narrow to a singular theorist of Christianity to have a meaningful discussion about it. Second, the parallel he draws between post-modernism and Marxism seems to hinge on that actually being a paralllel, but it's not the case. He never demonstrates that there is as much difference between the critical theorists or the CRT thinkers as there are between for instance Derrida and Foucault. One need not do thesis level research to understand the core themes and/or have intelligent conversation about critical theory or CRT. Notice, Watkin wrote a book about Fouault and Derrida, but he wrote one singular book about CRT, admittedly a rather long tome. I don't think you can make the case that post-modernism and CRT are so called "empty signifiers" which seems to be the requirement to fully advance the case that the labels or streams of thought aren't helpful. I will admit that he does make a case that it can be helpful to do so at a more micro-level, rather than the macro-level. Are there similarities among CRT thinkers? Yes, for a number of years they have yearly events in which they did Law Review round ups based the themes within CRT. So, this seems to significantly challenge the underlying principle that. CRT has self-categorized itself--no need to per se map that territory. There are also a number of CRT readers (two of which I've read), which have shaped the CRT canon if you will. I think the claim Watkin is making is "you can have more productive conversations at the level of singular theorist" but even this claim is founded on the larger parallels he's attempting to draw between post-modernism, Marxism, and CRT, which aren't sustainable comparisons when you view them in the light. The claims he's making in this area seems rather feeble, or at least much less strong that the more grandiose or robust level he is asserting them at. To be fair, I'm not sure why analogies that aren't analogies constitute legitimate argument. Perhaps this is my own desire to be transparent about analogies that are true analogies. I would be glad to hear a further development or more nuanced version of the original claims. It may indeed be the case that the underlygin advice is still true, but the argument doesn't seem to be much of an argument. All of that that said, I'm very glad he wrote the book and I hope it does well. Based on it's influece and sales to date, I would suggest it will.

Dr. Chris Watkin misses the point entirely! Critical Theory is literally a lens to ruthlessly and relentlesly critisize everything that is - including God and Christianity - nothing is holy to Critical Theory...except for Critical Theory itself.