Assuming one of the primary premises of much critical theory, power is always in play no matter the ethnicities involved or the time in history.
The book specifically focuses on "whiteness." Yet, what exactly the authors in the book mean by that is something of an enigma. The introduction, by Johnny Ramierz-Johnson and Love Sechrest, note that the other articles/chapters in the book "distinguish whiteness from white skin color and European ancestry." My experience interacting with those who promote the concept, albeit not scholars, suggests this is something a motte-and-bailey tactic.
Ramierz-Johnson and Sechrest go on to say whiteness is "an idolatrous way of being in the world." I am not entirely clear what they mean by "way of being in the world." I did a few cursory searches, and it seems to be a term of art amongst scholars in Whiteness Studies and related fields. The best I've been able to gather is that it means something akin to "a way of thinking and living." And I assume "idolatrous" refers to "white supremacy" in that one might place primacy on "white people" being superior to others. Though, I am still not clear on this.
And to note, the lack of clarity is one of the common accusations leveled against those in the field. Ambiguous terminology seems to trade on the emotional impact while being able to say, "No, no. That's not what we mean by that."
That being said, do we want to reject the Hellenism that had influenced Judaism and ultimately found expression in the New Testament, e.g. the concept of the Logos? Probably not. Nonetheless, we would have to admit that Alexander the Great's conquests and the following power dynamics instantiated by his generals is what made Hellenistic influence on Judaism possible.
Agreed. This is definitely one of the problems which comes up with critical theories in general. Where is the end? It often seems to be arbitrarily defined by adherents of such theories (interpretational frameworks?).
Maybe one positive take away from critical theory is the simple recognition of how power works in the kingdoms of the world. That doesn't mean we need to accept a particular version, e.g. critical race theory, without critique. But we can be like the Hebrews when they left Egypt, taking what is useful, while leaving the rest behind.
I first came across Critical Theory in graduate school. It was presented in a course on sociolinguistics, but it was present amongst other approaches. Thus, it was not presented as the end-all, be-all solution. At that time (and still), I found it an interest concept and perhaps it could be used as a tool for analysis, but I always found the need for "emancipation" to be a little off.
I think Critical Race Theory (theories) might be in the same vain. That is, it might tell us something useful, but I am concerned that pushed to a status higher than a mere tool could effectively undermine the Gospel in Christian circles. Of course, that very challenge of CRT might be seen as "whiteness" in action by some and hence racist (i.e., by challenging CRT one is rejecting the "lived experiences" of people of color).
