Chris Watkin’s Biblical Critical Theory has been much lauded in evangelical circles over the past year. Because I clearly suffer from extreme FOMO I decided to read it too.
No, that’s not fair at all, it’s lauded by people I respect greatly so I hoped that it would be a useful and beneficial read. I was already a little wary because there’s an endorsement on the back from Kevin Vanhoozer (who should really know better) declaring it City of God 2.0. I don’t think it’s impossible for something written now to match up to one of the greatest works of Christian thinking, but I do think it’s impossible for us to know. That sort of plaudit requires centuries of useful use before it can be applied.
As is obvious from the title, I don’t think the book is all that. Except that’s too harsh. Biblical Critical Theory (hereafter BCT) has its detractors. They range from those who are offended by the title (a marketing mistake, in my opinion, but a big one), to those who think it’s nothing new and don’t understand the fuss, through to the thoughtful but devasting review by Brad East.
I’m not East and so don’t expect this to be so erudite, but I’d like to push back slightly. I have pondered whether this is a useful thing to write, this book has been much written about, but I think I am saying something slightly different. I’m glad the book was written, I think it’s a useful contribution and should be read by some, but I have a number of qualms.
What BCT is trying to do
Watkin is attempting to construct a Christian version of the various critical theories that abound in the academy and are increasingly influencing the way that ordinary people shape their stories. It’s attempting to interpret the world—and he really does mean everything—through the lens of the Christian story.
This is a laudable aim, and much needed. His academic approach interacting with the best of the theorists the academy has to offer is not new for Christians, but it is (relatively) new for evangelicals. It’s certainly new at a semi-popular level in evangelical circles, though we’ll return to that thought in a moment.
I think the goal is good and much needed. I have concerns about some of the theological (and critical) methods employed, but that’s usually helpful in sharpening us. Thinkers should be reading books they disagree with, after all. I’m not sure the book accomplishes what it sets out to do, but the goal itself is worthy. Parts of BCT are superb, and I’ll turn there first.
What I liked
This won’t necessarily mean much to someone who hasn’t read the book, but I noted down the things I particularly benefited from and will be returning to the book for:
- The concept he introduces of the ‘figure’ rather than simply the ‘social imaginary.’ I have some critiques but it’s a new contribution to a discussion about how we live in the world and how the world changes us.
- His sections connecting the ideas of story and social imaginary and habit are well-done and contain a few new insights. His concepts of counterstory and counterdesire were helpful and will probably pop up in my writing at some point.
- His explanation of Heideigger and Time was very insightful and opened up some things for me that I hadn’t previously grasped.
- His argument against the Rawlsian neutral public square and that laws are orientated towards a vision of the good was well-stated, though does I think cut against his own project.
- His economic insights on the cross and resurrection were stimulating, though not pushed to an application (that’s a theme that will recur).
- His repeated use of the “u” and “n” ‘figures’ (I’d call them shapes) was a helpful frame for expressing a concept most evangelical will be familiar with.
- The parallax motif was a different way of explaining eschatological tension that made it easier to look at from another angle.
- His work on the two kinds of desire was well-stated.
- His critique of Charles Taylor was particularly interesting, for all I think incorporating Taylor’s best rather than rejecting it would be the way to go.
- The footnotes are great. This is an academic thing to say, but Watkin has given me some interesting new ideas of what to read for my own thinking and research.
- There was lots of Jacques Ellul.
Which leads me on to my first critique, because most of my readers haven’t got a clue what I’m talking about.
Who is this for?
This is a 650 page book, so it’s not ‘popular’ by any stretch. It regularly quotes complex thinkers with some expectation that you know who and what he’s talking about. Yet, each chapter starts with a sermonic illustration to introduce the concepts and he attempts pop culture illustrations throughout. It’s unclear who this is supposed to be written for; I think that accounts for a lot of its failing. This book would have been better if it was attempting to speak to the Christian ‘academy’—which is a concept that includes some pastors, but probably not most—or if it had been written entirely at the level of the average pastor. Both books would have been half the length.
To take just one example, he speaks of Qoheleth as though you would know who that was, which places the book in a very particular space that I don’t expect to find illustrations from Marvel films in.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Watkin is at his best when dealing with Philosophers and Critical Theorists. I found much of that illuminating—not necessarily of the world, but of what those thinkers thought. This isn’t surprising, that’s his academic expertise. His biblical studies work is thin, almost all at a popular level, which would be absolutely fine in a popular book. His theological work is, sadly, not there so much. He does lots of biblical theology, which is welcome, but it’s again mostly at the popular level.
I really think it’s two books.
Political Theology and Application
BCT misses large swathes of the biblical story, not least of the kingdom itself. This shows in his Political Theology, or the lack of it. He assumes many concepts—like that the Bible teaches against monarchy (and presumably is pro-liberal democracy)—that are not obvious in the Biblical text and need arguing for. In the same vein his theology of history doesn’t manage to teach us how to read history at all, it lacks conclusions. Very rarely does he suggest how we should apply the way he is saying to look at the world to the actual world as we find it. It’s lots of descriptions of telescopes without trying to look through one.
Which doesn’t have to be a bad thing—telescope manufacturers need to consider the science of that, after all. That’s a valuable book, but it’s not a popular book.
Diagonalisation
The big idea you leave BCT with is diagonalisation. Which essentially amounts to finding two dichotomous positions and showing how to the Bible they aren’t dichotomous at all, instead the Christian story affirms some of positions one and denies some of it too, and then likewise with position two. Cue lots of diagrams with a diagonal box between these two positions.
Of course, this is sometimes true, sometimes the Bible does cut between two modern positions suggesting a ‘third way.’ The problem is threefold: firstly it doesn’t always do this (we don’t solve all dichotomies the same way), secondly even when it does one position is sometimes still morally superior to the other even if it can be critiqued, and thirdly when a third way is proposed it isn’t always between the two positions the world has on the playing field. When diagonalisation works it can be a great tool to help Christians speak winsomely to culture.
The problem is it doesn’t always work, and BCT doesn’t—in my opinion—provide the tools to know how to deploy this tool reasonably and Biblically. The book felt a bit like hammer syndrome: when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Everything is dichotomised such that you can then drive down the middle. Some of them seem to be false dichotomies. We’re never told that one side of this is worse than the other, even though real choices in real life require this sort of thinking. It comes across as pietistic because it lacks for a political theology or application.
The most egregious example is when he discusses Brexit. Apparently both sides were wrong and the incarnation shows us that they were (facing universals against particulars and the incarnation is both combined). Assuming we allow his argument, how exactly does that help us know how to vote in the referendum as Christians? It appears to be an argument for abstaining but it isn’t applied thoroughly enough to understand how he thinks we should apply his thinking.
You find the same thing in his arguments about abortion, there’s no real suggestion as to what a Christian should do. That doesn’t make his thinking wrong, though I can’t figure out how to apply it so I’m unconvinced, but it does mean it’s a telescope manufacturing guide.
His Sources
I’m also not as sanguine as Watkin about the idea that you can quote Foucault without extensive and intensive criticism of his thought-world when trying to think Christianly.
To come from another angle, there’s a lot of Van Til and as a result not a lot of natural theology, which I think also weakens the arguments.
Is this really modestly critical?
I think so, because I am glad the book was written and glad I read it. Watkin is consciously outlining a field of study. Those who claim it’s all been written before are wrong I think, but neither is it as original as many have laid out. What is new is the shape of what he’s trying to do with these sources: apply the story of the Bible to the problems that the world presents as problems in a systematic way that can be replicated.
I don’t think he’s that successful, for the reasons outlined above, but I think someone had to go first. I am hopeful that those who follow after Watkin will critique his proposals but attempt the same feat. If you read his epilogue, I’m not sure he’d disagree with me on this point at least. Projects are allowed to fail, especially when they do so in instructive ways. This is an instructive book in both what it achieves and what it doesn’t. He should be commended for that and his work should be read, at least by the ‘Christian academy’—if that isn’t a thing I made up a few paragraphs before, anyway.
Perhaps it would be wise for others to attempt the same feat more thoroughly in much narrower slices of the world as we find it, as I suspect that the actual project attempted would need to be ten times the length to be successful. Those projects will be stemming from his work and will only exist because he wrote it.
What he’s attempted is probably impossible and so nobly fails as a result. That doesn’t make the attempt any less noble.
To subscribe and receive email notifications for future posts, scroll all the way to the bottom of the page.
Would you like to support my work? The best thing you can do is share this post with your friends. Why not consider also joining my Patreon to keep my writing free for everyone. You can see other ways to support me here.
nuakh 