Bear in mind that all "Theory" is post-Modernist--meaning that it largely derives from Derrida and the Frankfort School. Thus, there is no real meaning to words (Derrida) and all--ALL--can be analyzed in Marxist terms. That is, "power," whether through money (traditional Marxism) or through race, sex, 'identity', .....whatever. As we'll briefly explain below, all this "Theory" is explicitly un-Christian, if not plainly anti-Christian. (HT: AOSHQ which has a lot more on this matter.)
Longer, more explicit:
...In general, Theory is a nonscientific approach to studying the ways that systemic power exists and oppresses in society. That is, Theory is a particular kind of study of justice and injustice as those are shaped by typically vague, sometimes paranoid, usually cynical forces in society that maintain dynamics of dominance and oppression (see also, e.g., interest convergence), typically by factors of identity. Theory’s concern is identifying these power dynamics, exposing them (with explanations given in its characteristic simplistic and cynical fashion), and finding ways to change or overthrow them. In this sense, Theory explicitly sees everything as being political, even intellectual rejection or emotional reactions to its bullying methods (see also, white fragility, white woman tears, and male tears). Moreover, Theory will see the political relevance of anything as its most important, if not its only relevant, feature.
- it proposes a moral vision for society;
- it ruthlessly (following Marx) criticizes society and especially social systems and institutions for failing to live up to this vision (see also, problematize); and
- it motivates activism on behalf of identifying, disrupting, dismantling, subverting, and deconstructing the system that produces those problematics (see also, antiracism, consciousness raising, feminist consciousness, critical consciousness, and wokeness, and also, false consciousness, internalized dominance, and internalized oppression), which it also tends to see as ordinary and permanent, thus unfixable from within the system (see also, master’s tools and epistemic oppression).
This makes Theory not just radical but revolutionary, as a social revolution that remakes the system is the only way it deems it possible to create a society free of the current manifestations of systemic power.
This, in turn, means that the primary methods of Theory are (1) to look for examples of problematics and other proofs of systemic power that it assumes pervade all of social reality (therefore with profound impacts on how we understand material reality as well), and then (2) to describe those and their alleged impacts and make calls for their identification and dismantling. This is done under a heading of “identifying unexamined assumptions and hidden biases,” which, again, places it squarely in the critical tradition. Theory operates, in particular, by examining the way that knowledge and language shape and define power, which puts it in the (post)structural tradition. Thus, we can conclude against the protests of philosophers that Theory is critical postmodern theory....
You see Scratch's ardent admirer Alinsky in the bullet-points, and Alinsky's eager servant Obama, too!
(Question: is Alinsky's admiration for Satan transitive to Obama?)
"Theory" stands in opposition to Christianity because it excludes consideration of the nature of Man. Theorists deny the existence of God as understood in Christianity and Judaism; then they deny the narrative of the Fall, which is the cause of 'problematics.' Since they deny the Fall, they deny Redemption, thus their focus on politics--which, to them, is where 'redemption' actually lies.
There is sin, of course, but it is 'sin' as defined by Theorists. Theorists bless 'transgender'--which is a flat-out denial of reality--making those who deny "gender theory" into sinners to Theorists. Similarly, Theorists bless abortion and queer 'marriage,' which to Christians are crimes against nature. But recall: Theorists do not accept Nature, much less Nature's God.
This dissonance is the underlying reason for the "populist" revolt against Critical Race Theory. That revolt is born of common sense, which DOES recognize the laws of Nature and Nature's God. The populists (for lack of a better term) do not clearly articulate their overall objections, but that's because until post-Moderns started afflicting society, no one had ever denied reality and attempted to politicize it.
"Theorists" will never succeed. When your first proposition is false, all the rest are dross.