Critiquing is not just criticising. It is not just showing where the other thought is deficient but why it is deficient. Critiquing is not just of the detail of inadequate research methods. Those do of course matter, but critiquing goes much deeper.
Critiquing involves laying bare the assumptions and presuppositions that underlie the other thought and then showing how they prevent the other thought achieving what it most deeply wishes for or values.
Critiquing does not mean forcing other assumptions and presuppositions on the other thought, but it means laying bare the assumptions or presuppositions in ways with which (open-minded) proponents of the other thought would agree, once they saw them. Critiquing helps them to see any fundamental inconsistencies that have hindered them. The idea of such fundamental inconsistencies is well discussed by Roy Clouser (2005).
Example: As we saw earlier, Feminism wishes to recover an holistic perspective on aspects that are important to life, by restoring long-overlooked "feminine" aspects, given the long emphasis on "masculine" aspects. There is a tendency in feminist thought to replace the masculine aspects with the feminine. While this might be understandable from the idea of pendulum swinging from one pole to the other, it ultimately undermines the desire for holism. Does not the holistic desire imply that the overlooked aspects should be restored alongside, rather than instead of, the others? The tendency to swing from one pole to the other presupposes that reality has two opposing poles of what is meaningful - and Dooyeweerd  traces three such 'ground-motives' in Western thought over the past 2,500 years. Dooyeweerd also argues that such polar dualism is not Truth, not even one valid option, but that it always has wrought havoc on philosophical and scientific thought, and always will. Dooyeweerd calls, like the feminists most deeply do, for holism in which all aspects are celebrated together and in a true harmony. (The issue of how to achieve this is a different challenge, and might indeed some over-elevation of overlooked aspects for a time.)
However, they are not the kind of critique we mean here, because they do not involve any change of perspective (paradigm, viewpoint, philosophical underpinning, etc.), which is what good quality Christian thought can bring to the discourses. That kind of critique is at the deeper level, of questioning assumptions and presuppositions.
Since the Christian thinker often comes to a field from a different direction, they can more easily see what is taken for granted. That is, perhaps, the main contribution that Christian thinking can make when engaging with mainstream thought.
Assumptions and presuppositions steer in different ways.
Assumptions rest on presuppositions. For example: The assumption "It might rain tomorrow" is not meaningful if we are in a desert, because the possibility of rain is presupposed by the assumption.
We can contribute to the other thought or idea by questioning its assumptions and also its three levels of presupposition, but do so in different ways. The difference between these is not well understood, so it requires some explanation. That is the topic of the next piece.
Here are the elements of LACE:
Dooyeweerd H, (1979), "Roots of Western culture; Pagan, Secular and Christian options", Wedge Publishing Company, Toronto, Canada.
Author: Andrew Basden.
First created: 18 January 2021 Last updated: