For example, “intersectionality” in its most general form refers to how different classes of people in society experience power or the lack of it differently, and how belonging to multiple classes can compound that one way or another.

That may lead to all kinds of Marxist claptrap about class warfare, etc., but it is not an illegitimate idea altogether. If you were a helpless widow in first century Israel, you would not have judged it illegitimate at all. If you crossed multiple social classes and were, for example, a Greek-speaking widow in the first century church, you may have been the first to recognize you were being overlooked, neglected, left out, and you may have complained about it in those terms. This is exactly what happened (Acts 6:1–7).

When faced with just such an example of intersectionality in the early church, the Apostles went the extra mile to make sure the marginalized group was cared for. The church met this intersectional social concern directly and ordained six Greek­-named deacons to serve the Greek speaking widows among their Hebrew society.

If you today were to speak up about it like they did, as “Greeks against Hebrews,” though, I am afraid the authors and many signers of this document would not have acted with as much empathy as the Apostles. This Statement would instead have you accused of acting like “entitled victims of oppression,” and the leaders would probably have demanded you apologize to whichever leaders felt offended by such a complaint.

In short, there are people who wrongly pose as entitled victims of oppression, but there are also genuine entitled victims of oppression, but this Statement provides a platform by which both may be overlooked without distinction.

Likewise, to be a slave in antebellum America was obviously one level of oppression. To be a female slave, however, carried additional burdens, particularly regarding sexual vulnerability and the lack of legal protections for it. Like it or not, this is intersectionality.

Long story short, it is hardly a concept to be dismissed summarily in such a manner, let alone blanket-condemned as unbiblical.

Response to “The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel” by Joel McDurmon

The mere fact that McDurmon is willing to consider the perspective of the Liberal, and see where they are (even partly) justified, is something to behold.

When more Christians – especially the leaders – read and think, before they open their mouth (instead of just doing the reactionary thing), we will not only reflect our King better; we will (after a while) find it easier to redeem the culture and the nations.

We need more Christians – leaders, but also laymen! – who read and think, before they speak.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.