We Need To Interact With The World Better Than This

Rosaria Butterfield (click here for a bio) has recently written an article for Table Talk (click here for the website but not the article) on a hot topic on which she is perceived in many Christian circles as being an expert. That subject is Intersectionality. And because Intersectionality includes a concern and struggle for equality for the LGBT community, and because Butterfield is a religiously conservative Christian as well as a former lesbian and academic, she has the credentials to speak with a assumed amount of authority on the subject. And that authority translates into a greater willingness by many her fellow religiously conservative Christians to assume what she says is correct without doing any deep thinking or investigating.

However, I also consulted an article by Anne Sisson Runyan (click here for a bio) on Intersectionality. The reason for that is because out of personal frustration as one who leans toward Marxism in dealing with fellow religiously conservative Christians. In my many conversations with my fellow believers, I was astounded at the reluctance of many, but not all, of them who assume that they know enough about Marxism without ever having read Marx. Runyan wrote an article for the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) on the subject of Intersectionality and its importance (click here for the article). I mention that article because if you so read the article by Runyan, you will have something to check Butterfield's views with.

We should immediately note at the beginning, the target audience of Intersectionality's and Butterfield's concerns are two groups that are somewhat different. The target audience that Intersectionality wishes to address is society at large. The target audience for Butterfield's comments is the Church. So here we need to keep in mind that the Church is part of society but not the other way around.

The question that Butterfield attempts to answer is whether the subject of Intersectionality can be a tool used by the Church. This is a concern for some because of how a Reformation 21 article noted that Intersectionality is making inroads into the PCA, which is a conservative denomination in the Protestant branch of the Church.

Butterfield's attempt suffers two major flaws. First, it starts out with a story of how, during one of her talks, a student was offended by the fact that during a conversation with trans friend, Butterfield referred to her friend's hands as being large. The student took offense at that thinking that it was hate speech. And such hate speech leads some in the LGBT community to commit suicide. Butterfield was astounded because she thought that such a reference was simply speaking observable truth.

From there, Butterfield goes on to define Intersectionlity as an analytical tool used to understand and then confront control that 'multiple white male heterosexual patriarchy' has over our society.  And if white male heterosexual patriarchy is to be undone, then much of what the Bible says about the relationships between men and women, especially the marital relationship, becomes a target of Intersectionality. And though she somewhat rectifies that description later in the article, her then description of Intersectionality fits a description of how Runyan sees some who trivialize Intersectionality:

Too often it is reduced to ticking off identity categories in so-called politically correct ways or misrepresented in contemporary identity politics and culture wars, which have erupted recently into the right-wing politics of white male victimization.

When one reads Runyan's account of Intersectionality, we see that Butterfield over simplifies aspects of its concerns. For one thing, at the beginning of the article, Butterfield seems to use that personal confrontation with a student as a way of generalizing what Intersectionality is about. 

But the coming together of Intersectionality was caused by studying how immigrant women of color were caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place in getting relief from spousal abuse. That is those women were suffering because of both their race and their gender. And that means that though they suffered racism, they did not suffer from it in the same way that their male counterparts did. Thus there is a connection between, or intersection of, the multiple sources of oppression for these women. In addition, the inadequacies of the then legal and other systems only ensured that many of those women would be imprisoned in their abusive marriages.

Butterfield's second flaw is that she makes a combination of distinctions that seem to strongly suggest that one specific group, the LGBT community, merits some of the oppression that comes their way from the old status quo. She does so by citing Denny Burk's criticism of Intersectionality. Burk emphasized the differences between descriptions of people that were 'morally-neutral' from those that are morally charged. So unlike race, sexual orientation and gender identity, because they violate what the Scriptures say, are 'morally charged.' And let's be clear, homosexuality and a gender identity that lies outside of what the Scriptures have defined deal with morally charged issues.

To be sure, Butterfield does not in any way condone physical violence being practiced against anyone because of their identity. But the question is whether what we say about or how we otherwise treat those in the LGBT community can possibly exhibit another kind of violence. It is a kind of violence that Martin Luther King Jr. described as 'internal violence.' It is violence of the spirit in which fear and hatred of a person or group is expressed.

Now before citing Burk, in her criticism of Intersectionality, Butterfield draws a distinction between material, or physical, harm and perceived, or 'dignitary,' harm. In other words, when we verbally assault, either explicitly or implicitly, a person's group, Intersectionality states that they suffer perceived harm because the dignity that comes from that group is being attacked and what follows are feelings of marginalization. And Butterfield never acknowledges that such attacks can be abusive and cause real harm.

All we need to say to show the harm that such attacks on someone's identity can cause is to point out either the humiliation that Blacks felt during Jim Crow such as when they were denied services at a restaurants and other places because of their race, or we could point to the trauma that spouses can experience when being emotionally abused by their partners.

However, this is where Burk's distinction between morally neutral  descriptions and morally charged descriptions come into play. For while Butterfield clearly opposes non physical attacks on the identity of people whose identity is morally neurtral, does she do the same for those whose differences are, rightfully, counted by the Scriptures as immoral and thus called morally charged?

This is where the target of Intersectionality and Butterfield's remarks come into play. Within the Church, the Scriptures do speak strongly against homosexuality and what is now considered to be gender identity issues. But do the Scriptures say that society should follow the Church's lead in how it responds to people who are homosexuals or whose gender identity is not according to how they were biologically born? After all, society is made up of both the Church and with unbelievers of many types. Should society act as supplementary disciplinary arm of the Church regarding LGBT issues? I see no evidence of that in the New Testament.

In addition, we religiously conservative Christians should note that when we call ourselves Christians, everything we do and say, as well as what we refrain from doing and saying  becomes associated with the Gospel. And we should note that the history of Western Civilizations progress often heavily rides on the back of oppressed groups. Intersectionality did not invent the different conflicts and oppression we see around us, it seeks to acknowledge them. Do we want to associate Christianity with that oppression anymore than it has been because of a Church history that is replete with examples of abuses, atrocities, and siding with wealth and power?

I guess whether Intersectionality can be a useful tool for the spread of the Gospel depends on the audience being reached. Certainly, there are parts, not all of it, that should govern how the Church relates to certain oppressed groups whose identity is not based on morally charged issues. And that should be true whether the target audience is the Church in how it treats its own members or how the Church relates to those in society. But what about those whose identity is based on morally charged issues? Should the Church seek their marginalization or their equality in society? Again we should note that whatever we do and say as well as refrain from doing and saying affects the reputation of the Gospel in the eyes of those who need to hear it the most
 
We should also note that whether we will recognize the contributions that Intersectionality can make in helping the Church  spread the Gospel depends on how much we conflate Western Civilization with all of its wars, imperialism, colonialism, racism, sexism and other avenues of exploitation and abuse with Christianity, which is claimed to be part of the foundation of Western Civilization.

Like Marxism, there are parts of Intersectionality that we must, as Christians, firmly reject. But also like Marxism, there are parts of Intersectionality that should serve as a great and positive influence for how we see the world and interact with it. Unfortunately, Butterfield does not see it that way.