Intersectionality Devolves
Written by Christopher F. Rufo |
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
In 2015, BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors led a delegation to the Palestinian territories, so that the group’s activists could learn from the “Palestinian struggle.” She condemned Israel as an “apartheid state,” and the running theme of the trip was revolution, “from Ferguson to Palestine.” The same year, Cullors signed a statement drawing parallels between the Palestinian fight against Israel and the black one against America. During a speech at Harvard Law School, Cullors went further, telling the audience: “If we don’t step up boldly and courageously to end the imperialist project called Israel, we’re doomed.”
For years, left-wing intellectuals have treated “intersectionality” as an inevitability. The social theory, which holds that all oppressed peoples must join together to overthrow their common oppressor, has been an essential strategy of the Left.
There is some truth to this theory. When the fortunes of the Left are rising, intersectionality seems like a juggernaut: identity groups get aggregated into the mass, internal conflicts are subordinated to the cause of liberation, and a policy of “no enemies to the left” shifts political life in favor of the radicals. But the aura of inevitability surrounding the intersectional coalition is an illusion moments of crisis can bring suppressed contradictions to the surface and begin a process of fragmentation.
The recent Hamas terror campaign against Israel might become such a crisis. Following the attack, the foot soldiers of intersectionality—most notably, Black Lives Matter (BLM), the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and the academic “decolonization” movement—celebrated the militants who murdered civilians, raped women, and butchered babies. BLM’s Chicago chapter published a graphic lionizing the Hamas paraglider terrorists who killed innocents. The DSA blamed Israel for the terror attack against it, arguing that it was the “direct result of Israel’s apartheid regime.” Ivy League professors with expertise in “decolonization” called it a “stunning victory” and said that “Palestinians have every right to resist through armed struggle.”
For years, these academics and groups had been able to hide their ideological commitments and operate with an air of respectability. But after last week’s statements, they have encountered a well-deserved backlash. Jewish groups, including the generally left-wing Anti-Defamation League, have condemned BLM’s anti-Semitism. A Democratic congressman quit the DSA in protest. Major donors have rebuked Ivy League universities for failing to condemn Hamas forcefully. The Financial Times warned that the “left’s take on Hamas” could lead to a “Democratic party split.”
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Three Things Parents Must Do in the Gender Debate
The primary means of transforming culture is through the family. Families focused on the three things suggested here will be strong, and our civilization will reflect this standard. We didn’t get to this point in time overnight, and we won’t get out of it overnight. It will take time. In the meantime, the most important thing we can do is be faithful to Biblical truth.
In 1962, the famous saying, “what comes around goes around,” first appeared in the book Burn, killer, burn. The book is a semi-autobiographical novel about a death row inmate sentenced to 199 years in prison. Later, after being paroled, the former inmate would find himself back in prison having harassed a family member.
Everything we experience is subject to cycles. Creation is ordered around the earth’s four seasons. Life itself is full of a range of joys and sorrows with each passing year. As each new year passes, and with a renewed commitment to losing weight, the time clock begins all over again.egins all over again.
There’s another cycle for those paying attention, and grievance culture’s primary means of promoting this cycle is through the use of media narrative. While it’s challenging to prove nefarious intent, the practice of this emerging cycle is notable.
On the one end, you have the battle to “end racism,” as if that’s possible. This battle grabs headline attention for a season, as every story is about race. This cycle is directly attached to a two-to-four-year election cycle. In a broader sense, however, you can go back to riots of the 90s and those seeking justice for Rodney King. Thirty years later, we have the BLM riots for the justice of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and George Floyd.
On the other end, you have the battle for acceptance for a myriad of LGBTQ rights. In the 90s, you had the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies in the military and the battles for acceptance of same-sex unions. Twenty-five years later, we had the Obergefell decision and same-sex marriage.
What goes around indeed seems to be coming around.
The New Intersection—Transgender Way
As these two groups, Blacks and gays, engage in a battle for the culture’s attention, a new player within the intersectional LGBTQ coalition has emerged—the transgender.
With the entrance of the “T” of the LGBTQ agenda, things have become more confusing. With this new group, previously supported arguments have fallen apart. For example, most gay and lesbian rights advocates promoted being “born that way.” In other words, gay sexuality was not a choice but rather something they were born with. Some went so far as to say, “God made me this way.”
Now, transgender advocates reject the “we are born that way” argument. This new position denies being born a certain way, rejecting any social gender norm. Instead, they favor a purposely ambiguous and arbitrary non-standard existence—whatever that means.
We’ve gone from “gay being the new Black” in the early 2000s to transgender identity removing every clearly defined boundary regarding gender in 2022. Furthermore, anyone daring to address issues of gender in this current cultural milieu will quickly be Mirandized into silence.
Read More -
True Compassion and LGBTQ Weddings
Those who suggest that a Christian can and should attend an illegitimate, sinful “wedding” have suggested that attending the wedding of a friend or loved one is the compassionate thing to do so that we as Christians do not appear judgmental and that it is sometimes necessary for preserving the relationship. True compassion, however, does not approve of sin or give the slightest appearance of approving sin. It is never compassionate to approve of, silently bear witness to, or celebrate the very sins that are the grounds for eternal damnation for those who refuse to repent.
True Compassion in the Parable of the Prodigal Son
Perhaps no parable is more beloved than that of the prodigal son in Luke 15:11–32. It speaks to universal concerns and experiences. We all can feel the heartache of the father in the parable as we consider the sadness and pain of having a wayward child or friend, longing for our loved one to return in repentance and faith. We can also relate to the Prodigal Son because of our sin. We are like him when we turn from our sin and to our heavenly Father, knowing that He does not forgive reluctantly or give us mere table scraps, but rather that He celebrates our repentance. Moreover, many of us have known professing Christians who are like the older brother in the parable and who look down on repentant sinners with resentment because our heavenly Father has forgiven them. Maybe even we ourselves have acted like the older brother at times.
It is a good thing that this parable is so familiar and beloved for both its insight into the heart of God for the lost and because it addresses different kinds of human responses to God’s grace. At the same time, our love for this parable can make us miss all that the Lord Jesus Christ is teaching us through it. Further, our good and proper desire not to act like the older brother can make us susceptible to emotional manipulation from people who may be motivated by compassion for lost sinners but fail to make certain that their compassion is biblically consistent, being founded firmly on the unchanging truth of the whole counsel of God.
To understand what the parable of the prodigal son teaches us about the true compassion of God and the biblically grounded compassion that He calls us to have toward sinners, we must first look briefly at the immediate context of the parable in Luke 15:1–10. The parable of the prodigal son is the third in a series of parables about lost things—the lost sheep (Luke 15:4–7), the lost coin (Luke 15:8–10), and the lost son (Luke 15:11–32). Jesus tells these parables in response to the scribes’ and Pharisees’ grumbling that Jesus would receive and eat with sinners (Luke 15:1–2). From Jesus’ remarks in verses 7 and 10 over the joy in heaven over repentance, we can conclude that the scribes and Pharisees did not understand the extent of God’s mercy and grace. The actions of the shepherd in the parable of the lost sheep and the woman in the parable of the lost coin confirm this. God receives and rejoices over those who were once lost in their sin but are now united to Christ, having turned from their sin and trusted Christ by God’s grace alone. Jesus also teaches us about the compassion and care of God, who will do all that is necessary to find and rescue His lost sheep and bring them into His sheepfold, much as the shepherd and the woman stop everything else that they are doing to find the lost sheep and coin (Luke 15:3–10). God rejoices when people repent (Luke 15:7, 10), and it is His kindness that leads us to repent (Rom. 2:4). The Pharisees and scribes were wrong to grumble because their doing so meant either that they did not want sinners to repent or that they thought that those who repent of egregious sins do not deserve to receive the same warm, gracious, and celebratory welcome from God that those who repent of less heinous transgressions receive.
That brings us to the parable of the prodigal son. The younger son is a picture of those who sin grievously against the Lord. His asking for his inheritance from his father before his father died was tantamount to telling his father, “I wish you were dead.” To make things worse, the son did not remain with his family once he received his inheritance, but he abandoned them, fleeing to a far country where he squandered his inheritance in “reckless living” (Luke 15:13). The depths of his fall are further illustrated in his having to go to work feeding pigs once his money ran out. Pigs were unclean to the Jews, and no Jew would be around them, let alone care for them, unless he had become thoroughly unclean himself (Luke 15:11–16).
The younger son was finally humbled and became broken and contrite over his sin and his situation, and he resolved to go home and confess his sin to his father. The younger son was repentant—convinced of his sin and misery and eager to seek his father’s mercy and forgiveness. He thought that his father would receive him back as a mere servant and not as his beloved son; instead, the father threw a party for his son, giving him the best robe and ring and preparing the most expensive food. He spared no expense in celebrating his son’s return home (Luke 15:17–24). The lesson here is clear as well—God’s grace and mercy are so abundant that He celebrates when sinners come back to Him in repentance. As Dr. R.C. Sproul comments on this parable: “This son who had disgraced the father coming home in filthy rags was greeted by his father, who fell upon his neck and kissed him. That’s what God does for every sinner who repents. He runs to you and He hugs you and He kisses you in your filth. That’s the way God works.” The father doesn’t hold a grudge against his son when he repents and returns home.
If we are not careful, however, we will miss what the father does not do in the parable. He does not go into the far country with his son. The father does not encourage the son in his sin, and he does not fund his son’s sinful exploits. In his rebellion, the son cuts off the relationship with his father, and, in his compassion, the father wants his son back. The picture in the parable is of a father who, while he does not go into the far country with his son, stands ready to receive him when he turns from his debauchery and returns home. The father waits on his front porch, as it were, looking and hoping for his son to return. He is so eager for that return that he is able to see his son coming back toward him while the son is yet far off (Luke 15:20). He recognized his son and had “compassion” on him, the parable says. This compassion was a readiness to receive a repentant son even while refusing to encourage, silently bear witness to, celebrate, or fund his son’s egregious sin. If we are to be imitators of God, as Paul instructs us to be (Eph. 5:1), the lesson is clear: We are to be ready to receive anyone who repents, but we are not in any way to encourage, silently bear witness to, celebrate, or fund the person’s sin. If our refusal to do these things leads them to cut ties with us, the fault is theirs, not ours. Christians are to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29). A willingness to love and embrace a wayward sinner does not entail affirming or embracing their sinful waywardness, lifestyle, or decisions to maintain a good relationship with them. As Christians, we are to be the most gracious and compassionate people the world knows as we pray for sinners to turn from their ways through the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet the Word of God is clear that we are not to do anything that might demonstrate an approval of sin to maintain our relationship with our loved one or friend, for “[love] does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Cor. 13:6).
The last part of the parable concerns the response of the Prodigal Son’s older brother, who resents his father for celebrating his son’s return. The older brother had not claimed his inheritance prematurely or used it to engage in egregious debauchery. Thus, thinking that his brother got something that he the faithful son deserved, the older brother refused to join the father’s welcome-home party for his brother, choosing instead to accuse his father of unfair treatment. The elder brother’s attitude, which was akin to the attitude of the Pharisees and scribes to whom Jesus first told this parable, exemplified a hatred for the father that was masked by outward piety. In response, the father explained that the older brother’s heart was not in the right place. The older brother had every good thing from his father while the Prodigal Son was away and even after he returned. His receiving of his repentant son did not mean that the older son would lose out (Luke 15:25–32). The lesson is plain: God’s grace and mercy are enough to receive back wayward sinners without taking anything away from those who have been comparatively more faithful (see Matt. 20:1–16). The older son should have known that and should have known the father well enough to understand that the right response to repentance is celebration. The response of the older brother calls into question how well he really knew his father and thus how well the Pharisees and the scribes knew God. We are not to be like the older brother but should celebrate even when the most heinous of sinners turns to God in faith and repentance.
The problem with the older brother was not that he disapproved of his brother’s past sin. Jesus isn’t suggesting that the proper response of the older brother would have been for him to approve of his younger brother’s sin. The older brother’s problem was not that he thought it wrong to do things that might indicate or be construed as approval of sin. Rather, his problem was his refusal to receive back his brother with joy when he repented.
The True Compassion of Christ
It is clear from the above exposition of Luke 15:11–32 that God is full of compassion and grace and that He celebrates the repentance of lost sinners who turn to Him through faith in Jesus Christ. God’s compassion for lost sinners is grounded in both His mercy and His righteousness. In His sovereign providence, He permits sinners to go their own way, and sometimes He gives them over to their sin, but He never does anything that in any way signifies approval of their sin. Jesus ate with sinners, but He never encouraged or celebrated their sin. Jesus was a friend of sinners with true compassion for them, and it is precisely because of this that He called them to repent and believe.
Read More
Related Posts: -
What Is Sin?
Written by Guy M. Richard |
Tuesday, August 22, 2023
Sin is, fundamentally a rejection of God as God. It is idolatry at its very core or, as so many ministers and theologians have said down through the ages, it is “cosmic rebellion” against God. When we think or act as though there is no God, we are sinning—which is why it is possible for a good deed to be a sin. If we do good deeds in order to give glory to ourselves, then we are falling short of the glory of God and are, therefore, sinning. If we do good deeds out of a desire to be recognized or appreciated or simply to feel good about ourselves, then we are falling short of the glory of God and are, therefore, sinning. Sin is a complete anti-God state of thinking, speaking, desiring, intending, and doing.It doesn’t take much in the way of discernment to see that something is drastically wrong with the world in which we live. The mere fact that people would even think of walking into an elementary school and casually and violently extinguishing the lives of the most precious and, yet, most vulnerable among us ought to be enough to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that something is not right in the universe. Who of us hasn’t watched with horror and profound grief as images from these kinds of ghastly events have been displayed on our televisions or our phones and ipads? Who of us, in these moments of unbelievable tragedy, hasn’t longed for a world that is utterly free of this kind of evil and injustice?
But we don’t need to confine ourselves to only looking at school shootings. Many other things in the world show us that something is wrong. We put locks—and, sometimes, alarms—on our houses, our cars, our offices, our schools, and our stores for a reason. We hire police officers and security guards, because we think that we need them. We take to the streets to protest injustice, because even the very authorities that we look to for protection oftentimes fail us. We buy and carry guns, because we want to protect what we have and don’t trust others to do it for us. Something is wrong with the world in which we live, and that much should be overwhelmingly obvious to us all.
But it doesn’t take much self-reflection to realize that whatever is wrong with the world is also within each of us. No one has ever had to teach anyone to lie or to steal or to be selfish. Those things seem to come naturally for every human being. We all know that the testimony of the apostle Paul in Romans 7:14-25 applies to us as well. We recognize that there is a battle going on inside of us between the things that we should do and the things that we actually find ourselves doing. We are all aware that we fall short in our thoughts, words, and deeds. We don’t always think the right things; we don’t always say the right things; and we certainly don’t always do the right things. And this isn’t just a problem “out there” in the world at large. It’s a problem “in here” within each of our hearts as well. Something within every man, woman, and child is not right. It doesn’t take a lot of soul-searching to see that. But I’m not so sure that every man, woman, and child would be able to put their finger on exactly what it is that isn’t right either within themselves or within the world.
The Bible teaches that the problem with the world and with every person living in it is something called sin. According to the Bible, sin has separated us from God and from one another. It has set us at enmity with God, with ourselves, and with everyone else around us. Sin has infected our hearts, our minds, and our wills such that every aspect of our human psychology is affected. We can’t think sinlessly. We can’t desire sinlessly. And we can’t speak and act sinlessly. The Bible says that even our best deeds are tainted with sin (see Isa. 64:6).
Read More
Related Posts: