Intersectionality & The Church by Rosaria Butterfield

[B.L.]

Afternoon Friends,

Just wanted to quickly post a link to an article written by Rosaria Butterfield and published on Ligonier's Tabletalk site today. Enjoy!

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts...ocial&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[Susan777]

That you for posting that. What she said about intersectionality creeping into Reformed churches is startling. How could ruling or teaching elders fall for these lies? Do they not have a basic understanding of Christ’s work for sinners? Do they not understand the great work of Redemption?

 

[lynnie]

That was a joy to read.

I cant begin to imagine how much the far left hates her kind and reasonable voice that used to be one of them. He who sits in the heavens laughs.

 

[bookish_Basset]

I'm so thankful for Rosaria, for so many reasons--this article being a good example. She's a treasure.

 

[timfost]

What a wonderful, succinct article! She so eloquently put into words an ever emerging problem that I've had difficulty quantifying, at least with such clarity.

I work part-time at a liberal liberal arts college. What she describes is very real and acutely relevant.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[ReformedBrit]

I think where Rosaria is strongest, is her distinction between the unbiblical category of social justice and the concept of Biblical justice. I think some fall into this trap because the social justice types claim that reject social justice means rejecting justice entirely.

Her particular insight in that intersectionality has no category of sin, and therefore cannot fit in with the Biblical categories of redemption, grace, and repentance was a really excellent observation.

 

[J.L. Allen]

My wife and I were just discussing this article this morning. It'll be interesting to see where things go in the coming years.

 

[Catechised in Heidelberg]

Great article, thank you very much for sharing. And I think it is so important to hear this from someone who lived a totally different life before and probably would have endorsed this theory/method before her conversion.
I watched "By what standard" the other day and was shocked what is going on in the SBC right now. We have to pray for God moving mightily there and within the whole reformed community. Here in Germany, these types of left methodes are quite standard in universities and also in churches. Many churches endorse the social justice type of thinking. And I find it very interesting that these "churches" often teach universalism. This of course makes sense because, when it is all about being liberated and attaining a better live here in our society, there is no need to look beyond death and face the true problems of mankind.
It makes me angry and sad. But let's not lose hear, breathren. Pray!

 

[hrdiaz]

Since this article is getting traction, I'd like for you to all to consider that Butterfield is in this very article, as well as in her other published works, promoting some of the same ideas she here opposes.

She gets some things right in the article but gets a lot wrong. I've attached an article that explains this in detail. Please read and give it thoughtful consideration. Butterfield isnt as anti-social justice and anti-intersectionality as she may appear on first glance.

 

[hrdiaz]

The endnotes somehow got messed up in some parts. I can upload another copy of you're interested in the Butterfield quotes in the endnotes that were cut off accidentally.

 

[Susan777]

Thank you for posting this. I had some of the same uneasy observations when I read her latest book. I can only hope and pray that she continues to grow in her understanding and see her own inconsistencies.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Since this article is getting traction, I'd like for you to all to consider that Butterfield is in this very article, as well as in her other published works, promoting some of the same ideas she here opposes.

She gets some things right in the article but gets a lot wrong. I've attached an article that explains this in detail. Please read and give it thoughtful consideration. Butterfield isnt as anti-social justice and anti-intersectionality as she may appear on first glance.

I read the whole article, and I think in the main it comes off as uncharitable. There are several instances of putting the worst construction on the woman's words, and of drawing out implications of certain expressions that (if taken in one sense) could constitute a contradiction to something she says or writes elsewhere.

I think the article is burdened with a definite aim to "expose" RB as a false-friend of orthodox Christianity. There's even one place where the clear teaching of Scripture (there IS a command: direct, unequivocal, and repeated!) to help the poor and needy, is pitted against the (comparatively fewer) references that summon the dealers of justice to fairness and impartiality, even toward those with social advantages.

Does the writer think he's caught RB in a denial of the texts he's chosen to highlight? Has she, or hasn't she put an emphasis where the Bible puts its own emphasis? The latter is true, of course. Apparently, the Bible recognizes that the poor and needy are susceptible to a scale of injustice that the better-off can more safely avoid; and so a text like Mic.6:8 (and many others) tends to equate righting those natural-world wrongs (might-makes-right) with the people's and the king's special duty.

I think there's nit-picking going on here, that has red-flagged certain terms and narrowed "acceptable" speech and manners to a limited set. License is being challenged with legalism, when neither is correct. I think the way RB challenges both is contained in the proper perspective.

 

[hrdiaz]

Bruce, I think you are misreading my conviction for uncharitability. I spent about 3 or 3.5 months reading and reading Butterfield's major works as a Christian, minor works (articles, podcasts, videos, etc) as a Christian, academic articles as a non-Christian, and her major publication as a non-Christian "The Politics of Survivorship," and wrote a 25 page analysis of her book "The Gospel Comes With a House Key." At the end of studying her material, I was convinced that Butterfield is a dangerous teacher who should be avoided.

You say:

"I think the article is burdened with a definite aim to "expose" RB as a false-friend of orthodox Christianity."

I explain that my intention is to highlight the problems with Butterfield's latest article. There's no hidden agenda. I'm not a witchhunt of some sort.

I believe and state explicitly that she clearly is not a friend of orthodox Christianity, and I explain why.

I cite her in detail in the article and her other works. I also reference my 25 page analysis of her book "The Gospel Comes With a House Key" which further substantiates my claims in this article. I give the link to it in my article. Maybe reading it will help you understand where I'm coming from.

"There's even one place where the clear teaching of Scripture (there IS a command: direct, unequivocal, and repeated!) to help the poor and needy, is pitted against the (comparatively fewer) references that summon the dealers of justice to fairness and impartiality, even toward those with social advantages."

Rosaria *defines* justice as a command to help the poor and needy. That is not the biblical definition of justice. That is one way in which justice is executed, of course, but that is not its definition.

I don't pit Scripture against Scripture. Saying that I do is accusing me of either unintentional or intentional sin, neither of which I am guilty in this case.

I explain that the definition of justice she gives is the social justice definition of justice. The biblical definition of justice is impartial judgment according to God's Word.

Butterfield's definition of justice is "a command to help the poor and needy." Those familiar with the social justice movement in evangelicalism know that this is how they misdefine justice. Butterfield, too, knows this. And she knows the importance of not using certain words and phrases as definitive of one's beliefs given the cultural baggage those words have.

She talks about this explicitly in her book "Openness Unhindered." It is one of the reasons why she tells "SSA" Christians (i.e. Same Sex Attracted Christians) to not call themselves "gay." She argues that SSA Christians should avoid using the word "gay" to describe their sinful attraction against which they struggle because the word carries with it political connotations for most people who hear it.

She knows that her definition of justice is identical to the social justice definition of justice.

So when you ask:

"Does the writer think he's caught RB in a denial of the texts he's chosen to highlight?"

You are missing the point. The question you should be asking is:

"If Scripture clearly teaches us that justice is impartial judgment according to God's Law, then why does Butterfield define it as a command to help the poor and needy? Given what she has said, and given that she is responsible for what she says and implies (as Scripture clearly teaches us), how does Butterfield reconcile the contradiction?"

You go on to ask:

"Has she, or hasn't she put an emphasis where the Bible puts its own emphasis? The latter is true, of course. Apparently, the Bible recognizes that the poor and needy are susceptible to a scale of injustice that the more well-off can more safely avoid; and so a text like Mic.6:8 (and many others) tends to equate righting those natural-world wrongs (might-makes-right) with the people's and the king's special duty."

The Bible does not define justice as a command to help the poor and needy. A biblical definition of justice is as follows: Justice is impartial judgment according to God's Law.

The texts to which you allude are not defining justice but explaining how justice can be served in particular cases. Butterfield, however, is using Micah 6:8 as the social justicians do, namely to define justice as a command to help the poor and needy.

"I think there's nit-picking going on here, that has red-flagged certain terms and narrowed "acceptable" speech and manners to a limited set."

This is an uncharitable reading of what I've done in my article. Familiarizing yourself with what Butterfield clearly states about the importance of language and how it should be used might help you see that I'm not being uncharitable or nit-picky. Rather, I am taking her at her word and reading her texts in light of what they say.

"License is being challenged with legalism, when neither is correct. I think the way RB challenges both is contained in the proper perspective."

There is neither an explicit nor an implicit recommended remedial legalism in what I've written, Bruce. I think you should reconsider your accusation as there is no evidence for it.

I don't want to draw attention away from the issue at hand anymore, so with that I'll see myself out.

Anyone who is interested can read my extensive analysis and criticism of Butterfield's last book "The Gospel Comes With a House Key" here: https://www.academia.edu/41822800/A...ields_book_The_Gospel_Comes_With_a_House_Key_

 

[J.L. Allen]

@hrdiaz

I want to give a fair understanding of your intentions. I respect your care for the Church. The social justice/woke movement is a cancer straight from hell. Many people will go into the consuming fires clutching their intersectional identities. Sadly!

That said, my wife and I personally know Rosaria and talk with her semi regularly. We've had conversations about intersectionality and woke-ism and it doesn't come across at all that she defends such trends. In fact, she hates them and calls it heresy.

Again, I want to hear you and others who take issue with what she's said, but I also want to respect and understand my friend, too.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Bruce, I think you are misreading my conviction for uncharitability. I spent about 3 or 3.5 months reading and reading Butterfield's major works as a Christian, minor works (articles, podcasts, videos, etc) as a Christian, academic articles as a non-Christian, and her major publication as a non-Christian "The Politics of Survivorship," and wrote a 25 page analysis of her book "The Gospel Comes With a House Key." At the end of studying her material, I was convinced that Butterfield is a dangerous teacher who should be avoided.

You say:

"I think the article is burdened with a definite aim to "expose" RB as a false-friend of orthodox Christianity."

I explain that my intention is to highlight the problems with Butterfield's latest article. There's no hidden agenda. I'm not a witchhunt of some sort.

I believe and state explicitly that she clearly is not a friend of orthodox Christianity, and I explain why.

I cite her in detail in the article and her other works. I also reference my 25 page analysis of her book "The Gospel Comes With a House Key" which further substantiates my claims in this article. I give the link to it in my article. Maybe reading it will help you understand where I'm coming from.

"There's even one place where the clear teaching of Scripture (there IS a command: direct, unequivocal, and repeated!) to help the poor and needy, is pitted against the (comparatively fewer) references that summon the dealers of justice to fairness and impartiality, even toward those with social advantages."

Rosaria *defines* justice as a command to help the poor and needy. That is not the biblical definition of justice. That is one way in which justice is executed, of course, but that is not its definition.

I don't pit Scripture against Scripture. Saying that I do is accusing me of either unintentional or intentional sin, neither of which I am guilty in this case.

I explain that the definition of justice she gives is the social justice definition of justice. The biblical definition of justice is impartial judgment according to God's Word.

Butterfield's definition of justice is "a command to help the poor and needy." Those familiar with the social justice movement in evangelicalism know that this is how they misdefine justice. Butterfield, too, knows this. And she knows the importance of not using certain words and phrases as definitive of one's beliefs given the cultural baggage those words have.

She talks about this explicitly in her book "Openness Unhindered." It is one of the reasons why she tells "SSA" Christians (i.e. Same Sex Attracted Christians) to not call themselves "gay." She argues that SSA Christians should avoid using the word "gay" to describe their sinful attraction against which they struggle because the word carries with it political connotations for most people who hear it.

She knows that her definition of justice is identical to the social justice definition of justice.

So when you ask:

"Does the writer think he's caught RB in a denial of the texts he's chosen to highlight?"

You are missing the point. The question you should be asking is:

"If Scripture clearly teaches us that justice is impartial judgment according to God's Law, then why does Butterfield define it as a command to help the poor and needy? Given what she has said, and given that she is responsible for what she says and implies (as Scripture clearly teaches us), how does Butterfield reconcile the contradiction?"

You go on to ask:

"Has she, or hasn't she put an emphasis where the Bible puts its own emphasis? The latter is true, of course. Apparently, the Bible recognizes that the poor and needy are susceptible to a scale of injustice that the more well-off can more safely avoid; and so a text like Mic.6:8 (and many others) tends to equate righting those natural-world wrongs (might-makes-right) with the people's and the king's special duty."

The Bible does not define justice as a command to help the poor and needy. A biblical definition of justice is as follows: Justice is impartial judgment according to God's Law.

The texts to which you allude are not defining justice but explaining how justice can be served in particular cases. Butterfield, however, is using Micah 6:8 as the social justicians do, namely to define justice as a command to help the poor and needy.

"I think there's nit-picking going on here, that has red-flagged certain terms and narrowed "acceptable" speech and manners to a limited set."

This is an uncharitable reading of what I've done in my article. Familiarizing yourself with what Butterfield clearly states about the importance of language and how it should be used might help you see that I'm not being uncharitable or nit-picky. Rather, I am taking her at her word and reading her texts in light of what they say.

"License is being challenged with legalism, when neither is correct. I think the way RB challenges both is contained in the proper perspective."

There is neither an explicit nor an implicit recommended remedial legalism in what I've written, Bruce. I think you should reconsider your accusation as there is no evidence for it.

I don't want to draw attention away from the issue at hand anymore, so with that I'll see myself out.

Anyone who is interested can read my extensive analysis and criticism of Butterfield's last book "The Gospel Comes With a House Key" here: https://www.academia.edu/41822800/A...ields_book_The_Gospel_Comes_With_a_House_Key_

Presumably, if your article is a summary of something longer, then it should capture some of the best of what the more robust treatment may offer. But if what is presented in the shorter does not stand up to scrutiny, there's little reason to go delving further into the weeds.

Your analysis is tendentious. The following, for example, is a misrepresentation of RB, on p2 of your article:

Butterfield is correct in her assessment. That is not the problem. The problem is that in The Gospel Comes With a House Key, Butterfield identifies categorizing and labeling others, contrary to their own self-identification, as an act of violence. Including “reducing” individuals to categories as an act of hospitality [sic], Butterfield writes –

Our lack of genuine hospitality to our neighbors—all of them, including neighbors in the LGBTQ community—explains why counterfeit hospitality seems attractive. Our lack of Christian hospitality is a violent form of neglect for their souls. 7 [emphasis yours]​

Perhaps you left something off the quote, but as it stands, it is simply a statement that when Christians are not hospitable--not necessarily by some offended person's own definition, but objectively by God's definition--they are not just neutral, but hostile.

Perhaps you don't agree with her, and think there's some middle ground between duty to hospitality and inevitable hostility. Her argument is that ungodly counterfeit hospitality takes advantage of so-called neutral ground, space Christians vacate instead of occupying it; and the result is the counterfeit effects spiritual harm, inuring that person to gospel outreach. Christian neglect has wrought the harm.

The example you give as an epitome of her failure doesn't do what you said it does. Furthermore, I very much doubt that you dissent from her actual opinion; because I suspect you would feel stung if labeled for example as a "homophobe," contrary to your self-understanding. It certainly would sting if it cost you something to be forced to wear that label. I expect you'd rather pick your own labels. And that is RB's point, not whether as a speaker you are left without an accurate expression by which to denominate a group.

Where does she tell the readers to grant the pronoun-demand? Where does she say that such an allowance is mandatory Christian-hospitality? That sort of inference is "reading between the lines."

And playing "gotcha" with her own speech-patterns is a cheap debate tactic. How easy is it to pull a perfect switcheroo in your own vocal patterns, especially an ingrained one, many years in the making? Furthermore, depending on the situation certain terms may be necessary to use for the sake of clarity, and not because of a preference. The unnaturalness of the subject matter being dealt with can force the hand of communicators.

But the most serious problem in the attack on her word, name, or pronoun choices for her purposes, is how legalistic it is. Apparently, you know exactly how she "ought" to speak, at all times: Amazing! with all her real-world experience, too. The fact that she was long ago challenging members of her former society and felt it was useful to concede on a lesser point; and since the Ob.Dec. she claims to have stiffened up on that point; and yet does not measure up to your standard of discourse--well to start with, this criticism isn't a law of Christian discourse.

If you were talking to an obviously "trans-person," and the only name you knew this person by seemed incongruous to the persona of presentation, would you refuse to address him/her by the only name you were given? Consider two possible Christian goals for interaction: 1) to confront the person with the name-disparity, in hopes of breaking-through his shield with the Law-axe, and quickly ending the conversation; or 2) to bypass the name-disparity, and use a different focus to insert either the Law-rapier, or the Grace balm in case you got past the name, and discovered a sore conscience.

There isn't ONE RULE for the Christian to follow, yet you seem quite certain that RB is wrong, both before the Ob.Dec. and since, due to signs of inconsistency. The way I read RB, she's won't let any side dictate the terms she has to use to engage. She's not going to crumble before the SJW-intersectional bullies; nor is she going to take marching orders from their counterparts. Neither your side nor theirs are going to unilaterally set the terms on which she will debate.

 

[A.Joseph]

I’m convinced that radical influences and ideologies are weakening our Christian reformed foundations.

The fact is, CRT does a disservice to legitimate instances of racism and prejudice and applies guilt when and where it may not be warranted. It trivializes and politicizes the issue to the point that it is less recognizable and almost confusing. Is loving a brother fully an act of accepting him as an equal saved sinner OR elevating him strictly due to the color of his skin? There is some room for taking extra effort to reach out and break down barriers but not to believe one is less a sinner in need of grace - THAT would be an act of hate.

Here’s an example of CRT & Intersectionality’s stereotypical application and projection (in conflict with the personal experience of the individual)
- David Webb accused of 'white privilege' by CNN legal analyst — disq.us CRT is meant to divide and destroy whatever it touches. That is the proper application Thomas Sowell - Derrick Bell And A Revenge Society — disq.us

Same is true for radical feminism (and all things covered under intersectionality). You will notice the emphasis of similar victimization themes across all minority groups and how, when applied to the Christian Faith, it essentially promotes a new law and a new religion that seeks to remove the sin and grace element from Christianity. Like every other heretical sect it seeks to remove Christ from Christianity.

 

[A.Joseph]

Peter Jones promotes her. I think she’s fine. I trust the individuals who endorse her and the good things she has said and done. She’s earned the benefit of the doubt, I think.

 

[ZackF]

Peter Jones promotes her. I think she’s fine. I trust the individuals who endorse her and the good things she has said and done. She’s earned the benefit of the doubt, I think.

Not mention the wife of a RP pastor who is also in good standing.

 

[Rom]

I have only met Rosaria once. Doubt she remembers me. Was at a Synod meeting. But I know her husband fairly well. He is a fellow Presbyter. Kent is a solid man and the Butterfields are no friends to SJWs. They have suffered greatly for orthodox Christianity and the Reformed faith in particular.

 

[A.Joseph]

I have only met Rosaria once. Doubt she remembers me. Was at a Synod meeting. But I know her husband fairly well. He is a fellow Presbyter. Kent is a solid man and the Butterfields are no friends to SJWs. They have suffered greatly for orthodox Christianity and the Reformed faith in particular.

Yeah, that was the impression I got. I haven’t followed her recently but I really like her, especially when hearing where she came from and meeting her husband, etc. I think it’s a very inspiring story and she’s obviously very, very smart. I think she’s a person we need to reach out to those who struggle. We do need people who have been there and part of that world and way of thinking. She seems to really have bought in to the Reformed faith, obviously the Holy Spirit working in her has everything to do with that. I think she’s totally legit.