Intersectional Theology: An Introductory Guide

by Grace Ji-Sun Kim, Susan M. Shaw

Intersectional An Introductory Guide offers a pathway for reflective Christians, pastors, and theologians to apply the concepts and questions of intersectionality to theology. Intersectionality is a tool for analysis, developed primarily by black feminists, to examine the causes and consequences of converging social identities (gender, race, class, sexual identity, age, ability, nation, religion) within interlocking systems of power and privilege (sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism, ableism, ageism, nativism) and to foster engaged, activist work toward social justice. Applied to theology, intersectionality demands attention to the Christian thinker's own identities and location within systems of power and the value of deep consideration of complementary, competing, and even conflicting points of view that arise from the experiences and understandings of diverse people. This book provides an overview of theories of intersectionality and suggests questions of intersectionality for theology, challenging readers to imagine an intersectional church, a practice of welcome and inclusion rooted in an ecclesiology that embraces difference and centers social justice. Rather than providing a developed systematic theology, Intersectional Theology encourages readers to apply its method in their own theologizing to expand their own thinking and add their experiences to a larger theology that moves us all toward the kin-dom of God.

Genres: Theology, Christianity, School, Grad School, Religion, Spirituality, Faith

170 pages, Paperback

Published November 1, 2018

About the author

Grace Ji-Sun Kim (PhD, St. Michael's College, University of Toronto) is associate professor of theology at Earlham School of Religion. She is author or editor of thirteen books, including Embracing the Other,Christian Doctrines for Global Gender Justice, and Intercultural Ministry. She is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Reviews

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Intersectionality” is one of those big buzzwords you may hear from time to time in the news or on college campus. Basically, it is the idea that we all experience multiple identities each of which exists on axes of oppression and domination. So its not enough to note that you have privilege or do not have privilege because you actually have different levels of privilege. For example, a white woman may have privilege as a white person but experience oppression as a woman.

This book is an attempt to explain what intersectional ideas mean for theology. In that, the authors succeed. They argue that intersectionality means we must listen to diverse voices, to everyone’s voices, for theology through an intersectional lens is not seeking after one truth but instead ought to reflect the multiplicity of experiences we have as humans. In the past theology has favored one experience, more or less: white, male, educated, European. We get a fuller picture by listening to fuller voices. They generally affirm liberation theology, which echoes much of this, while noting the ways liberation theology has not taken into account all the experiences it could have. For example, writers in focusing on oppression by race may not have talked about gender.

While intersectionality is open to diverse voices, it is not a complete free for all. The authors argue that intersectionality is biased towards justice. Though they did not really define “justice”, and it is certainly a complex concept/word, I assume listening to all voices does not include those voices who would call for oppression or violence towards the weak and poor.

Overall, this is a good explanation of a concept new to most of us.

At the same time, I saw some problems.

First, they go back to the point that traditional theology has favored white, Western, men. To be fair, they usually say “mostly” favored, and it has “mostly” favored this group. Yet, do not other, diverse voices from the past deserve at least a footnote? If we have to listen to all voices, ought we not listen to those who have come before us? Ironically, by not even mentioning some of these people, it almost seems like the authors have silenced them. What about women such as Julian of Norwich, Theresa of Avila, Catherine of Sienna or Macrina the mother of Gregory of Nyssa? What about the entire Eastern Orthodox tradition which, if I recall, is not even mentioned? Isaac the Syrian was certainly not a white, European man. I mean, I cannot image in Orthodoxy, with their emphasis on tradition, would be open to the sort of theology in this book, but is that a reason to completely ignore their work?

Second, it seems somewhat anachronistic to consider all these past men and women as “white.” I am open to correction here, but “white” as a race over against “black” seems to only make sense as a modern concept. Did someone like Thomas Aquinas have any consciousness that he was “white”? It seems simply considering them all as “white” is a way to group them all together in one monolithic group in order to brush them off. This is especially problematic the further back we go, for now we’ve silenced the diverse voices in the early church who were certainly not white. Athanasius was from Egypt, Augustine was from North Africa (despite the fact they group him in as a white man). Now, it may be true that in their day they were all part of the Roman Empire, but does that make them “white”?

Honestly, the authors border on a sort of “chronological snobbery” that dismisses tradition almost wholesale. The Wesleyan in me prefers what is called the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” which places Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience as four places we develop our understanding of who God is. By kicking tradition out, we are left with a heavy emphasis on Reason and Experience. The authors are correct in pointing out past theologians did not take seriously or even consider their own context and how it influenced their theology. At the same time, a lot of what I agreed with in this book, I agree with because it is rooted in the best of the tradition.

For example, they speak at length about the problem of the definition of God in classical theism as unchanging. If God is one and unity, then there is one truth and all others must be shut down, the logic goes. Yet, the Trinitarian view of God provides us with unity and diversity. In the Trinity, we see a God who is one yet in this oneness the three persons retain their individuality. From this, we recognize that humans as individuals do not all need to become the same as we come together in community (a lot of these ideas are in Maximus the Confessor, not sure if he counts as “white”). They also talk about how such a God cannot suffer and how intersectional theologies give us a different picture of God as one suffering with us. I’d argue the incarnation presents us with a picture of the God who suffers with us and does not just remain far off (The Suffering of the Impassible God by Gavrilyuk illustrates the development of this idea in the early church).

Again, I think learning about intersectionality and how to apply it to theology can be helpful to Christians. The authors have a lot to say. But in silencing tradition, they unnecessarily toss out one of their best tools.

My final problem is that I wonder if the place this theology will end up gives us a Christianity worth adhering to. They talk about how intersectionality values all viewpoints and then sees multiplicity in God. Theology provides us with a both/and rather than an either/or. They imply then that while religious such as Hinduism, Islam and Christianity appear different to us, perhaps they are all representations of God. Maybe all contradictions are actually true in God!

Maybe 2+2=5?

If in the end theology is just an ever expanding telling of everyone’s experience and a validation of whatever comes about as long as it does not hurt anyone else, then why bother showing up at church on Sunday? Why not just get brunch with some friends? Why not just be an activist? What’s the point of worship or Eucharist or baptism?

If we’re not pursuing some ultimate Good/Beauty/Truth which is the Infinite God, then why bother theologizing? For sure, we should listen to all these diverse voices and we should welcome disagreement and different ideas and experiences into our communities. But should we project our own muddled grasping and partial understandings onto the deity? It seems we end up with a God we just created.

If that’s all God is, then let’s just call it what it is: a projection of what we desire (justice, peace, etc.).

But if that’s all God is, I’m probably not attending church next week.

Overall, this is a good (if at times repetitive) book explaining an important topic. I hope future endeavors into intersectional theology consider including voices from tradition.

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: An introduction to the application of intersectional analysis to theology, understanding how identities and social locations within systems of power might both challenge and shape our theological understanding and praxis.

I would like to begin by thanking one of the authors (Grace Ji-Sun Kim) for affording me the opportunity to review this book. Typically, white, cisgendered heterosexual males, who are aging boomers, who self-identify as evangelical tend not to embrace conversations about intersectionality. I appreciate the trust extended to be included in that conversation!

Actually, my self-description illustrates the basic idea of intersectionality. There are multiple axes that make up who I am--age, race, gender and sexual identity, physical abilities or disabilities, religious identifications, family background, marital status, education, income and social class. In my case, these axes have afforded "an invisible package of unearned assets" that some would call "privilege." I've only ever been stopped by a police officer for violating speed laws, and invariably treated with courtesy. I've never had difficulty securing credit or a loan. I've never been mocked or excluded because of my sexual orientation or marital status. In one church, I had to accept a male co-teacher even though my first choice was a woman who was better qualified. I've worked in an organization whose funding model works best for white men, less so for women and persons of color. Especially so for those who may be women and persons of color. It has shaped how I read the Bible. For example, it has not been until relatively recently that I fully grasped that both the people of Israel and the early Christians were subject peoples to imperial powers for much of their history and that much of scripture is God's word to enslaved or subject peoples, including prophecies against the unjust use of power by those who do not fear God. 

Intersectionality as an idea arose out black feminism as black women understood that it was not enough to understand the differentials of power and the effects of oppression that came from being a black, or being a woman. These identities come together to shape people and institutions and the power relations between them. Also, as an analysis that arises on the receiving end of unjust uses of power, it is constantly connecting theory and praxis--reflection and action to pursue justice.

In this work, subtitled "An Introductory Guide," the authors apply this approach to doing theology. They contend that much of the church's theological scholarship has been done by white, male, Euro-Americans (people like me!) and reflects our social location. Furthermore, some of the theological work that has been done in resistance to this culturally dominant group, like liberation theology, or feminist theology, often is along a single axis of ethnicity, or gender, and is not cognizant of the multiple ways different aspects of identity are shaped by power relations.

The authors introduce us to this approach first by giving some of the history that I touched on above of the development of intersectional analysis. They then illustrate intersectionality as it relates to theological ideas with their own narratives. Grace Ji-Sun Kim describes her experiences as a Korean-American immigrant, a woman, heterosexual, being raised in both a Korean Presybterian context and American schools. Susan M. Shaw describes growing up in a Southern Baptist tradition, wanting to engage in ministry but being barred, first because she is a woman, and then even more, as she comes to terms with her lesbian orientation, leading her to become a member of the United Church of Christ.

The third chapter then describes what it means to do intersectional theology. One of the key proposals here is that intersectional theology is a "theology of indeterminacy" rather than one that articulates absolute truth claims. Practicing intersectional theology involves "bracketing" our own understanding to enter into the logic of others' frameworks. It recognizes that theological work is done in a context and asks how our own interpretive community has influenced our interpretations. It forces one to examine whether one is using a single axis of one's identity and muting others. Oriented toward justice, intersectional theology looks at how a theology either supports or challenges inequities.

Chapter four explores reading the Bible intersectionally, and this I found quite helpful. They use the example of the book of Ruth, looking at the different identities of Ruth, the widowed Moabite woman immigrant, Naomi, the bereft Jewish mother unable of her own to assert her inheritance rights with no male offspring, and Boaz, the male, Jewish landowner. They note for example, that we think of Galatians 3:28 as separate, rather than intersecting identities (e.g.. male, Gentile, and slave).

Chapter five turns to the practice of intersectionality, both in terms of the pursuit of justice, and fostering the intersectional church. They advocate for a church that is fully intersectional and inclusive along all the axes of identity discussed including age, race, sexual identity and orientation, economic status and more.

There is much here that I appreciate. First is the recognition that we do not do our theological work in a vacuum but that it may well reflect one's various axes of identity. Listening to those who are reading scripture who are not white, not male, not Western has opened my eyes to things in the biblical text to which I've been oblivious because of my own social location. Recognizing the complexity of the intersections of race, gender, orientation, and other aspects of our identity and how the mix reflects our experience of power and how we hear scripture, challenges the assumptions I make and my awareness of who "we" are together as the global body of Christ. Learning to "bracket" and incarnationally enter into the lived experience and theological frameworks of others seems crucial to developing the capacity to move beyond our identities to reflect what it means truly to be the body of Christ. The questions for reflection at the end of each chapter are among the most probing and thought-provoking I've seen, going far beyond the obligatory "reflection questions" I find in many books.

At the same time, I do find myself with some questions as I consider this proposal. One has to do with the authors' comments about Karl Barth (p. 14). They are critical of Barth's focus on the Bible alone and de-valuing context and social location. Yet it seems that it is precisely Barth's understanding of the Bible that enables him to forcefully challenge and resist the social location of the Third Reich and the Christian nationalism of the German church in the formulation of the Declaration of Barmen, even though this was the context and social location out of which he theologized. Do we not read, and keep reading the Bible, and do so with the whole church, so that the Word of God might challenge the idolatries and injustices in all our social locations and contexts, be they places of power, or places of the oppressed?

I also wrestle with the language of a "theology of indeterminacy" which sounds like another way of speaking of the "pervasive interpretive pluralism" that Christian Smith has observed in his critique of "biblicist" Protestant Christianity. At times, intersectionality seems to hold out hope for different communities recognizing more truly the manifold revelation of God in Christ, and reflecting that in the mosaic of identities reconciled in Christ. Yet, the question arises of what we do when we have opposing interpretations, even when interpreters from different communities have bracketed, carefully listened, and still at the end of the day differ. What if we have examined our context and social location and believe our interpretations are not simply a function of our interpretive community?  Still, it does seem that the sensitivity of intersectionality to justice means that it eschews moves that assimilate others into one's own theological constructions or moving from the oppressed to the oppressor.

You can see from the length of this review that I found this a thought-provoking work. While I cannot embrace every conclusion or praxis advanced in this work, it does make me both more reflective about how my own context and various aspects of my identity shape how I read scripture and do theology. It made me want to listen more to voices outside my own social context. This is no small thing!

_____________________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

[J.L. Neyhart · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone should read this!

[Robert D. Cornwall · Rating 4 out of 5]

When I scan my theology bookcase, I quickly discover that the vast majority of books on these shelves were written by white, heterosexual, men -- just like me. It's not surprising since, for the past two millennia in the Christian West, white men have been the dominant force in matters of theology and biblical studies. It's not that what lines my shelves is bad material, but if my theological conversations are limited to these conversation partners my theology will be undernourished. There is a tendency for us to live in ethnic/gender silos, which hinders our encounters with those who do theology from different vantage points. Back in my seminary days, I found myself attracted to liberation theology, but most of these theologians were male, like me, and most had been educated in European and American contexts. So, how do we break out of these silos?

One possible solution is to engage in intersectional theology. In this book, written by Grace Ji-Sun Kim and Susan Shaw, we are introduced to this way of doing theology. One of the central points of this way of doing theology is the recognition that all theology involves narrative. We cannot separate our theological work from our own identities, and those identities are complex. Thus, Kim is a Korean-American heterosexual woman, while Shaw is a white, lesbian American. Each of these elements of their biography influences their lives and the way they do theology. They write that "intersectionality recognizes that people experience multiple and intersecting of oppression and domination simultaneously" (p. xiii). This is an important point. We can find ourselves being in positions of oppression and domination. Thus, one can be a woman and experience discrimination or suppression, but because one is white, one will find themselves in a dominant position over against, perhaps, a black male, who might be in a dominant position over a Latinx woman, and one it goes. To do theology intersectionally, one must let go of single-axis thinking and instead, look at things with a both/and lens.

This is an introductory text, so it is intended to be used by beginning graduate students in theology and ministry (and perhaps undergraduate theology students). It's accessible to the non-specialist, but that doesn't mean that it is shallow. The subject itself is challenging (especially for those of us who are white, heterosexual males). The book is comprised of six chapters, plus a glossary and bibliography.

They begin with a chapter introducing intersectionality. They set intersectional theology in a broader conversation about intersectionality. Central to the conversation is the importance of social justice. That is an end goal: achieving social justice, so "that people's basic needs are met, people are treated with equity and fairness, differences are welcomed and valued, and economic, social, political, and religious equality is achieved." (p. 2). They root the origins of this methodology in Black Feminist theological work. From there we move to a chapter focused on the relationship of biography to intersectional theology. Here the focus is on identifying the complex nature of our identities. Kim and Shaw illustrate this by telling their own stories of growing up, their calls, love and marriage, and theological orientations. They note that biography and experience are set in diverse contexts, including family, country, and faith tradition. These first two discussions set the table for chapter three, where they set out intersectionality as a theological method. In this process, theology is not focused on discovering ultimate truth, but instead focuses on destabilizing "fixed notions of theological truth." (p. 42). In other words, this is a move away from hegemonic theological systems. They invite us to look at our social locations and ask how they influence our theological discussions. Again, this involves both/and thinking. The following chapter extends the conversation to include biblical interpretation. Chapter 5 takes the conversation into practical theology, focusing on topics such as worship, sacraments, and ordination. They ask us to consider what an intersectional/intercultural church might look like.

In their conclusion, Kim and Shaw again remind us that intersectional theology focuses on multiplicity and indeterminacy, which arise from biography and social context. I'm of an age where the assumptions largely ignored social context and identity. We made assumptions that white European male theologians represented the truth. We might have recognized theological differences, but we largely ignored gender, race, and sexual orientation. We can't do that anymore. We can try, but we will continue to hear voices challenging these single-axis attempts to do theology.

As a 60-something white male heterosexual married pastor/historian/theologian, I find this intriguing and challenging. I understand the need to step back, but I also wonder how my own identity fits. I don't know that the complete answer is present here, but it is a starting point for understanding how to do theology in a more pluralistic context.

[Tyler Collins · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book for my Global & Indigenous Theologies course at Nazarene Theological Seminary under Dr. Suzangline Patrick. I wrote the reflection below for a class assignment. It begins with a summary and ends with personal reflection on the text:

Kim and Shaw’s book was an introduction to Intersectional Theology. The preface gave an overview of the book, summarizing their main points and overall argument for what Intersectional Theology is and why it is essential to the future of theological discourse. In chapter one, they defined it and mapped its growth out of black feminist theology. They articulated this form of theology as seeking to understand the complexities of our identities and how those identities relate to power and oppression. Intersectional Theology to them is inseparable from working for justice, and they don’t believe you can articulate what it is without stating what it does.

In chapter two, Kim and Shaw tell the story of their lives, tracing the challenges that they faced due to their numerous identities stemming from their gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexuality, denominational background, etc. In chapter three, they discuss what the intersectional method is theologically. In chapters four and five, they discuss what it may look like to apply intersectional thought to Biblical interpretation, theological development, and ecclesiology. They concluded by again summarizing the main points and arguments from their material. In the interview with Grace Ji-Sun Kim, she hit on many of the key ideas from their book while specifically focusing on the area of reconciliation.

Almost this entire line of theological thought was new to me. Admittedly, I have given some thought during my undergraduate ministerial studies to the core idea of their text, that each person does theology from their own unique background and context. I have similarly been disturbed with the fact that so much of our theological tradition in the West comes from the pens of wealthy, educated, men—most of them white. I have been struck recently, in engaging with the writings of the church fathers, how similar their backgrounds were and how so many notable church figures came from wealth. I did not take it as far as they did, however, in stating that this should be acknowledged and critiqued solely for the sake of justice.

I did find myself at several points uncomfortable with how far they desire to take their approach practically, especially when it comes to the sacraments or membership. Because of the Anglican tradition to which I belong, I would be very hesitant to open these up to the degree that Kim and Shaw propose. I do believe the people of God are characterized by distinctive qualities and practices which carry real meaning, so if these (sacraments) were made available without qualification and key boundaries were erased (around what makes one a Christian), I believe the church may lose actual substance and merely blend itself into the rest of the world. With that being said, I do not disagree with their general approach and think it is, as they say, the future of theological dialogue to clearly identify and critique one's own theological biases stemming from their own background of culture, gender, oppression/domination, etc. While I would not say I am on board with this theological method, much of it needs to be considered by the church, and I am curious how this line of thinking would be brought to the mainstream church without being dismissed immediately as liberal heresy.

Also, would Kim and Shaw articulate any boundaries around Christianity (apart from saying it must be characterized by love and justice)? If so, what would they be? If not, what makes Christianity substantially different from secular social justice advocacy or our wider culture?

[Adam Shields · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: The how and why of intersectional theology.

There is lots of conversation right now about Critical Theory especially as it is related to the more recent development of Critical Race Theory.  I am far from a scholar about either, but I have done long form reading and a lot of short-form, podcast, and video learning, and to my untrained eye, Intersectionality is the most helpful and arguably the most misunderstood aspect of Critical Race Theory (CRT).

I am not going to fully explicate this book. I would need to read it again to do a better job at that. But I do have 50 highlights or notes that are public from the book.  One of the aspects of discussing Intersectionality that is difficult is that there is a lot of particular languages that have different uses depending on the section. The implication of that is that it is rare for there to be pithy quotes, not just because of the jargon or technical language, but because internally to many quotes, there has to be the nuanced explication of what is and is not being said at any point. I found myself often highlighting not just whole paragraphs, but often whole pages to make sure I had enough to make sense of the idea later when I want to look back.

A good example of this is the following quote that sets up the book:

For most of Christian history, written theology has been the purview of educated, heterosexual, white, Western men. Challenges to the homogeneity of Christian theology arose in the mid-twentieth century through theologies of liberation that gave historical and social context to those doing the theologizing. Latin American, feminist, minjung, womanist, mujerista, and queer theologies emerged to contest the assumed neutrality and objectivity of white, male theologies. Recognizing the importance of social location for how theology is done and its contents, these theologies centered the marginalized and articulated theologies from below. While the center shifted to diverse identities, these theologies still tended to be mono-focused, or what feminist scholar Vivian May calls “gender-first” or “race-first,” an approach that gives priority to one facet of identity as explanatory for experiences of oppression. And so, white feminists often wrote about gender as if it were a monolithic category, overlooking or minimizing the ways race and sexuality shape individuals’ experiences of gender. Latin American liberationists wrote within a context of struggle in Central and South America but did not address the role of gender in the ethnic and class struggles of Latin America...Rather than applying “single-axis” thinking, intersectional analysis relies on “both/and,” an analytical lens that allows for the complexities and contradictions of holding positions of dominance and subordination at the same time and having those concurrent locations mold and fashion experiences that are not race or gender or race plus gender but are rather the confluence of race and gender into something that is both and neither.

The concept of intersectional theology is not going to be easy to achieve as this quote points out:

We propose an Intersectional Theology, a theology that begins in the intersections and moves toward liberation and justice for all people inclusive of all their differences. We propose an intersectional hermeneutic that begins with examinations of the biblical text’s imperial history and highlights the intersectional lives of biblical characters—Jesus, a Jewish man of the working class living under a colonial power; Paul, a character full of challenges and contradictions as a Jewish man and Christian convert with Roman citizenship; the Samaritan woman; the hemorrhaging woman; the Canaanite women; the Ethiopian eunuch; Peter; and Cornelius. We propose an intersectional theology that leaves no one out, that leaves no one’s experience unconsidered in exploring and expanding our ideas of God, sin, redemption, and the church, and that leaves no one’s oppression unchallenged and no system of oppression intact

Intersectional theology is not an academic exercise, but one that is activist-oriented:

...intersectionality is a lens for understanding how gender, race, social class, sexual identity, and other forms of difference work concurrently to shape people and social institutions within multiple relationships of power. It is kaleidoscopic, constantly rendering shifting patterns of power visible. It is confluent, a juncture point where identities, locations, institutions, and power flow together creating something new. It is a praxis—an ongoing loop of action-reflection-action—that integrates social justice–oriented theory with activism toward social justice on the ground so that theory informs practice and practice informs theory.

There are six aspects to intersectionality in the book (these are all direct quotes)

Social inequality: Intersectionality recognizes the simultaneous and multiple factors that contribute to social inequality.
Power: Power is constructed, maintained, and distributed in the interactions of gender, race, nation, and other forms of difference within interlocking systems of oppression.
Relationality: Relationality demands a both/and approach rather than an either/or approach.
Social context: All power relations occur within a context, and so intersectional thinking requires we consider the historical, social, intellectual, political, and religious contexts that give shape to our analysis.
Complexity: By refusing a single-axis analysis, intersectionality creates space for complexity, fluidity, and even contradiction in our understandings of power, privilege, inequality, and resistance.
Social justice: Intersectionality, as May has argued, is biased toward social justice.

Intersectional analysis, then, functions with its bias toward justice to uncover and restructure power relations by dismantling oppressive ideologies, practices, and institutions.

One of the more common misconceptions of intersectionality is that it is a type of game where people add up all of their 'oppression points' and whoever has the most gets to 'win'.  But central to the concept of intersectionality is privilege, all people both have both aspects of their lives that privilege and oppression. The point is not who has the most oppression points, but that we pay attention to how different issues of power or social location act differently. That should not work toward dividing us, but, "intersectionality is also a coalitional politics; it challenges us to work together across differences to create change toward social justice in such a way that we do not fragment ourselves or deny any aspect of ourselves."

In trying to construct a theology that is intersectional, there are four commitments: (again long)

“Honor and foster intersectionality’s antisubordination orientation.” Because it is biased toward justice, intersectionality rejects the subordination of individuals or groups. For theology, this suggests focused attention toward constructing theologies that purposefully destabilize structures of power and facilitate inclusion and equity.

“Draw on intersectionality’s matrix approach to meaningfully engage with heterogeneity, enmeshment, and divergence.” May encourages us to keep on center differences within categories so we don’t negate in-group differences and ignore the impact of, for example, the intersection of race with gender.

“Take up intersectionality’s invitation to follow opacities and to read against the grain.” Reading against the grain invites us to approach traditional theological notions with skepticism and to make visible the workings of power in our usual way of thinking about theological doctrines and practices. It encourages us to move the voices of the marginalized to the center of our theologizing and recognize theological sources outside the typical norms of traditional theologies.

“Set aside norm emulation as a philosophical/political/research/policy [and we would add ‘/theological’] strategy.” Intersectionality invites theology to challenge its own disciplinary norms and to embrace imaginative, challenging, and disruptive ways of doing theology that resist hierarchy and work toward justice. An intersectional approach demands that we rethink our ways of doing theology and formulate theological methods that embed an intersectional lens.

The importance of intersectional theology is that is better reflects our actual world.

...intersectionality is a critical back-and-forth between individual persons and the collective political identities in which people find themselves within systems of domination and subordination. One’s identity is not monolithic but rather multidimensional, complex, and intersectional, situated within interlocking structures of power. One’s identity includes and is not limited to ethnicity, class, race, sexuality, gender, and ability, which all intersect and are interdependent. Our lives are complex and our multiple identities are not mutually exclusive. Therefore the axes of classism, racism, homophobia, ableism, and other issues play a role in characterizing ourselves and how we engage in the struggle for social justice. Audre Lorde states, “There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle, because we do not live single-issue lives.”

These two quotes sum up the book well:

Central to intersectional theology is a focused and humble cognizance of how one’s own social location affects how one does theology. In other words, intersectional theology begins in a recognition that all theologies are contextualized and that contextualization matters.

In particular, intersectional theology investigates the roles of structures and power in theologizing and directs theologizing toward social justice. Intersectional theology recognizes that all people exist in different relations to social, economic, political, and religious power within the matrix of domination and that theologies from these various locations will offer us new, unexpected, and necessary viewpoints to move us toward a greater collective knowledge of God and work toward justice.

[Laurin · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was great at taking intersectional redefinitions of words and applying them to what they think is Christian theology. It was an excellent introduction into how those who adopt critical theory as their sole hermeneutic and guiding religious principle view Christianity. However, because they have adopted a completely different hermeneutic than the Church has, it ends up being a solidly Hegelian religion with a Christian veneer. They redefine words like “justice “, “love”, “gospel”, et al, to fit into a critical social justice framework rather than to ask what these words mean in Scripture itself based on its own context(s). There are additionally many inconsistencies with their thoughts, but that is something they embrace as critical theory/intersectionality is firmly in the Foucauldian-postmodern and Hegelian camp that sees such inconsistencies as a positive.

They also seem to fairly frequently mischaracterize traditional Christianity. For instance, they will speak as though Christians have not cared for their suffering neighbours when Christians founded the first hospitals and kept caring for the sick until governments took over in more recent times. In addition it is extremely anachronistic to speak of traditional Christianity as if it is dominated by white, Western, heterosexual, patriarchal males. Such titles have only been recently constructed, and people didn’t see themselves that way. Not only so, but many, many traditional Christians worship Christ across the globe and know they are fully included by repentance and faith. To speak as though intersectional theology which explicitly rejects (according to their book) the Apostles Creed is the answer for full inclusions of various identity groups is extremely wrong headed and clearly untrue.

[Brian Fraser · Rating 5 out of 5]

With the explosion of social media outlets, a bewildering cacophony of voices swirls around us every day, contending for our attention, appreciation, and acceptance. That is true in the church as well as in the broader community. What do we do with that? Do we try and protect ourselves from these assaults by blocking as many as we can, especially those that don’t reinforce our preconceptions and prescriptions? Do we let ourselves get buffeted back and forth by the most recent, most insistent, most seemingly persuasive voice we’ve heard? Or do we find a way to listen and learn with a respect that is rooted in the way our triune Creator invites us to show up in this diverse and divided world? This book helps us imagine doing the latter.

The dynamics of human beings living together that Kim and Shaw outline so powerfully is the matrix in which most churches live in their neighbourhoods. Especially in large urban centres, different languages, experiences, fears, and hopes come together daily. The church is called to seek a just welfare in these places where God has sent us. Engaging the tough missioning of listening, lamenting, learning, and living differently in every congregation or worshiping/witnessing community is the challenge of this book.

The summary of the whole field of intersectionality in this 111-page book is exemplary. Drawing on the work of provocateurs of this approach, like Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Vivian M. May, and Ange-Marie Hancock, Kim and Shaw frame their introduction to this way of thinking as follows:

Intersectionality is a tool for analysis that takes into account the simultaneously experienced multiple social locations, identities, and institutions that shape individual and collective experience within hierarchically structured systems of power and privilege. (p.2)

These are complex and complicated dynamics that play out in each of our lives if differing but overlapping ways. Many these days take refuge from these realities in simplistic fears. Those attitudes and behaviours silence voices that are insisting and deserve to be heard.

Hearing people who have been hidden and silenced because of social dynamics that divide and subject people is the summons of this book. Kim and Shaw are social activists working from a base in the Christian community whose vision of justice is inclusive and prophetic. They present intersectional theology as a grass-roots movement in which voices long-suppressed find the encouragement to challenge church and social practices that are rooted in classism, racism, sexism, homophobia, and ableism. So many of our frameworks for understanding the will of God have been composed and imposed by white European males. They are no longer the only voices in the room. That will make our theologizing complex, ambiguous, contentious, and unsettling. That, and I agree wholeheartedly with Kim and Shaw here, is a good thing for becoming more faithful, wise, and effective as ambassadors of the triune Creator’s forgiving and reconciling love in every relationship that makes up our living together.

Kim and Shaw envision a “church resistant” rather than a “church triumphant.” They note that in the early years of forming, the church’s character was comprised of the good news of God’s intersectional love (kerygma) incarnate in Jesus, a Jewish man of the working class living under the imperial power of Rome who gravitated to those rejected by the dominant culture. Further, this Body of Christ undertook a social responsibility (diakonia)that transformed the practice of justice at the intersections of gender, race, wealth, religion, and power. The community (kononia) that God drew together embraced all peoples in its intersectionality. This is the church they invite and guide us into reviving.

The purpose of this church is to join God’s missioning in bending the grand arc of history in the direction of justice. At Brentwood Presbyterian Church in Burnaby, BC, as mentioned, intersectionality is the matrix in which we nourish souls to flourish in the mercy and grace of Jesus Christ. To do that better, this approach to analyzing and acting will awaken us to deeper levels of the dynamics that shape our interdependencies in this world and to the practices that can transform them as God desires.

[Luke Hillier · Rating 3 out of 5]

I feel like this had the makings to be an exceptional 5-star journal article or chapter in an essay collection, but as its own book it felt a bit thin. The premise is strong, useful, and engaging –– Kim and Shaw introduce the concept of intersectionality and invite readers to apply it as a lens for theology and biblical studies. They write: "It is kaleidoscopic, constantly rendering shifting patterns of power visible. It is confluent, a juncture point where identities, locations, institutions, and power flow together to create something new. It is a praxis--an ongoing loop of action-reflection-action--that integrates social justice-oriented theory with activism toward social justice on the ground so that theory informs practice and practice informs theory." When applied to theological work, intersectionality displaces (allegedly) objective, universal centers of interpretation in favor of a polyphonic sense of shared voices and a posture of curiosity, receptivity, and openness to the unique and particular experiences of all people. This demands a spaciousness for incoherence, disharmony, and difference across perspectives reorients that as something to celebrate rather than eradicate. They attempt to curtail a total collapse into subjectivity by emphasizing that intersectionality is in favor of justice, though there is an ironic presumption that justice has an inherent definition.

To be honest, I like or am at least open to all of that. It doesn't read quite as new as they suggest, however. Although Kim and Shaw are intentional to credit founding scholars of intersectionality and various theologians who have theorized explicitly from their vantage point, I couldn't always tell how what they were proposing necessarily diverged or evolved their examples. Black liberation theology, for example, has always taken the illusion of objectivity to task and argued from and for a particularized vantage point of theology. Womanists took it a step further by emphasizing their multiplicity of identity as Black women. I suppose intersectionality elicits attentiveness to our many, many interwoven identities all at once. My main critique here is just its repetitiveness; there's a few clumsy mouthfulls of jargon that kept looping back which definitely got old. Like I said, the kernel here is great, especially as an introduction, but it seemed to spread itself thin and lose steam as it went on.

[Timothy Bonner · Rating 5 out of 5]

We all have hybridity – multiple categories of our identities or identifying characteristics that make our whole person. Each of us share some aspects of our personhood but not others. Intersectionality conceptually means we are recognizing and accepting that individuals have multiple intersecting and simultaneously overlapping social identities indicative of the complexity of diverse life experiences.

Intersectional theology has been elaborated and applied to churches by Grace Ji-Sum Kim and Susan Shaw in this book. They found it necessary to address the reality of social changes from patriarchy, racism, colonialism, biblical literalism, and gender binary complementarity. Intersectional theology embraces differences among persons as it acknowledges alterity, diversity, multiplicity, and hybridity. Intersectionality is a disruptive innovation that enables an expanded perspective and more accurate understanding of all aspects of the person as they truly are. In addressing the reality of certain social situations, intersectionality empowers truth for the sake of justice, equality, and inclusion. It helps churches imagine and create new ways to equity and justice as it scrutinizes how power is deployed throughout the church system.

Intersectionality was coined by feminist law professor (Columbia Law School; formerly UCLA), Kimberle Crenshaw who represented minority females at the U. S. Supreme Court in a landmark case. By applying the intersection concept to the holistic identity of the whole person, we embrace persons having complex features that intersect within their individual personhood. For example, an individual who is a female family member, Pentecostal, Black, LGBTQ+, registered Independent, factory worker with multiple, exceptional talents may have the ability to do a certain job without a work record granting her the status to be considered for it. All those different identifying elements intersect within the person resulting in multiple and various ways they may be labeled, categorized by stereotypes, and honored or discriminated against. Characteristics like color, gender, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic status, ability level, sexuality, and physical appearance can be empowering or oppressing.

[Mrs C · Rating 4 out of 5]

Intersectional theology is a great start for anyone new to the concept. It is clear and easy to read. With the author's rooting their explanations through their own stories. Their strong premis is that as human beings we can never be adequately named by one description. And each aspect of our lives has strengths and weaknesses to be explored.
This liberation theology has a strong bias towards justice and as such grapples with the complexities of people's lives. Whilst it calls out hegemony and traditional biases, it honours humanity and its potential as found in God's love.
By listing the 'isms' repeatedly, the book can feel a bit clunky, however, I guess this is a tool for making the reader aware that nothing is taken for granted and each new chapter and focus of our lives requires the work of ongoing intersectional theologising.
This book is a good springboard to other authors on this subject as well as being a challenge to the church about pre-based biases, practices and theologies that exclude. It would be a good read for anyone who is wanting to broaden their theological base or any theology undergraduate.

[Allen Abbott · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 Helpful in many ways (for example, I loved the idea that theology is always a creative endeavor, requiring acquaintance with a person's various identities and social location), but unnecessarily repetitive. Also, I found the authors' proposal for a wholesale rejection of "totalizing" or "universalizing" language a bit self-unaware...even self-refuting. Perhaps I've misunderstood the authors in this regard, but how can we speak of "justice" or "dominance" or "peace" without resorting to universal categories? Of course, all real-world instances of "justice" (for example) are unique, but they still abide by the general constitutive principles of justice. How, then, can we throw away universalizing language without also throwing away our universal concepts of justice, love, etc.--given that these universal concepts are essential to the validity of intersectionality? Overall, however, the book is a valuable addition to the current dialogue surrounding intersectionality and theological thought.

[Tom]

Exceedingly helpful in laying out the essentials of intersectional thinking, and the foundational theologians, writers.

I personally found it helpful in light of the present moment regarding race and poverty, power and oppression.

Rather than thinking about a singular problem, which has to be done, of course, to think about its location - i.e. it relationship to a dozen other issues, questions, and oppressions. Clearly complicating the picture, but only to bring on board voices otherwise marginalized.

The book, and its two talented authors, lay out the "theoretical" dimensions, and then add along the way, practical illustrations, with plenty of questions ending each chapter. Much of it focused on the local church - how the church can be a voice of liberation and justice and not conformity and tacit, or outright, approval of system oppression.

This book would be fun to read in a small group.

[Lisa Frauens · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the short time that I have had this book, I have completely dog-eared it and highlighted it. I would highly recommend it to any reader interested in intersectional theology.

When we live out our faith through our own personal journeys, we bring our whole selves. This includes different intersections of our identity and how they relate to power structures. Our identities determine how we read and interpret scripture. The levels of oppression that we feel affect how we pray, what we pray for, and how we define God. By focusing on intersectionality’s practice of both/and, we can open our eyes to seeing the different perspectives. We begin to understand that God is more than any of our individual theologies, and we can start to imagine a God whose depth and width is far vaster than we can imagine.

[Emma Di Pace · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a thought provoking and very important read. Significant parts: history of intersectional thinking, author’s own stories, thoughts on baptism, ordination, and communion, uses for biblical interpretation

“Intersectional theology moves us toward a more inclusive and accurate understanding of the full human experience, especially as it embraces and highlights the ‘least of these,’ those whom theology often ignores or marginalizes—the poor, people of color, women, people from the Two-Thirds World, immigrants, LGBTQ people, people with disabilities, older people, people of different faiths or no faith—all of these, across all of their differences—become central in intersectional theology”(110)

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don’t disagree with intersectional theology (it’s important and there are some good insights in this volume), but the writing here rarely sparkled. It’s also a survey book, and I don’t think reading survey books confront you with the same urgency of the original arguments, since you aren’t forced to travel to the conclusions with the writers but simply arrive at the destination.

[Paul Hedges · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short and accessible read that gives the overview you need to understand how intersectional thinking may be applied within theological discourse.

[Audrey Gibson-Altrock · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really well written and refreshing read. Gives me hope for more inclusive theology spaces. Plus the reference list creates a never ending to-read list 😅