Who is “Privileged”?

When we went through the topic of partiality at our local church, we talked about an illustration that was common at the time – the “privilege walk”.

You may have seen this done – I’ve seen it done in a couple of countries, in English and in Spanish. But here’s the basic idea. Everyone starts off in a straight line. And then the facilitator calls out something like, “You grew up with a father in your home”, or “You have never wondered where your next meal is coming from”, and so on. Everyone who had this perceived privilege or advantage takes a step forward. Then there might be negative statements, like “My parents warned me before I left the house that I could encounter violence”. Take a step back.

In the end, you see that some people are far more “privileged” than others. And what generally happens is that the black woman is in the back, and the white man is in the front (in other words, the most “privileged”).

Now, I have some problems here, but let’s clarify something. Is there discrimination in this world based on the colour of your skin? Is there favouritism based on the country you’re from? Does life tend to be more difficult for someone who lives far from their family?

To all these we say – of course! And so there is no doubt there is something real and true, to say that some people have privileges or challenges, that other people don’t have.

But there are some things that are missing in these “privilege walks”. For example, there’s no personal responsibility. And that’s part of the point – you didn’t “merit” the privileges you have. But there is a danger of ignoring personal responsibility, personal choice (because remember, the ideology here is that personal “sin” or “merit” is deemphasized, and value based on your group is emphasized).

Another problem is that a few questions result in drastic oversimplification. Who decides which questions to ask? It’s easy to “design” such an activity so that a certain type of person ends up at the back of the pack. What’s more important? Being rich? Being powerful? Feeling safe? Living close to family? Living in the country? Again, those in power, the “experts”, decide.

What if someone is lazy? I suppose that the answer would be that everyone should start at the same place. But it becomes not important if the experts decide that you’re in the “oppressed group”. That lazy person should have the same resources as the hard worker. What if a person decides to stay home with the children, instead of being in the workforce? That’s a personal decision – should they be given some of the money of the worker? What if someone decides they would like to live in the country instead of the city?

We actually did a “privilege walk” at our church, but with some twists. First of all, we used completely invented countries and backgrounds to guarantee a certain level of diversity. Everyone received a card with their own invented biography.

Once we finished the activity, and saw who all the “privileged” people were, we had a few more questions. And it turned out that they weren’t so privileged after all.

The point was that the maker of the questions can manipulate where people end up, and that sometimes people with more money and more education are actually not as privileged as you may at first think. People with big houses may have massive debt. People in private schools may be mercilessly bullied. It’s complex – everyone has their own story. Slotting them into groups is not so easy.

Marxism, or neo-Marxism, wants everyone to end up with the same amount. And there are some serious problems with this. We’ve already mentioned one problem – it turns God Himself into an unjust “oppressor”.

Some people put it this way. It’s not about equality of opportunity – for example, the basketball tryouts are open to everyone. If they’re in the top few regarding skill, they’re on the team. No, it’s about equality of results. In other words, everyone gets on the team. Or, the experts choose not based on your basketball skills, but on your group. We need so many of each oppressed group on this team. That’s the idea behind what is familiarly called “social justice”.

Social justice, according to the world, has less to do with equality of opportunity, or equality before the law, and more to do with equality of results, according to the experts in control.

And it might sound great at first. But we’re going to end up with a terrible basketball team (worse, how about airplane designers?). We end up with people who don’t care about working hard, or gaining skills, because it’s simply not necessary. But what does the Bible say?

For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies.

2 Thessalonians 3:10-11

We want equality, that sounds great. And we’ll talk about what the Bible teaches about equality. We don’t want to see anyone hated for the colour of their skin, or because of the country they come from. Agreed. But sometimes the solution that sounds good humanly speaking isn’t wise.

We’ll take a closer look at this concept in action, as an imaginary government tries to bring equity to their country.