The Oppressor-Oppressed Lenses Offer a Truncated View of the World

Dr. Andrey Shirin

Read the original post here on Baptist News Global, posted October 7th, 2025.

The experience of injustice is powerful. It leaves an indelible imprint on many parts of our personalities and communities. This is bound to influence significantly how we experience and think about life. And, of course, it has a major impact on our theological outlook.

The Savior was clearly passionate about injustice and its victims. One needs only recall the stories of poor Lazarus, the woman caught in adultery and the Good Samaritan. Jesus pointedly included the marginalized in the circle of his fellowship. The Savior himself became a victim of injustice.

Justice also is an enduring theme in the Old Testament. In addition, justice is one of the four cardinal virtues widely embraced by Christians of various epochs and ways of practicing their faith.

There were times when an intense focus on injustice bore a remarkable fruit. Recall the ministry of Martin Luther King Jr. Even though it did not eradicate racism in its entirety, his ministry made a powerful contribution to establishing an order that is more just, albeit not perfect. As in his days, today we see whole groups, not just individuals, targeted with unjust treatment. So it is fair to talk about systemic and pervasive forms of injustice or oppression.

Christians are called to stand in solidarity with victims of injustice. This should manifest in both meeting the needs of the victims and striving for an order that is more just. Solidarity with victims of injustice is at the core of the Christian message and practice, not an afterthought.

Even so, the urge to let our experience of injustice ossify into a worldview determined by the oppressor-oppressed perspective must be resisted. Those who advocate the oppressor-oppressed mindset as the only valid framework for understanding contemporary realities must be openly and straightforwardly challenged on the following grounds.

First, the oppressor-oppressed mindset does not do justice to the complexity of the world. Of course, there are situations where it provides the needed moral clarity, the Holocaust being a prime example. Most situations, though, require much greater nuance for an adequate comprehension and remedy.

In Baptist life, and North American culture generally, simplicity beats nuance and complexity every time. But that often comes at a price of the ability to make a sound judgment. To get a glimpse of the nuance involved, we could do much worse than read The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, a moral philosopher who laid out foundations important for moral consideration. In addition to oppression, there are loyalty, authority, sanctity, fairness and care.

While oppression is an important and legitimate consideration, it is by far not the only one. Nor should it be the most important consideration in all situations. While I do not share Haidt’s approach in its entirety, he is correct in pointing out that many factors are involved in sound moral judgment, not just oppression.

Second, this mindset is absolutizing. No human theory can possibly reflect the complexity of the world perfectly. But not every imperfect theory is absolutizing. Once we designate some as oppressors, we delegitimize their voices. Oppressors are not worth listening to unless they repent and reform. The oppressed, on the other hand, have moral high ground. And in recent years, some North American progressives tended to see as oppressed everyone but straight white men. This outlook has contributed heavily to the current rancorous divisions in North American society.

To heal this rancor, voices of different experiences and persuasions must be heard. Delegitimizing voices should be an exception rather than a rule. And healing becomes almost impossible if a large chunk of society consists of designated oppressors.

Third, we must be cognizant that regimes that had the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy as their ideological bedrock have tended to produce ugly and, ironically, oppressive systems. Of course, most of those who hold this frame of mind have no intention of building GULAGs, at least not those living in democratic societies. Nor are they fond of centralized planning economies, at least in theory.

Of course, every good idea can be distorted in practice, and many have been. Calling North American progressives “commies” is no fairer than calling Trump supporters “Nazis.” Still, you don’t have to be a McCarthyist to recognize the tendency of regimes that embrace this dichotomy as their ideological bedrock to be undemocratic.

I grew up in a country run by one of those regimes. No doubt, this has affected my theological outlook. I realize there are those in whose tradition the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy has played a more positive role. I understand and respect that. They can speak out of their experience, both personal and communal. I speak out of mine. Hopefully, this discourse will be mutually enriching.

None of this means that we should be indifferent to injustice, or that we should not try to rectify it. Injustice should not be minimized or downplayed. However, we do not need to embrace the oppressor-oppressed perspective to confront it.

Recognizing the complexity of moral discourse will make one more, not less, capable of helping to make the world more just. There are those who are called to focus on injustice and oppression in their ministries and thus make the world more inhabitable for us all. However, modern history is replete with examples of those driven by this mindset who have made their part of the world less inhabitable for generations.

The experience of injustice and oppression scars us for the rest of our lives. It may create a powerful pull to see the world through oppressor-oppressed lenses primarily, and sometimes exclusively. The world, however, is much richer than that.

Andrey Shirin is a native Russian who serves as associate professor of divinity and director of transformational leadership at Leland Seminary in Virginia.