Jonathan Assink

This is my read on it too. The level of organizing before the 2016 Synod made a mockery of Synod's work to discern the will of the Spirit.

Jesus explicitly addresses this in his interaction with the woman at the well and the parable of the Good Samaritan. Further the argument can be made that Jesus does do the very thing you raise in rebuffing the Syrophoenician woman only to correct himself and heal the woman's daughter when she calls him out.

All is not lost! We have great reason for hope.

When I admit the racism inside of myself as a beneficiary of white supremacy, that doesn't put me in a sinful state in and of itself. That would be akin to saying being a man is a sin. It would be impossible to repent of that type of sin. Counter to the idea that Christ is caught in some kind of sin loop because of male or racial privilege, Christ stands as a paragon example of rebuking and denying himself the privileges afforded to him by those stations. Part of the anger the temple establishment felt toward Jesus, and why they kept approaching him with "gotcha" questions about the sins of others, was his refusal to affirm their political and economic systems and aspirations. Much as I take great hope in the ways Christ is reforming my spirit to be more like His, I take great hope that He is also opening my eyes to systems of oppression that I participate in so that I may rebuke them myself.

I'm curious where you learned to interpret Critical Race Theory the way you do because I don't think it accurately reflects what CRT actually is.

I never said they are the same, merely that we cannot separate them for our own convenience.

Virgil,

I'm glad to hear that you are willing to engage with people in the LGBT community. I cannot speak to the interaction you had, but I will say it certainly does not match my experience. I have found the LGBT Christians I have met to be people of deep personal faith, who have spoken to and enriched my own understanding of God's love and grace. As you continue to engage, I would encourage you to avoid referring to people as "a homosexual" or "a transgender". They are people loved by God, no matter how they express their gender and sexuality, and the terms you are using would be taken by many as derogatory.

Article 10 itself references "homosexual immorality and transgenderism" as you say, but by the words of CBMW President Denny Burk himself, they mean far more. "We are declaring what it means to be a male or female image-bearer. We are defining the nature of the marriage covenant and of the sexual holiness and virtue. To get these questions wrong is to walk away from Jesus not to him." I understand Burk to be saying that the meaning of Article 10 is to signal a much broader understanding on human sexuality and gender identity. I take this to mean that even if I agree with their position on LGBT Christians (I don't) but view gender as non-binary, I cannot be a Christian by their standard.

I don't agree with them but I'm not questioning their faith. You're right that I can't read the minds of the signatories, so all I'm left with is their actions as evidence for what they believe. I fundamentally disagree with how they view human sexuality, gender, and God's grace and love.

By that same logic I can say the authors of the Nashville Statement are barring false witness against LGBT Christians by denying their faith.

Doug,

Conversion therapy, while not explicitly named, is what the writers are talking about in Articles 12 and 13. The belief that through sufficient prayer and supplication that God will make you "not-gay" (or trans, or queer, etc.). I do not deny that God has the power to do whatever He desires, but this message of "if you pray hard enough, x will happen" has been used to emotionally and spiritually manipulate and abuse LGBT people in the church, especially youth.

Similarly, on complementarianism and patriarchy, I read Article 4 as the assertion that God has assigned roles to male and female and that to challenge those roles is to challenge God's intended design. And personally, as an egalitarian and a feminist, I don't believe male and female exist as fixed archetypes that we must mold ourselves into. I would probably agree with you that this isn't a new statement compared to the CRC or any other conversations that have been had on this point before, except when paired with Article 10. The statement that we cannot "agree to disagree" on this in Article 10, and the subsequent statements by CBMW doubling down on this point, are an unnecessary and divisive ultimatum, and one that this collection of individuals (CBMW) don't have the authority to make.