Skip to main content

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'm am grateful for the ministry, scholarship and preaching of the women I have had the honor to serve with and learn from.

To say that justice is merely getting what you deserve whether we like the outcome or not is not the highest or fullest definition of justice. In fact, I don't see how you can make a Biblical argument for such a passive definition of justice, or for a definition that considers justice outside of mercy and righteousness. These things are woven intimately together though the Bible, creating the image of a world defined by shalom. In Micah 6:8, there is not a hierarchical ranking of justice, mercy and righteousness, we are called to practice all three. Christ's healing ministry is a modeling of these three in practice: his actions are righteous (healing those who are suffering is the right thing to do), his actions are merciful (those suffering have done nothing to earn their healing), and his actions are just (the healing restores them to the community). Similarly, Christ's calling of Zacchaeus is righteous (he calls out the abusive tax practices), merciful (he dines with Zacchaeus anyway), and just (Zaccheaus ceases his abusive behavior and is restored to the community through restitution). Or Christ's treatment of the woman caught in adultery: he calls out her sinful behavior (righteous), declares her worthy of forgiveness (merciful), and commands her to end her adulterous life (justice by the restoration to right relationship). To remove righteousness and mercy from a conversation about justice leaves the definition of justice lacking.

Justice is the restoration of right relationship, through acts of mercy and righteousness, between ourselves, others, God and Creation.


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.

This piece from The American Conservative may bridge some of the gap where we've been talking past each other.

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post