Original Sin vs Whiteness: the Irreconcilable Nature of CRT and Christianity

The following was originally a research paper for undergraduate studies with Whitefield College.

Introduction: Secular rallies for justice base their claims and solutions upon presuppositions that are fundamentally anti-Christian. Critical Race Theory (CRT) presents an alien view of original sin, one of whiteness, generational hegemony, and oppression. Beginning from faulty assumptions about the problem, CRT then can only provide faulty answers. CRT as a philosophical system sets itself up against Christianity and the gospel.

These dangerous ideas are such that Paul warns his hearers, “…beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8 King James Version). Therefore, the hamartiological assumptions taken by CRT make it irredeemably opposed to historical, orthodox Christianity. Disguised with the language of justice and equality, CRT deceives many into adopting radical leftist ideologies. Critical theory is a toxic worldview that is antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Original sin is man’s problem.

“In virtue of their connection with Adam all men are, after the fall, born in a sinful state and condition. This state is called original sin and is the inward root of all the actual sins that defile the life of man” (Berkhof, Manual of Christian Doctrine, 145). This state of original sin is the beginning point of the Christian understanding of man’s problem. Man was charged with stewardship of God’s creation, and forbidden only from the act of eating from one tree. But Adam rebelled against God and ate the fruit. In Adam’s fall, all men have become corrupt. Adams sin broke God’s covenant of works and imputed to all of his posterity sin and corruption. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (623) explains that the term Original Sin refers to two interrelated doctrines, first, that of “…the fall, that tragic, primal disobedience of Adam in the garden of Eden…” and second the “innate moral corruption” of mankind. “They commit sins because of a prior ontological state of sinfulness.” It is this doctrine which is referred to when considering the source of the universal corruption of man. Of this corruption, the Westminster Shorter Catechism Q. 18 teaches, 

The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called Original Sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.

Thus, all men are born in sin. As Psalm 51:5 says, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” This corruption makes man wholly incapable of pleasing God. For man in the flesh cannot please God, and is unable to submit to his law (Romans 8:8).

Original sin carries with it the inclination to all sin and puts men subject to the wrath of God. “In consequence…[mankind] became totally depraved, that is, depraved in every part of his being and utterly incapable of doing spiritual good.” (Berkhof 137) As Ephesians 2:3 states, “…[men are] by nature the children of wrath…” Thus, men justly are under the condemnation of the holy God, while being helpless to change. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) chapter 6 section 4 explains, “From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.” All men inherit the guilt of Adam and are under the condemnation of God for both their corruption and their actual sins which proceed from it. 

Christianity teaches that the punishment for man’s sin is death and eternally bearing the wrath and torment of God. The WCF continues, (6.6) 

Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.

Therefore, all men stand condemned before God in their sinful state. All men commit wickedness and sin. Those who remain in this state of sin will be eternally condemned to hell. Christianity presents original sin as the source of man’s pain, the basis for his depravity, and the beginning of his damnation. There is no other Christian answer for these things other than sin. Many secular ideologies posit theories of psychology, or sociological explanations like Critical Theory to explain the injustices and evils of our day. But as Berkhof concludes,

“The Bible, however, directs our attention to the fall of man. It teaches us that the root of all moral evil in the world lies in the first sin of Adam, the natural and representative head of the human race.” (135)

Whiteness and power are the original sin of leftist CRT.

Man as God’s image-bearer is dependent upon God’s reality. Critical Theory shows this dependence by borrowing categories from Christianity of original sin, rebranding it as “whiteness.” Critical Theory is an umbrella of sociopolitical ideology in contemporary secularism. It can be seen as fundamental in disciplines such as feminism and anti-racism. Anti-racism is not simply being opposed to racism. “Anti-racism” as used by the CRT leaders in the social justice movement is the attempt at justice and equity through CRT and intersectionality. In this system of thought you are either a racist or an anti-racist. White people are inherently racist, and racism is defined as systemic by nature.

Shenvi briefly defines Critical Theory in his article Intro To Critical Theory, 

“Contemporary critical theory views reality through the lens of power, dividing people into oppressed groups and oppressor groups along various axes like race, class, gender, sexuality orientation, physical ability and age. [sic] Critical Theory can broadly be identified with viewing the world through the lenses of intersectionality; it can be viewed as emphasizing the intersections of power, and oppression.”

Critical Race Theory is a branch of this broad critical theory tree. Critical Race Theory is man’s attempt to explain man’s relation to each other across ethnic boundaries. Black Lives Matter demonstrates this foundation on their website, saying the following,

“We affirm the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks…women, and all Black lives along the gender spectrum…We are doing that [moving towards justice,] through our continued fight against elected officials, be it Democrat or Republican, who don’t share a vision that is radical and intersectional.”

The intersectional approach is seen in the emphasis upon each type of “disadvantaged” person, “queer and trans folks, disabled folks…women…” etc. The intersectional approach gains popular favor by using categories of justice and equality, terms that Christians agree with.

Christians should seek justice, and should advocate for the marginalized. But Samuel Sey in his article, Don’t Grow Weary Rejecting Critical Race Theory, warns in strong terms, “Critical race theory isn’t just bad theology, it produces a false gospel—a false gospel that’s influencing many Christians to reject what the Bible says about racism and justice.” This is based on one of the foundational concepts of intersectionality and CRT, that of the original sin of whiteness. Borrowing from the Christian worldview, CRT treats being white as something which makes you inherently racist. Shenvi agrees, “…the concept of privilege exhibits uncanny similarities to the concept of Original Sin” (Important Articles on Critical Theory). This guilt is not based upon any specific action or attitude of prejudice against someone because of their ethnicity. Rather, it is based upon the privileges enjoyed by white people in a society believed to be built upon racism. 

“White privilege is the secular white person’s Original Sin, present at birth and ultimately ineradicable. One does one’s penance by endlessly attesting to this privilege in hope of some kind of forgiveness” (John McWhorter, The American Interest). Thus, the source of injustice by this worldview is the original sin of whiteness. This is the basis, according to CRT, of contemporary oppression. Popular anti-racist book White Fragility speaks of this foundation,

“DiAngelo forces us to see that all politics have rested on identities…We cannot possibly name the nemeses of democracy or truth or justice or equality if we cannot name the identities to which they have been attached. For most of our history, straight white men have been involved in a witness protection program that guards their identities and absolves them of their crimes while offering them a future free of past encumbrances and sins.” (Michael Eric Dyson, White Fragility 15)

Christianity teaches the forgiveness of sins for all men, black and white, Jew and Gentile. This forgiveness is based on Christ’s work, in which he has united his church from all the tribes of Adam, to himself. They come to him without identities or ethnicity, status, or power. For they are all one in Christ, and dependent upon him for their forgiveness and righteousness. All men are equally undeserving of his mercy. For God says, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). And “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us” (Ephesians 2:14).

But this unity the gospel brings is not what the anti-racist movement seeks. Sey comments, “In anti-racism, the gospel is irrelevant and racist. Essentially, anything that isn’t in conformity to anti-racism is racist—including the gospel of Jesus Christ” (White Fragility is Pro-Racism). For CRT any attempt to remove the label of racist from a white person is itself racist. Therefore, the cleansing of the gospel is actively in opposition to the anti-racist movement. The condemnation based on original sin/whiteness in CRT is diametrically opposed to the gospel. 

Objective Truth in Christianity

“…What is truth?” (John 18:38) Pilate asked Jesus in his trial. A metanarrative is an overarching story, a tale of events and explanations that is true in all contexts. It is considered as objectively true, meaning true outside the perceptions of its adherents or dissenters. The Christian doctrine of original sin is a metanarrative, objectively true, serving to explain reality. Original sin is true in the United States, and in South Africa, and everywhere else. Original sin is not the only doctrine of Christianity which claims universal and objective truth. Christianity as a worldview proclaims that Jesus is “…the way, the truth and the life…” (John 14:6) to the exclusion of any alternative. Jesus says that no man comes to the Father, but through him. This statement is absolute, and it is objectively true. Christ is not the savior just for Christians. He objectively came in the flesh, suffered and died in history, rose from the dead, and reigns at the Father’s right hand. The truth of all of this is outside the perceptions of Christians. Christians do not make a world by their beliefs, but all men live in the world of reality. Christianity is the story of reality, recounting the truth that is binding on all men.

God commands that all men repent and believe the gospel (Acts 17:30-31, Mark 1:15). The Muslim, the Mormon, and the Buddist all are obligated to repent of their idolatries and trust in the living Christ. Likewise, all the ethical teachings of God in his law are objective by nature, and they are binding on all men. The nature of reality is objective and universal. The ethics of God’s world are universal, and they are objective. Christianity cannot abide with any relativistic or subjective forms of truth which are foreign to reality and the Christian worldview. 

Standpoint Epistemology in Critical Theory

Contrasted to the view of truth in Christianity is the standpoint epistemology of Critical Theory. Critical Theory, like postmodernism, emphasizes narratives over the metanarrative. Instead of one overarching story that explains all of the world, each story from an individual or community is “truth.” The addition that CRT brings is that the further one is intersectionality oppressed, the closer their experience brings them to truth. Pat Sawyer and Neil Shenvi write in their article, The Incompatibility of Critical Theory and Christianity,

“…critical theory claims that members of oppressed groups have special access to truth because of their “lived experience” of oppression. Such insight is unavailable to members of oppressor groups, who are blinded by their privilege. Consequently, any appeals to “objective evidence” or “reason” made by dominant groups are actually surreptitious bids for continued institutional power. This view is rooted in standpoint theory (organic to Marxism and repurposed by feminist theory), which argues that knowledge is conditioned and determined by social location.”

This means that truth is determined by the intersectional framework of the individual. Those with some form of hegemony are rejected as just reinforcing their own power. Any that would fit within the defined “oppressed” class who disagree with the CRT orthodox metanarrative are dismissed as having internalized oppression. Therefore, the women who oppose abortion are simply internalizing the patriarchy. Black people who disagree with the systemic racism narrative are dismissed as internalizing this systematic racism. Thus, the metanarrative of intersectionality claims an objective truth which cannot be disproven. The religious zeal and dogmatism of this view of truth is noted by Sullivan in his article, Is Intersectionality a Religion? 

“Like the Puritanism once familiar in New England, intersectionality controls language and the very terms of discourse. It enforces manners. It has an idea of virtue — and is obsessed with upholding it. The saints are the most oppressed who nonetheless resist. The sinners are categorized in various ascending categories of demographic damnation, like something out of Dante. The only thing this religion lacks, of course, is salvation. Life is simply an interlocking drama of oppression and power and resistance, ending only in death. It’s Marx without the final total liberation.”

To attempt to then blend this heresy with the truth of the Christan worldview is incoherent. It cannot be done, and those who attempt to do such will find they must compromise.

Dr. Voddie Baucham in his lecture, Ethnic Gnosticism, notes the striking parallels of this view of truth to the ancient heresy of gnosticism. Gnosticism preached that the material world was inherently evil and the spiritual was good. Gnosticism’s truth, however, was secret knowledge only available to the enlightened few. In Critical Theory, there is a secret knowledge available only to an enlightened few as well. This secret knowledge is gained by experiences that are only available to those of that particular ethnic identity. Other disciplines of Critical Theory would point to the same “sacred lived experience” of other intersectional identities, LGBT, religion, etc. All of this is unchangeably subjective, and attempts to dismiss the ultimate and objective claims of truth found in the Christian worldview. 

The Redemption of Man is a Restoration From Original Sin.

Christians talk much of the concept of salvation, but without the prior background of original sin, it can lack focus. Without acknowledgment of the problem, there can be no accurate understanding of the solution. The solution is Christ and his work. “Now the natural condition of man is exactly the opposite of that holiness which is so indispensable. Consequently, a radical internal change is necessary…” (Berkhof 238) In answer to man’s helpless estate it pleased God to redeem a people for himself for his own glory. God the Father elected from eternity past elected those who he would redeem from the state of sin unto life. God the Son was incarnated and suffered, died, and rose again to secure this redemption. God the Spirit does apply this redemption to the elect through the “radical internal change” of regeneration. Thus the Godhead works in unison to restore mankind from his state of sin. When Christ returns, all things will be made new and man will finally be free of the indwelling state of sin. Speaking of Christ’s marvelous work, Gamble writes in his article, The Great Exchange, 

“After Adam’s fall, the world stood condemned for both original and actual sins. In Christ’s cross, this condemnation was lifted from our weak shoulders and placed upon Christ’s massive, divine strength. Christ could bear the weight of the guilt of sin in a way that no other human was able. Having borne sin’s burden, Christ then liberated believers from the curse.”

So Christians declare in the gospel what God has done in Christ to reconcile sinners to himself. This is the restoration of man from the state of original sin, the cleansing of his actual sins, and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. 

The eternal second person of the Trinity was conceived in the womb of a virgin, thus being spared from being born in the state of original sin. He was born in flesh and lived on this earth without sin. At the right time, he gave up his life, crucified by the hands of wicked men. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Christ in his body bore the sins of his people, being smitten with the wrath of God in their stead unto death. For “it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days” (Isaiah 53:10). The glorious hope of the Christian is that because of Jesus’ death and resurrection, by faith they are united to him and will one day be resurrected with him. “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). The effects of Christ’s work are just as thorough as Adams’s failure, and many times as glorious. 

Peace, Peace, When There is No Peace

“Anti-racism isn’t interested in changing sinners, it’s interested in changing systems. This is why they label Biblical Christians as racist. This is why anti-racists hate it when we Christians say: ‘just preach the gospel’” (Sey, White Fragility is Pro-Racism). As opposed to the glorious salvation of the gospel, Critical Theory offers only a goal of social upheaval, and perpetual condemnation. The gospel of Christ is concerned with the salvation of souls, and the establishment of true justice in this earth as an implication of the lordship of Christ. In contrast, Critical Theory seeks “justice” by damning souls. The anti-racist solution can only ever be more of the same problems they recognize. Intersectionality can only seek to put those it identifies as “privileged” down to an “oppressed” status, and exalt the “oppressed” to the “privileged”. In the secular CRT worldview there is no basis for any equality. And there is never peace or forgiveness. The “powerful” whites must with religious zeal continually recognize their inherent racism which they will never be cleansed of. They must self abase, and continually grovel at the feet of their “victims.” This, despite the fact that the victim never experienced any racist action at the hand of the alleged perpetrator. 

“This brand of [white] self-flagellation has become the new form of enlightenment on race issues. It qualifies as a kind of worship; the parallels with Christianity are almost uncannily rich. White privilege is the secular white person’s Original Sin, present at birth and ultimately ineradicable. One does one’s penance by endlessly attesting to this privilege in hope of some kind of forgiveness.” (John McWhorter, The American Interest)

But there is no forgiveness, only perpetually recognizing one’s own racism. In Critical Theory there is only condemnation and division. 

Conclusion

“Many Christians suggest critical race theory is just a little theoretical framework that doesn’t replace their theology. But critical race theory doesn’t just redefine racism and justice. It’s an all-encompassing ideology that redefines a biblical understanding of righteousness and sin—it’s a little leaven that leavens the whole lump.” (Sey, Do Not Grow Weary Rejecting Critical Race Theory)

It has been demonstrated that Critical Theory is fundamentally anti-Christian. CRT ideology presupposes a new original sin, a new epistemological standing, and the perpetual condemnation and division of its adherents. This perpetual condemnation for the penitent is not of God. Doug Wilson agrees, “…there can be no peace between the God of forgiveness and the god of recrimination, the God of no condemnation and the god of all condemnation” (Minneapolis Burning and Black Privilege). And as Sey notes above, these facets of CRT make it completely incompatible with Christianty. Christianity presents a universal original sin, and salvation from sin in the blood of Christ alone. Christianity presents the objective truth of Christ and his word. Christianity presents the gospel of God for salvation. The societal implications of the gospel is peace across all tribes that Christ has purchased, because the ground is level at the foot of the cross. CRT and Christianity have no part in each other. Shenvi and Sawyer comment, 

“Or consider the question of our fundamental problem as humans: Is our fundamental problem sin, in which case we all equally stand condemned before a holy God? Or is our fundamental problem oppression, in which case members of dominant groups are tainted by guilt in a way that members of subordinate groups are not?”

Like oil and water, Christianity and CRT cannot mix. For as Paul says, “And what concord hath Christ with Belial?” (2 Corinthians 6:15).

Christians should be the true anti-racists, as they seek justice by God’s standards, rejecting all forms of tribalism and ethnic prejudice including Critical Theory. For CRT is hated by God, as spoken in Proverbs, “[The Lord hates]…A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren” (Proverbs 6:19). And just as the church of Ephesus was commended by our Lord for their hatred of the works of the Nicolaitans, Christians should hate what God hates, including CRT. “But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate” (Revelation 2:6). Instead of proclaiming the anti-racist agenda, Christians should proclaim the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. For it is through his blood that peace is made between tribes and nations. Ultimately, there are two races that matter, those who are covenantally in Adam, and those who are in Christ (Romans 5). CRT is a false gospel, and a cracked cistern which holds no water. Christians must fly to their Lord, the giver of life who is himself the living water.

Works Cited and Referenced

“6 Years Strong.” Black Lives Matter, 28 Aug. 2020, blacklivesmatter.com/six-years-strong/. 

“About.” Black Lives Matter, 16 Oct. 2020, blacklivesmatter.com/about/. 

Baucham, Voddie. Cultural Marxism. YouTube, Founders Ministries, 21 Feb. 2019, 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRMFBdDDTkI&t=765s. 

—. Ethnic Gnosticism. YouTube, Founders Ministries, 28 Mar 2019, 

Berkhof, Louis. Manual of Christian Doctrine. Christian Liberty Press, 2003. 

The Confession of Faith: Agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, with the 

Assistance of Commissioners from the Church of Scotland, as a Part of the Covenanted Uniformity in Religion Betwixt the Churches of Christ in the Kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland: Approved by the General Assembly 1647, and Ratified and Established by Act of Parliament 1649, as the Publick and Avowed Confession of the Church of Scotland: with the Proofs from the Scripture. Banner of Truth Trust, 2012. 

DiAngelo, Robin J., and Michael Eric Dyson. White Fragility: Why It’s so Hard for White People 

to Talk about Racism, Beacon Press, 2020, p. 15. 

Elwell, Walter A., and Daniel J. Treier. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker Academic, a 

Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2017. 

Gamble, Rick. “The Great Exchange.” Ligonier Ministries, 1 July 2009, 

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/great-exchange-gamble/. 

McWhorter, John. “Atonement as Activism.” The American Interest, 16 Jan. 2020, 

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/05/24/atonement-as-activism/. 

Sawyer, Pat, et al. “The Incompatibility of Critical Theory and Christianity.” The Gospel Coalition, 

15 May 2019, http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/incompatibility-critical-theory-christianity/. 

Sey, Samuel. “Do Not Grow Weary Rejecting Critical Race Theory.” Slow To Write, 23 Dec. 

2020, slowtowrite.com/do-not-grow-weary-rejecting-critical-race-theory/. 

— “How To Be A Racist.” Slow To Write, 23 Dec. 2020, slowtowrite.com/how-to-be-a-racist/. 

— “White Fragility Is Pro-Racism.” Slow To Write, 10 July 2020, 

slowtowrite.com/white-fragility-is-pro-racism/. 

Shenvi, Neil. “Important Articles on Critical Theory.” Apologetics, 25 Feb. 2020, 

shenviapologetics.com/important-articles-on-critical-theory/. 

— “Intro to Critical Theory.” Apologetics, 16 July 2020, 

shenviapologetics.com/intro-to-critical-theory/. 

Steinbuch, Yaron. “Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Describes Herself as ‘Trained Marxist’.” New 

York Post, New York Post, 25 June 2020, 

nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/. 

Sullivan, Andrew. “Is Intersectionality a Religion?” Intelligencer, Intelligencer, 10 Mar. 2017, 

nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/03/is-intersectionality-a-religion.html. 

The Westminster Shorter Catechism: with Scripture Proofs. Banner of Truth Trust, 2008. 

Wilson, Douglas. “Minneapolis Burning and Black Privilege.” Blog & Mablog, 2 June 2020, 

dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/minneapolis-burning-and-black-privilege.html. 

Thou Shalt Not Kill: Convenience At What Cost?

The following is a research paper written by my wife, Anne Clark. I encourage a thorough and thoughtful read. Soli Deo Gloria, Asher.

Christians have long held the belief that life is sacred and should be protected, and that marriage and children are blessings from God. And yet, this is not reflected in the widespread support by Protestant Christians of hormonal contraception. Christians must regain a Biblical theology of marriage and sex, which does not line up with the use of hormonal contraceptives due to their ending of human life and their degradation of the biblical purpose of sex. This can be seen by examining how contraceptives work and by understanding God’s design for sex.

To understand the mechanisms of hormonal contraceptives and their effects on a developing fetus, one must have at least a basic knowledge of conception and the first few stages of the developing embryo. Conception occurs when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte (also known as an ovum, or more simply, egg). When the sperm and egg cells fuse together, they create a zygote, which according to Susan Ward and Shelton Hisley in their textbook, Maternal-Child Nursing Care, “…is genetically unique in that it contains half of its chromosomes from the mother and half from the father.” This is an indication of a unique, human life that occurs immediately, not after it has successfully implanted in the uterus and begun growing, which is the point at which many Christians falsely refer to as the true beginning of life. 

The Christian birth control user’s definition of life beginning after implantation is ambiguous, for it is unclear what constitutes the difference between the embryo before and after successful implantation. Some, especially those in the pro-choice movement, contend that it is only at a certain number of gestational weeks, such as the second or even third trimester, that the fetus should be considered a life to be protected. But why is one point of growth considered “life” over another? If one follows that line of thinking, why does it not continue after the baby is born? As Paul Stark puts it in his article, “When does life begin? It’s pretty simple,”

“If personhood is acquired through a gradual process… then why doesn’t the process continue after birth? Physiological change doesn’t stop at birth—it is continuous throughout the entirety of someone’s life. But teenagers don’t deserve greater respect than toddlers.”

Regardless of the point of gestation, unborn life should be protected, even a zygote before implantation. Any fatal effects on this zygote are therefore killing the life of a person that God has already “fearfully and wonderfully made.” (Psalm 139:14, ESV)

By the time the zygote travels through the fallopian tubes to the uterus and implants in the lining of the uterus, known as the endometrium, the zygote’s cells have divided several times (further evidence of life), and it is now called a blastocyst. It is at this stage that hormonal contraceptives can prevent further development of a pregnancy. While hormonal contraceptives do use several mechanisms of action, one such mechanism is a thinning of the lining of the uterus to prevent the implantation of a blastocyst. If all other methods of contraception fail, and a sperm and egg unite, the resulting blastocyst (human life), will die because it will not be able to implant in the malnourished uterine lining.

The two hormones in contraceptives that work to prevent pregnancy are estrogen and progestin. While the views vary on precisely how these hormones work, critics on several sides of the issue, from neutral medical professionals, to pro-choice defenders, to pro-life Christians, admit that these hormones in hormonal birth control affects the endometrium in a way that can hinder the implantation of a fertilized egg. Susan Ward and Shelton Hisley attest to the post-fertilization effects of contraceptives that use progestin in their textbook, Maternal-Child Nursing Care. They state, “Progestin-only contraceptives are thought to function primarily by creating a thickened cervical mucus…and by causing endometrial atrophy. These alterations inhibit egg implantation…” Further, Sarah Horvath, MD, says in her book, Contraception, “Estrogenic effects include…Alteration of secretions and cellular structures of the endometrium within the uterus.” 

Later in her book, Horvath states that this does not only apply to the pill form and all other types of hormonal contraceptives (arm implants, Depo-Provera injections, vaginal rings, etc.), but also particularly to intrauterine devices. She states, “Both medicated and non-medicated IUDs can alter the uterine lining so that it becomes unfavorable for implantation.” Not only do IUDs use this mechanism of action, most, such as the progestin-only IUD, actually rely on it. According to Horvath, “Ovulation may be inhibited in about twenty percent of women, but this is not the main mechanism of action.” This means that the IUD relies on the other mechanisms of action to prevent pregnancy. She says this also applies to progestin-only pills, which suppress ovulation about fifty percent of the time.

In addition, copper IUDs, while not containing any hormones, can, nevertheless, also impede implantation. John Guillebaud states in his book, Contraception Today: Pocketbook,

 “In studies, fertilized ova are almost never retrievable from the genital tract of copper IUD users, hence they must operate mainly by preventing fertilization. Their effectiveness when put in postcoitally indicates that they can also act to block implantation. However, this seems to be primarily a back-up mechanism when devices are in situ (in the normal position) long term.”

Note that Guillebaud says that “fertilized ova are almost never retrievable,” and that copper IUDs “must operate mainly by preventing fertilization.” These vague terms reveal that while preventing implantation is not a main mechanism of action for copper IUDs, it is still a by-product of them that successfully ends a pregnancy at an unknown percentage of the time. This accounts for why copper IUDs are known mainly as an emergency contraceptive, for they can be effective after fertilization. This overwhelming amount of medical evidence reveals that not just some, but all forms of hormonal contraceptives have the potential to kill life.

Even Rachel Frank, an advocate for the use of contraception, writes in her article entitled, “Miss-Conceptions: Abortifacients, Regulatory Failure, and Political Opportunity,” 

“All hormonal contraception, including emergency contraception, potentially acts to altar the endometrium…In fact, it is more probable that daily contraceptives affect implantation than emergency contraceptives do, because a daily dose of hormones over a long period of time is more likely to have an effect in the body than a single dose.”

Protestant Christians, while generally supportive of contraception, are beginning to question the use of birth control. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says in his article, “Can Christians Use Birth Control?,” 

“Not all birth control is contraception, for some technologies and methods do not prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg, but instead prevent the fertilized egg from  successfully implanting itself in the lining of the womb. Such methods involve nothing less than an early abortion. This is true of all IUDs and some hormonal technologies.”

Mohler continues on to argue that Christians must carefully consider what forms of birth control they choose to use, making sure that they are truly contraceptive and not abortifacient. In sum, critics from all sides of the issue are admitting the post-fertilization effects of hormonal birth control. 

For antiabortion and pro-life advocates, one would think this reality would at least resonate with them. However, they seem to ignore the issue of contraceptives when it would hurt them politically, as Joerg Dreweke rightly points out in his article, “Contraception Is Not Abortion: The Strategic Campaign of Antiabortion Groups to Persuade the Public Otherwise.” Dreweke asserts, 

“Rather than applying the claim that some contraceptive methods in effect cause abortion consistently to all aspects of their advocacy, antiabortion groups ignore and often contradict their positions when it might hurt them politically. “

Instead, Dreweke says, antiabortion groups “have focused on less commonly used methods, like IUDs and emergency contraceptives.”

But as medical evidence has shown, IUDs and emergency contraceptives are not the only contraceptives that have an abortive effect. Antiabortion groups willingly speak out against emergency contraceptives, all the while missing the glaring inconsistency in their arguments. Maybe it is because of the sure failure it would receive politically, even from other pro-lifers, or perhaps it is for the same reason that most Christians ignore the issue: inconvenience. Admitting the abortifacient effects of contraceptives would mean giving up the convenient use of birth control. So Christians loudly protest the horrors of abortion, all the while quietly ignoring the inconvenient truth about the birth control they use that is, in reality, doing the very same thing as an abortion. But we have not been called to a life of ease and convenience. Jesus calls us to “take up our cross.” So why are Christians so quick to lay it down and instead pick up the mantle for birth control? It is because they have lost sight of what God created sex and marriage for and have bought into the world’s lie that sex is purely for pleasure. While God certainly made sex to be pleasurable and enjoyed within the boundary of marriage, the Bible tells us that it is meant for much more than that.

The Bible describes the sanctioning of marriage in Genesis 2:24: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (ESV) This one-flesh union, as Todd Wilson, in his book Mere Sexuality, says, “…has a dual purpose: to unite and to procreate.” After creating Adam and Eve, God commanded them to “Be fruitful and multiply.” (Genesis 1:28, ESV) God clearly had a special purpose in mind for sex, in addition to uniting two people in an intimate way: children! Therefore, a result of Christians approving of contraceptive use is a separation of sex from its purpose of procreation, resulting in a devalued view of what sex is really for. Evan Lenow, in his article, “Protestants and Contraception,” agrees, saying, 

“Part of the one-flesh union is the sexual relationship that was designed to fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply. Birth control interrupts the procreative potential of male-female union and thus runs counter to the one-flesh formula…The deliberate intention to render marital union infertile, through artificial means of birth control, leads to a diminished understanding of the purposes of sex.”

Hormonal birth control kills a fertilized egg (human life) and devalues God’s design for sex and marriage. The implications of these issues are clear: Christians cannot, in good conscience, use hormonal contraceptives, without killing life and defying God’s design for sex. To be clear, this does not mean that taking responsible steps to avoid pregnancy is unbiblical, but neither is it the same as using hormonal methods that can kill an already-begun pregnancy. However, this does not leave Christian couples with the solitary option of unprotected sex and the inevitable result of pregnancy. There are numerous resources available for non-hormonal contraceptives that do not affect a fertilized egg, including condoms, diaphragms, spermicide, fertility tracking, and natural family planning, or a combination of these. All of these methods should be used wisely and with an openness and respect to the possibility of procreation.

Christians need to be aware of these issues and be well-informed enough to teach the younger generation about it, just as they are called to do in Titus 2:3-4: “Older women…are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children.” (ESV) Churches should offer more support for couples as they are preparing for marriage so that they can ensure that they are beginning their marriage with a Biblical understanding of sex and marriage. Both churches and parents need to teach their youth not simply to avoid sex before marriage, but to go one step further and explain why it must be avoided. Sex is a powerful thing that results in uniting two people and creating life that must be valued and protected. It is a gift. But so is a child. And a proper understanding of God’s purposes for sex will cause young people to respect God’s desire and command for us to procreate.

 These changes will hopefully lead to a proper Biblical theology of marriage and sex, and a more consistent conviction of the God-given sanctity of human life. A theology and conviction that does not sacrifice one’s unborn children on the altar of convenience.

Slavery and the Torah

‌Introduction‌ ‌The‌ ‌Civil‌ ‌War‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌United‌ ‌States‌ ‌and‌ ‌William‌ ‌Wilberforce‌ ‌in‌ ‌Britain‌ ‌effectually‌ ‌ended‌ ‌legal‌ ‌and‌ ‌widespread‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌West.‌ ‌This‌ ‌practice‌ ‌is‌ ‌remembered‌ ‌in‌ ‌shame‌ ‌by‌ ‌Americans‌ ‌and‌ ‌recalled‌ ‌with‌ ‌repugnance‌ ‌by‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌and‌ ‌secularists‌ ‌alike.‌ ‌However,‌ ‌“skeptics”‌ ‌and‌ ‌“anti-racists”‌ ‌alike‌ ‌often‌ ‌point‌ ‌out‌ ‌that‌ ‌the‌ ‌Bible‌ ‌allows‌ ‌slavery,‌ ‌and‌ ‌many‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌owned‌ ‌slaves.‌ ‌As‌ ‌Goldingay‌ ‌(2020)‌ ‌comments,‌ ‌“Texts‌ ‌like‌ ‌this‌ ‌[Ephesians‌ ‌6:5]‌ ‌have‌ ‌been‌ ‌used‌ ‌throughout‌ ‌Christian‌ ‌history‌ ‌to‌ ‌justify‌ ‌horrible‌ ‌acts‌ ‌of‌ ‌dehumanization‌ ‌by‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌who‌ ‌believed‌ ‌the‌ ‌Bible‌ ‌was‌ ‌‘on‌ ‌their‌ ‌side,’”‌ ‌(p.‌ ‌66).‌ ‌How‌ ‌should‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌think‌ ‌about‌ ‌this?‌ ‌Does‌ ‌the‌ ‌Bible‌ ‌stand‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌foundation‌ ‌for‌ ‌the‌ ‌mass‌ ‌slaughter,‌ ‌theft,‌ ‌kidnapping,‌ ‌and‌ ‌race-based‌ ‌chattel‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌in‌ ‌American‌ ‌memory?‌ ‌A‌ ‌careful‌ ‌examination‌ ‌of‌ ‌God’s‌ ‌law‌ ‌shows‌ ‌it‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌as‌ ‌beautiful‌ ‌and‌ ‌righteous‌ ‌as‌ ‌the‌ ‌Psalmist‌ ‌proclaims.‌ ‌“Thy‌ ‌testimonies‌ ‌have‌ ‌I‌ ‌taken‌ ‌as‌ ‌an‌ ‌heritage‌ ‌for‌ ‌ever:‌ ‌for‌ ‌they‌ ‌are‌ ‌the‌ ‌rejoicing‌ ‌of‌ ‌my‌ ‌heart,”‌ ‌(Psalm‌ ‌119:111,‌ ‌King‌ ‌James‌ ‌Version).‌ ‌Slavery‌ ‌was‌ ‌not‌ ‌prohibited‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Bible‌ ‌but‌ ‌was‌ ‌regulated‌ ‌and‌ ‌used‌ ‌to‌ ‌reflect‌ ‌the‌ ‌relationship‌ ‌of‌ ‌God‌ ‌and‌ ‌his‌ ‌people,‌ ‌in‌ ‌its‌ ‌best‌ ‌forms.‌ ‌Like‌ ‌all‌ ‌the‌ ‌relationships‌ ‌found‌ ‌in‌ ‌human‌ ‌societies,‌ ‌it‌ ‌is‌ ‌corrupted‌ ‌and‌ ‌abused‌ ‌and‌ ‌changed‌ ‌by‌ ‌sin.‌ ‌Meanwhile,‌ ‌all‌ ‌creation‌ ‌cries‌ ‌out‌ ‌for‌ ‌the‌ ‌redemption‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌sons‌ ‌of‌ ‌God,‌ ‌(Romans‌ ‌8:19).‌ ‌And‌ ‌as‌ ‌in‌ ‌all‌ ‌things,‌ ‌the‌ ‌hope‌ ‌is‌ ‌the‌ ‌gospel‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌transformative‌ ‌power‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌Lord‌ ‌Jesus.‌ ‌He‌ ‌has‌ ‌defeated‌ ‌death‌ ‌and‌ ‌defeats‌ ‌now‌ ‌all‌ ‌his‌ ‌enemies‌ ‌including‌ ‌unjust‌ ‌slavery,‌ ‌(1‌ ‌Corithnians‌ ‌5:25).‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

Slavery:‌ ‌Bondservants‌ ‌and‌ ‌Citizens‌ ‌One‌ ‌thing‌ ‌that‌ ‌must‌ ‌be‌ ‌understood‌ ‌is‌ ‌that‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Bible‌ ‌is‌ ‌radically‌ ‌different‌ ‌than‌ ‌the‌ ‌western‌ ‌conception‌ ‌of‌ ‌a‌ ‌race‌ ‌based‌ ‌chattel‌ ‌slavery.‌ ‌As‌ ‌put‌ ‌by‌ ‌Treier,‌ ‌“In‌ ‌the‌ ‌OT‌ ‌[Old‌ ‌Testament],‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌was‌ ‌a‌ ‌legally‌ ‌prescribed‌ ‌institution‌ ‌and‌ ‌generally‌ ‌more‌ ‌humanitarian‌ ‌than‌ ‌elsewhere‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Near‌ ‌East.”‌ ‌(2018,‌ ‌p.‌ ‌814).‌ ‌The‌ ‌Schirrmacher‌ ‌(2018)‌ ‌agrees,‌ ‌ ‌”The‌ ‌term‌ ‌slave‌ ‌in‌ ‌Bible‌ ‌translations‌ ‌is‌ ‌given‌ ‌to‌ ‌misunderstanding,‌ ‌because‌ ‌it‌ ‌is‌ ‌all‌ ‌too‌ ‌ ‌easy‌ ‌to‌ ‌mistakenly‌ ‌read‌ ‌the‌ ‌cruel‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌Greeks,‌ ‌Romans,‌ ‌Muslims,‌ ‌Europeans‌ ‌‌ ‌and‌ ‌Americans‌ ‌into‌ ‌the‌ ‌Old‌ ‌and‌ ‌New‌ ‌Testaments.‌ ‌For‌ ‌this‌ ‌reason,‌ ‌to‌ ‌describe‌ ‌what‌ ‌was‌ ‌ ‌allowed‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Bible,‌ ‌one‌ ‌should‌ ‌rather‌ ‌speak‌ ‌of‌ ‌‘bonded‌ ‌labour.’”‌ ‌(p.‌ ‌225)‌ ‌And‌ ‌further,‌ ‌ ‌The‌ ‌legal‌ ‌position‌ ‌of‌ ‌a‌ ‌slave/servant‌ ‌in‌ ‌Israel,‌ ‌over‌ ‌against‌ ‌the‌ ‌position‌ ‌of‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌among‌ ‌other‌ ‌peoples,‌ ‌was‌ ‌extraordinarily‌ ‌good…‌ ‌This‌ ‌is‌ ‌demonstrated‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌fact‌ ‌that‌ ‌there‌ ‌is‌ ‌no‌ ‌word‌ ‌for‌ ‌‘slave’,‌ ‌but‌ ‌rather‌ ‌the‌ ‌same‌ ‌word‌ ‌that‌ ‌was‌ ‌used‌ ‌for‌ ‌‘worker’.‌ ‌(p.‌ ‌225)‌ ‌The‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌Law‌ ‌of‌ ‌God‌ ‌is‌ ‌celebrated‌ ‌by‌ ‌David‌ ‌in‌ ‌Psalm‌ ‌119,‌ ‌“‌O‌ ‌how‌ ‌love‌ ‌I‌ ‌thy‌ ‌law!‌ ‌it‌ ‌‌is‌ ‌my‌ ‌meditation‌ ‌all‌ ‌the‌ ‌day,‌”‌ ‌(Psalm‌ ‌119:97).‌ ‌This‌ ‌law‌ ‌regulated‌ ‌slavery,‌ ‌but‌ ‌as‌ ‌an‌ ‌institution‌ ‌that‌ ‌preserved‌ ‌life,‌ ‌human‌ ‌dignity,‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌good‌ ‌of‌ ‌Israelite‌ ‌society.‌ ‌Goldingay‌ ‌agrees,‌ ‌“Israelites‌ ‌are‌ ‌never‌ ‌‘owned’‌ ‌by‌ ‌one‌ ‌another,‌ ‌all‌ ‌their‌ ‌service‌ ‌is‌ ‌temporary‌ ‌and‌ ‌compensated‌ ‌in‌ ‌some‌ ‌way,‌ ‌and‌ ‌there‌ ‌are‌ ‌strict‌ ‌regulations‌ ‌to‌ ‌ensure‌ ‌that‌ ‌foreign‌ ‌servants‌ ‌(who‌ ‌were‌ ‌owned)‌ ‌are‌ ‌treated‌ ‌with‌ ‌respect‌ ‌and‌ ‌compassion,”‌ ‌(p.‌ ‌66).‌ ‌And‌ ‌Schirrmacher‌ ‌(2018)‌ ‌elaborates,‌ ‌ ‌”A‌ ‌slave/servant‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌was‌ ‌not‌ ‌a‌ ‌possession‌ ‌of‌ ‌his‌ ‌or‌ ‌her‌ ‌master‌ ‌without‌ ‌ ‌rights,‌ ‌as‌ ‌in‌ ‌Greek,‌ ‌Roman,‌ ‌Islamic‌ ‌or‌ ‌modem‌ ‌colonial‌ ‌slavery.‌ ‌Rather,‌ ‌the‌ ‌servant‌ ‌had‌ ‌ ‌full‌ ‌rights‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌presence‌ ‌of‌ ‌a‌ ‌judge.‌ ‌As‌ ‌Job‌ ‌made‌ ‌clear,‌ ‌this‌ ‌is‌ ‌the‌ ‌case‌ ‌because‌ ‌the‌ ‌‌servant‌ ‌is‌ ‌just‌ ‌as‌ ‌much‌ ‌created‌ ‌by‌ ‌God‌ ‌as‌ ‌every‌ ‌other‌ ‌person.‌” ‌(p.‌ ‌226)‌ ‌The‌ ‌text‌ ‌in‌ ‌Job‌ ‌being‌ ‌referenced‌ ‌is‌ ‌Job‌ ‌31:13-15:‌ ‌“If‌ ‌I‌ ‌did‌ ‌despise‌ ‌the‌ ‌cause‌ ‌of‌ ‌my‌ ‌manservant‌ ‌or‌ ‌my‌ ‌maidservant,‌ ‌when‌ ‌they‌ ‌contended‌ ‌with‌ ‌me;‌ ‌What‌ ‌then‌ ‌shall‌ ‌I‌ ‌do‌ ‌when‌ ‌God‌ ‌riseth‌ ‌up?‌ ‌And‌ ‌when‌ ‌he‌ ‌visiteth,‌ ‌what‌ ‌shall‌ ‌I‌ ‌answer‌ ‌him?‌ ‌Did‌ ‌not‌ ‌he‌ ‌that‌ ‌made‌ ‌me‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌womb‌ ‌make‌ ‌him?‌ ‌and‌ ‌did‌ ‌not‌ ‌one‌ ‌fashion‌ ‌us‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌womb?”‌ ‌As‌ ‌Job‌ ‌predates‌ ‌even‌ ‌the‌ ‌Torah‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌Israelite‌ ‌society,‌ ‌written‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Patriarchal‌ ‌period,‌ ‌this‌ ‌sets‌ ‌precedence‌ ‌for‌ ‌the‌ ‌equality‌ ‌of‌ ‌all‌ ‌before‌ ‌the‌ ‌Lord‌ ‌God‌ ‌as‌ ‌made‌ ‌in‌ ‌his‌ ‌image‌ ‌(Genesis‌ ‌1:27)‌ ‌and‌ ‌worthy‌ ‌of‌ ‌dignity‌ ‌and‌ ‌respect‌ ‌as‌ ‌image‌ ‌bearers‌ ‌of‌ ‌God.‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

‌Rights‌ ‌of‌ ‌Slaves‌ ‌In‌ ‌the‌ ‌Torah,‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌were‌ ‌granted‌ ‌the‌ ‌following‌ ‌by‌ ‌God’s‌ ‌law:‌ ‌a‌ ‌day‌ ‌of‌ ‌rest‌ ‌on‌ ‌the‌ ‌sabbath‌ ‌as‌ ‌all‌ ‌other‌ ‌citizens‌ ‌and‌ ‌aliens‌ ‌(Exodus‌ ‌20:10),‌ ‌a‌ ‌maximum‌ ‌of‌ ‌six‌ ‌years‌ ‌service‌ ‌for‌ ‌Hebrew‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌(Exodus‌ ‌21:2),‌ ‌the‌ ‌option‌ ‌to‌ ‌stay‌ ‌with‌ ‌their‌ ‌master‌ ‌for‌ ‌life‌ ‌(Exodus‌ ‌21:5-6),‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌ability‌ ‌to‌ ‌have‌ ‌a‌ ‌wife‌ ‌and‌ ‌children‌ ‌(Exodus‌ ‌21:3-4).‌ ‌If‌ ‌a‌ ‌slave‌ ‌was‌ ‌beaten‌ ‌and‌ ‌died‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌direct‌ ‌result,‌ ‌the‌ ‌master‌ ‌would‌ ‌be‌ ‌executed‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌murderer‌ ‌(Exodus‌ ‌21:20).‌ ‌If‌ ‌a‌ ‌slave‌ ‌was‌ ‌mutilated‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌correction‌ ‌of‌ ‌their‌ ‌master,‌ ‌they‌ ‌would‌ ‌receive‌ ‌their‌ ‌freedom‌ ‌(Exodus‌ ‌21:26-27).‌ ‌Fellow‌ ‌Jews‌ ‌that‌ ‌had‌ ‌become‌ ‌overcome‌ ‌by‌ ‌poverty‌ ‌had‌ ‌the‌ ‌option‌ ‌of‌ ‌selling‌ ‌themselves‌ ‌to‌ ‌one‌ ‌of‌ ‌their‌ ‌countrymen.‌ ‌They‌ ‌had‌ ‌a‌ ‌maximum‌ ‌service‌ ‌of‌ ‌six‌ ‌years,‌ ‌with‌ ‌every‌ ‌seven‌ ‌years‌ ‌all‌ ‌Jewish‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌going‌ ‌free,‌ ‌(Leviticus‌ ‌25:39-43).‌ ‌Slaves‌ ‌were‌ ‌circumcised‌ ‌and‌ ‌given‌ ‌to‌ ‌join‌ ‌the‌ ‌covenant‌ ‌people‌ ‌of‌ ‌God,‌ ‌enjoying‌ ‌all‌ ‌the‌ ‌benefits‌ ‌of‌ ‌such,‌ ‌(Genesis‌ ‌17:13).‌ ‌Runaway‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌were‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌granted‌ ‌asylum‌ ‌and‌ ‌harbored‌ ‌from‌ ‌abusive‌ ‌masters,‌ ‌not‌ ‌returned‌ ‌to‌ ‌the‌ ‌master‌ ‌(Deuteronomy‌ ‌23:15-16).‌ ‌Man-stealing,‌ ‌or‌ ‌kidnapping‌ ‌of‌ ‌one‌ ‌of‌ ‌his‌ ‌country‌ ‌men‌ ‌to‌ ‌sell‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌slave,‌ ‌was‌ ‌expressly‌ ‌forbidden‌ ‌and‌ ‌punishable‌ ‌by‌ ‌death.‌ ‌(Deuteronomy‌ ‌24:7)‌ ‌Schirrmacher‌ ‌(2018)‌ ‌comments‌ ‌on‌ ‌this‌ ‌law‌ ‌in‌ ‌relevance‌ ‌to‌ ‌pagan‌ ‌slavery,‌ ‌ “‌This‌ ‌instruction‌ ‌by‌ ‌itself‌ ‌firmly‌ ‌and‌ ‌clearly‌ ‌condemns‌ ‌Greek,‌ ‌Roman,‌ ‌Islamic‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌ ‌varieties‌ ‌of‌ ‌modem‌ ‌colonial‌ ‌slavery.‌ ‌Practically‌ ‌all‌ ‌the‌ ‌blacks‌ ‌in‌ ‌North‌ ‌and‌ ‌South‌ ‌America‌ ‌ ‌became‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌by‌ ‌abduction.‌ ‌The‌ ‌slave‌ ‌traders‌ ‌and‌ ‌their‌ ‌financiers‌ ‌in‌ ‌genteel‌ ‌banking‌ ‌ ‌houses‌ ‌and‌ ‌aristocratic‌ ‌families‌ ‌assaulted‌ ‌the‌ ‌lives‌ ‌of‌ ‌others‌ ‌and‌ ‌thus,‌ ‌according‌ ‌to‌ ‌Old‌ ‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌law,‌ ‌forfeited‌ ‌their‌ ‌own‌ ‌lives.‌” ‌(p.‌ ‌229)‌ 

‌Rights‌ ‌of‌ ‌Female‌ ‌Slaves‌ ‌Female‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌that‌ ‌were‌ ‌married‌ ‌or‌ ‌given‌ ‌in‌ ‌marriage‌ ‌were‌ ‌promised‌ ‌the‌ ‌protection‌ ‌of‌ ‌stable‌ ‌housing‌ ‌and‌ ‌marital‌ ‌rights,‌ ‌and‌ ‌prohibited‌ ‌from‌ ‌being‌ ‌sold‌ ‌after‌ ‌being‌ ‌taken‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌wife‌ ‌(Exodus‌ ‌21:7-11).‌ ‌If‌ ‌taken‌ ‌advantage‌ ‌of‌ ‌by‌ ‌another‌ ‌man‌ ‌that‌ ‌was‌ ‌not‌ ‌her‌ ‌master/husband,‌ ‌the‌ ‌slave‌ ‌would‌ ‌not‌ ‌be‌ ‌executed,‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌typical‌ ‌adulteress‌ ‌was,‌ ‌due‌ ‌to‌ ‌her‌ ‌being‌ ‌a‌ ‌slave‌ ‌and‌ ‌not‌ ‌being‌ ‌free‌ ‌(Leviticus‌ ‌19:20-22).‌ ‌Women‌ ‌taken‌ ‌from‌ ‌conquered‌ ‌pagan‌ ‌tribes‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌wives,‌ ‌were‌‌ ‌granted‌ ‌a‌ ‌month‌ ‌reprieve‌ ‌to‌ ‌mourn‌ ‌their‌ ‌loss‌ ‌and‌ ‌adjust‌ ‌to‌ ‌their‌ ‌new‌ ‌home‌ ‌prior‌ ‌to‌ ‌being‌ ‌married.‌ ‌If‌ ‌the‌ ‌Jewish‌ ‌husband‌ ‌decided‌ ‌he‌ ‌did‌ ‌not‌ ‌want‌ ‌her‌ ‌after‌ ‌taking‌ ‌her‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌wife,‌ ‌he‌ ‌could‌ ‌not‌ ‌sell‌ ‌her,‌ ‌but‌ ‌was‌ ‌to‌ ‌let‌ ‌her‌ ‌go‌ ‌free‌ ‌(Deuteronomy‌ ‌21:10-14).‌ 

‌Slaves‌ ‌of‌ ‌Conquest‌ ‌and‌ ‌Prisoners‌ ‌of‌ ‌War‌ ‌In‌ ‌the‌ ‌context‌ ‌of‌ ‌conquest‌ ‌and‌ ‌war‌ ‌between‌ ‌Israel‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌pagan‌ ‌Canaanites,‌ ‌God‌ ‌allowed‌ ‌the‌ ‌Israelites‌ ‌to‌ ‌capture‌ ‌as‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌inhabitants‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌land.‌ ‌These‌ ‌foreign‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌are‌ ‌not‌ ‌granted‌ ‌the‌ ‌same‌ ‌protections‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌domestic‌ ‌servant/slave‌ ‌such‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌limit‌ ‌to‌ ‌six‌ ‌years‌ ‌of‌ ‌service,‌ ‌but‌ ‌they‌ ‌are‌ ‌still‌ ‌protected‌ ‌and‌ ‌given‌ ‌rights‌ ‌as‌ ‌humans‌ ‌that‌ ‌would‌ ‌be‌ ‌unheard‌ ‌of‌ ‌from‌ ‌pagan‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌in‌ ‌Rome,‌ ‌or‌ ‌the‌ ‌Americas.‌ ‌Schirrmacher‌ ‌(2018)‌ ‌comments,‌ ‌ ‌”(Num‌ ‌31:7-12;‌ ‌Deut‌ ‌20:10-14;‌ ‌21:10-14;‌ ‌Gen‌ ‌14:21).‌ ‌According‌ ‌to‌ ‌Deuteronomy‌ ‌20:11,‌ ‌ ‌Israel‌ ‌always‌ ‌had‌ ‌to‌ ‌first‌ ‌offer‌ ‌peace‌ ‌to‌ ‌a‌ ‌besieged‌ ‌city,‌ ‌which‌ ‌then‌ ‌meant‌ ‌‘forced‌ ‌labour’,‌ ‌ ‌that‌ ‌is,‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌with‌ ‌all‌ ‌its‌ ‌associated‌ ‌rights.‌ ‌If‌ ‌peace‌ ‌were‌ ‌refused,‌ ‌the‌ ‌Israelites‌ ‌sought‌ ‌ ‌to‌ ‌destroy‌ ‌the‌ ‌city.‌ ‌Given‌ ‌this‌ ‌situation,‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌was‌ ‌therefore‌ ‌an‌ ‌act‌ ‌of‌ ‌grace.‌” ‌(p.‌ ‌229)‌ ‌White‌ ‌(2020)‌ ‌agrees,‌ ‌arguing‌ ‌that‌ ‌in‌ ‌many‌ ‌cases‌ ‌for‌ ‌the‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌taken‌ ‌by‌ ‌Israelities‌ ‌their‌ ‌only‌ ‌other‌ ‌option‌ ‌was‌ ‌death‌ ‌or‌ ‌homelessness/exile.‌ ‌Slavery‌ ‌promised‌ ‌them‌ ‌protection,‌ ‌food‌ ‌and‌ ‌housing,‌ ‌as‌ ‌well‌ ‌as‌ ‌granting‌ ‌them‌ ‌the‌ ‌benefits‌ ‌of‌ ‌joining‌ ‌God’s‌ ‌people‌ ‌and‌ ‌his‌ ‌covenant,‌ ‌(Genesis‌ ‌17:13).‌ ‌ ‌

Those‌ ‌Pesky‌ ‌Problem‌ ‌Texts‌ ‌Ultimately,‌ ‌some‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌laws‌ ‌can‌ ‌still‌ ‌raise‌ ‌our‌ ‌enlightened‌ ‌eyebrows.‌ ‌Atheists,‌ ‌and‌ ‌“progressive‌ ‌Christians”‌ ‌love‌ ‌to‌ ‌clobber‌ ‌the‌ ‌saints‌ ‌with‌ ‌texts‌ ‌like‌ ‌this:‌ 

‌”As‌ ‌for‌ ‌your‌ ‌male‌ ‌and‌ ‌female‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌whom‌ ‌you‌ ‌may‌ ‌have—you‌ ‌may‌ ‌acquire‌ ‌male‌ ‌ ‌and‌ ‌female‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌from‌ ‌the‌ ‌pagan‌ ‌nations‌ ‌that‌ ‌are‌ ‌around‌ ‌you.‌‌ ‌‌Then,‌ ‌too,‌ ‌‌it‌ ‌is‌ ‌ ‌out‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌sons‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌sojourners‌ ‌who‌ ‌live‌ ‌as‌ ‌aliens‌ ‌among‌ ‌you‌ ‌that‌ ‌you‌ ‌may‌ ‌gain‌ ‌ ‌acquisition,‌ ‌and‌ ‌out‌ ‌of‌ ‌their‌ ‌families‌ ‌who‌ ‌are‌ ‌with‌ ‌you,‌ ‌whom‌ ‌they‌ ‌will‌ ‌have‌ ‌ ‌produced‌ ‌in‌ ‌your‌ ‌land;‌ ‌they‌ ‌also‌ ‌may‌ ‌become‌ ‌your‌ ‌possession.‌‌ ‌‌You‌ ‌may‌ ‌ ‌even‌ ‌bequeath‌ ‌them‌ ‌to‌ ‌your‌ ‌sons‌ ‌after‌ ‌you,‌ ‌to‌ ‌receive‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌possession;‌ ‌you‌ ‌can‌ ‌‌use‌ ‌them‌ ‌as‌ ‌permanent‌ ‌slaves.‌ ‌But‌ ‌in‌ ‌respect‌ ‌to‌ ‌your‌ ‌countrymen,‌ ‌the‌ ‌sons‌ ‌of‌ ‌ ‌Israel,‌ ‌you‌ ‌shall‌ ‌not‌ ‌rule‌ ‌with‌ ‌severity‌ ‌over‌ ‌one‌ ‌another.”

‌ ‌(Leviticus‌ ‌25:44-46,‌ ‌New‌ ‌ ‌American‌ ‌Standard‌ ‌Bible)‌ ‌ ‌Rydelnik‌ ‌(2014)‌ ‌explains‌ ‌however,‌ ‌this‌ ‌text‌ ‌likely‌ ‌is‌ ‌speaking‌ ‌about‌ ‌1)‌ ‌a‌ ‌rare‌ ‌occurrence,‌ ‌2)‌ ‌the‌ ‌only‌ ‌right‌ ‌given‌ ‌Hebrew‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌that‌ ‌these‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌would‌ ‌not‌ ‌get‌ ‌would‌ ‌be‌ ‌that‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌six‌ ‌year‌ ‌maximum‌ ‌service,‌ ‌3)‌ ‌however,‌ ‌if‌ ‌these‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌were‌ ‌to‌ ‌convert‌ ‌to‌ ‌worshippers‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌one‌ ‌true‌ ‌God‌ ‌they‌ ‌would‌ ‌be‌ ‌functionally‌ ‌Jews‌ ‌and‌ ‌therefore‌ ‌would‌ ‌benefit‌ ‌from‌ ‌these‌ ‌protections‌ ‌as‌ ‌well,‌ ‌(p.‌ ‌211).‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌should‌ ‌not‌ ‌dismiss‌ ‌or‌ ‌be‌ ‌ashamed‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌teaching‌ ‌of‌ ‌God’s‌ ‌law.‌ ‌Goldingay‌ ‌(2020)‌ ‌comments,‌ ‌‌“…we‌ ‌think‌ ‌we‌ ‌know‌ ‌what’s‌ ‌right‌ ‌and‌ ‌we’re‌ ‌seeking‌ ‌to‌ ‌let‌ ‌the‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌off‌ ‌the‌ ‌hook‌ ‌when‌ ‌it‌ ‌doesn’t‌ ‌fit‌ ‌with‌ ‌our‌ ‌understanding,”‌ ‌(p.‌ ‌67).‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌should‌ ‌be‌ ‌humble,‌ ‌and‌ ‌remember‌ ‌the‌ ‌difference‌ ‌of‌ ‌time‌ ‌between‌ ‌our‌ ‌context‌ ‌and‌ ‌theirs,‌ ‌without‌ ‌presuming‌ ‌a‌ ‌superiority‌ ‌in‌ ‌our‌ ‌perspective‌ ‌over‌ ‌the‌ ‌righteous‌ ‌law‌ ‌of‌ ‌God.‌ ‌Our‌ ‌generation‌ ‌must‌ ‌not‌ ‌proclaim‌ ‌a‌ ‌self‌ ‌righteous‌ ‌superiority‌ ‌to‌ ‌these‌ ‌Israelite‌ ‌saints.‌ ‌‌This‌ ‌is‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌of‌ ‌God,‌ ‌of‌ ‌which‌ ‌the‌ ‌inspired‌ ‌psalmist‌ ‌writes,‌ ‌“‌Thy‌ ‌testimonies‌ ‌also‌ ‌‌are‌‌ ‌my‌ ‌delight‌ ‌‌and‌‌ ‌my‌ ‌counsellers…Make‌ ‌me‌ ‌to‌ ‌go‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌path‌ ‌of‌ ‌thy‌ ‌commandments;‌ ‌for‌ ‌therein‌ ‌do‌ ‌I‌ ‌delight…I‌ ‌know,‌ ‌O‌ ‌LORD,‌ ‌that‌ ‌thy‌ ‌judgments‌ ‌are‌ ‌right….Righteous‌ ‌art‌ ‌thou,‌ ‌O‌ ‌LORD,‌ ‌and‌ ‌upright‌ ‌are‌ ‌thy‌ ‌judgments.‌”‌ ‌(Psalm‌ ‌119:24,‌ ‌35,‌ ‌75,‌ ‌137,‌ ‌KJV).‌ ‌ ‌Slavery‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌can‌ ‌satisfactorily‌ ‌be‌ ‌proven‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌completely‌ ‌different‌ ‌from‌ ‌the‌ ‌pagan‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌systems‌ ‌of‌ ‌later‌ ‌cultures,‌ ‌including‌ ‌the‌ ‌enslavement‌ ‌of‌ ‌blacks‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Americas‌ ‌and‌ ‌Europe.‌ ‌Schirrmacher‌ ‌(2018)‌ ‌concludes,‌ ‌ “‌In‌ ‌no‌ ‌case‌ ‌did‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌correspond‌ ‌to‌ ‌later‌ ‌European‌ ‌and‌ ‌Islamic‌ ‌slavery.‌ ‌The‌ ‌way‌ ‌in‌ ‌which‌ ‌Christian‌ ‌slave-owners‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌American‌ ‌South‌ ‌used‌ ‌the‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌up‌ ‌into‌ ‌the‌ ‌nineteenth‌ ‌century‌ ‌was‌ ‌misguided‌ ‌and‌ ‌unjustified.”‌ ‌(p.‌ ‌228)‌ ‌

Conclusion‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌must‌ ‌not‌ ‌come‌ ‌to‌ ‌a‌ ‌conclusion‌ ‌that‌ ‌disagrees‌ ‌with‌ ‌Scriptures‌ ‌proclamation‌ ‌that,‌ ‌“‌wherefore‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌‌is‌‌ ‌holy,‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌commandment‌ ‌holy,‌ ‌and‌ ‌just,‌ ‌and‌ ‌good,‌”‌ ‌(Romans‌ ‌7:12).‌ ‌Similar‌ ‌to‌ ‌other‌ ‌things‌ ‌that‌ ‌are‌ ‌allowed‌ ‌in‌ ‌God’s‌ ‌law‌ ‌that‌ ‌were‌ ‌less‌ ‌than‌ ‌optimal,‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌was‌ ‌allowed,‌ ‌regulated,‌ ‌and‌ ‌beneficiary‌ ‌to‌ ‌Jewish‌ ‌society‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌pagan‌ ‌nations‌ ‌being‌ ‌driven‌ ‌out‌ ‌of‌ ‌Caanan.‌ ‌God’s‌ ‌law‌ ‌established‌ ‌unparalleled‌ ‌protections‌ ‌for‌ ‌the‌ ‌image‌ ‌bearers‌ ‌of‌ ‌God‌ ‌who‌ ‌were‌ ‌disadvantaged,‌ ‌and‌ ‌needed‌ ‌an‌ ‌ancient‌ ‌“welfare‌ ‌system”‌ ‌to‌ ‌avoid‌ ‌starvation,‌ ‌while‌ ‌maintaining‌ ‌the‌ ‌dignity‌ ‌and‌ ‌value‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌poor.‌ ‌He‌ ‌also‌ ‌established‌ ‌a‌ ‌type‌ ‌of‌ ‌prisoner‌ ‌of‌ ‌war‌ ‌program‌ ‌that‌ ‌assimilated‌ ‌the‌ ‌pagans‌ ‌into‌ ‌the‌ ‌people‌ ‌of‌ ‌God,‌ ‌preserving‌ ‌their‌ ‌lives,‌ ‌giving‌ ‌them‌ ‌opportunities‌ ‌to‌ ‌have‌ ‌families,‌ ‌property‌ ‌and‌ ‌safety‌ ‌all‌ ‌while‌ ‌enjoying‌ ‌the‌ ‌benefits‌ ‌of‌ ‌being‌ ‌part‌ ‌of‌ ‌God’s‌ ‌covenant‌ ‌people.‌ ‌Even‌ ‌for‌ ‌pagan‌ ‌slaves,‌ ‌life‌ ‌was‌ ‌not‌ ‌horrible.‌ ‌Kaiser‌ ‌(2010)‌ ‌writes,‌ ‌ ‌”What‌ ‌about‌ ‌the‌ ‌status‌ ‌of‌ ‌non-Hebrew‌ ‌slaves?‌ ‌These‌ ‌captives‌ ‌were‌ ‌permanent‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌to‌ ‌the‌ ‌Israelites,‌ ‌but‌ ‌that‌ ‌did‌ ‌not‌ ‌mean‌ ‌that‌ ‌they‌ ‌could‌ ‌treat‌ ‌them‌ ‌as‌ ‌if‌ ‌they‌ ‌were‌ ‌chattel.‌ ‌The‌ ‌same‌ ‌rules‌ ‌of‌ ‌Exodus‌ ‌21:20-21,‌ ‌26‌ ‌applied‌ ‌to‌ ‌them‌ ‌as‌ ‌well.‌ ‌One‌ ‌evidence‌ ‌of‌ ‌a‌ ‌mistreatment‌ ‌and‌ ‌they‌ ‌too‌ ‌went‌ ‌free.”‌ ‌(p.‌ ‌149)‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌can‌ ‌have‌ ‌confidence‌ ‌in‌ ‌God,‌ ‌the‌ ‌righteous‌ ‌judge‌ ‌will‌ ‌surely‌ ‌do‌ ‌right,‌ ‌and‌ ‌that‌ ‌all‌ ‌his‌ ‌commands‌ ‌are‌ ‌just‌ ‌and‌ ‌good.‌ ‌In‌ ‌the‌ ‌fullness‌ ‌of‌ ‌redemptive‌ ‌history,‌ ‌we‌ ‌as‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌recognize‌ ‌that‌ ‌we‌ ‌are‌ ‌all‌ ‌born‌ ‌slaves.‌ ‌The‌ ‌Israelites‌ ‌had‌ ‌in‌ ‌their‌ ‌memory‌ ‌their‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌in‌ ‌Egypt,‌ ‌and‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌have‌ ‌memories‌ ‌of‌ ‌being‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌to‌ ‌sin.‌ ‌As‌ ‌Wilson‌ ‌argues,‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌do‌ ‌not‌ ‌have‌ ‌a‌ ‌worldview‌ ‌in‌ ‌which‌ ‌freedom‌ ‌or‌ ‌liberty‌ ‌is‌ ‌the‌ ‌basic‌ ‌right‌ ‌and‌ ‌nature‌ ‌of‌ ‌man,‌ ‌but‌ ‌slavery.‌ ‌Slavery‌ ‌to‌ ‌sin‌ ‌is‌ ‌mans‌ ‌base‌ ‌and‌ ‌birthright‌ ‌in‌ ‌Adam.‌ ‌But,‌ ‌in‌ ‌Christ‌ ‌is‌ ‌liberty‌ ‌true,‌ ‌and‌ ‌“whom‌ ‌the‌ ‌son‌ ‌sets‌ ‌free‌ ‌is‌ ‌free‌ ‌indeed,”‌ ‌(John‌ ‌8:36).‌ ‌

References‌ ‌

Goldingay,‌ ‌J.‌ ‌(2020).‌ ‌Do‌ ‌we‌ ‌really‌ ‌love‌ ‌God’s‌ ‌law?‌ ‌‌Christianity‌ ‌Today‌,‌ ‌‌64‌(4),‌ ‌64–69.‌ ‌

Kaiser,‌ ‌W.‌ ‌C.,‌ ‌Davids,‌ ‌P.‌ ‌H.,‌ ‌Bruce,‌ ‌F.‌ ‌F.,‌ ‌&‌ ‌Brauch,‌ ‌M.‌ ‌T.‌ ‌(2010).‌ ‌‌Hard‌ ‌sayings‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌Bible‌.‌ ‌ ‌Intervarsity‌ ‌Press.‌ 

‌Rydelnik,‌ ‌M.,‌ ‌&‌ ‌Vanlaningham,‌ ‌M.‌ ‌G.‌ ‌(2014).‌ ‌‌The‌ ‌Moody‌ ‌Bible‌ ‌commentary‌.‌ ‌Moody‌ ‌Publishers.‌ ‌

Schirrmacher,‌ ‌T.‌ ‌(2018).‌ ‌Slavery‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament,‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌New‌ ‌Testament,‌ ‌and‌ ‌History.‌ ‌ ‌Evangelical‌ ‌Review‌ ‌of‌ ‌Theology‌,‌ ‌‌42‌(3),‌ ‌225–238.‌ ‌

Treier,‌ ‌D.‌ ‌J.,‌ ‌&‌ ‌Elwell,‌ ‌W.‌ ‌A.‌ ‌(2017).‌ ‌‌Evangelical‌ ‌dictionary‌ ‌of‌ ‌theology‌.‌ ‌Baker‌ ‌Academic,‌ ‌a‌ ‌ ‌division‌ ‌of‌ ‌Baker‌ ‌Publishing‌ ‌Group.‌ ‌ ‌

White,‌ ‌J.‌ ‌(2020,‌ ‌January‌ ‌23).‌ ‌‌Jonathan‌ ‌Merritt‌ ‌uses‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌cover‌ ‌for‌ ‌slander,‌ ‌then‌ ‌Bart‌ ‌ ‌Ehrman’s‌ ‌ideal‌ ‌God‌.‌ ‌Alpha‌ ‌and‌ ‌Omega‌ ‌Ministries.‌ ‌ ‌https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/general-apologetics/jonathan-merritt-uses-slavery-as-a-co‌ver-for-slander-then-bart-ehrmans-ideal-god/.‌ ‌ 

‌Wilson,‌ ‌D.‌ ‌(2018,‌ ‌April‌ ‌30).‌ ‌Salvation‌ ‌and‌ ‌Slavery.‌ ‌ ‌https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/salvation-and-slavery.ht‌ ‌ml.‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

White Fragility: A Christian Theological Critique

White Fragility is an argument for why white people cannot be confronted in their racism or talk about racism in society. It presents a system of identity politics, crafted carefully on the foundation of intersectionality, in which “…racism is a structure, not an event,” (DiAngelo 46). Because of the foundation of the arguments, the author must redefine all her terms as a true postmodern does, identifying racism as prejudice or discrimination plus institutional power. Therefore, people of color cannot be racist, because the definition has been changed to be exclusively referencing those in institutional power, i.e. whites. This evaluation will focus on the author’s foundation for her arguments which are intersectionality and identity politics, her view of humanity and society in the “original sin” of racism, and her solution provided to address these issues. The arguments of the author will be contrasted to the orthodox Christian position on these issues, and shown to be problematic and incompatible with historic Christianity.

Racism is real; however, the Christian understanding is one of tribalism, rather than racism. The distinction is made because race as a social construct doesn’t actually exist, as granted by DiAngelo (36). Tribes do exist as ethnic and geographical divisions crafted by people. It is possible for one to hate another tribe of people, and show partiality to their own tribe. This is sin. For God says in his word, “But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.” (King James Version, James 2:9)

To put it bluntly, racists go to hell. God commands us to love our neighbor, and all men are our neighbors, (Mark 12:31). To hate a neighbor, or to show partiality to a sect of neighbors, is sin against God first and foremost. Jesus Christ as the Lord of all is currently building his church of all the elect of every tribe, tongue, and nation. In him there is no longer any separation based on tribe or race, there is only those united to Christ by faith and those still united to Adam by birth, and under the condemnation of God for their sin.

Ultimately, this book is founded on a system of thought antithetical to orthodox and historic Christianity. While it accurately identifies valid issues in contemporary society, particularly human nature, it presents another gospel, another atonement, and another original sin. The problems in this book make it akin to poison in a decorative bottle, and at a time when as a culture we are thirsty for justice, and solutions to racism as a problem. However, just because it looks good, and you’re thirsty doesn’t mean it’s worth drinking poison.

As one begins to read this book, they begin with the forward by Michael Eric Dyson who states the following:

“DiAngelo forces us to see that all politics have rested on identities, and that those identities are critical features of wrestling with how we have gone wrong in the effort to set things right—which too often has meant make them white. We cannot possibly name the nemeses of democracy or truth or justice or equality if we cannot name the identities to which they have been attached. For most of our history, straight white men have been involved in a witness protection program that guards their identities and absolves them of their crimes while offering them a future free of past encumbrances and sins.” (15)

Identity politics and intersectionality are named as the bedrock of this work. Identity politics are a system of argumentation in an inescapable “us vs. them” mentality. Identity politics are foundational to every sect of us vs them, whether alt-right white nationalists, or antifa Black Lives Matter protesters. Identity politics are closely related to an ad hominem argument, a logical fallacy in which the person making the argument is attacked instead of the argument. This is the foundation of this book. For example, if you are white, according to the author, that is one of the fundamental aspects of your identity that cannot be erased— along with the benefits you have received from a racist and white-supremicist society. Likewise, if you are a person of color, this is fundamental to who you are. This requires significant generalizations about both whites and people of color. As Sey notes, “Unhelpful generalizations against white people inevitably leads to unhelpful generalizations against black people. ” Intersectionality (critical race theory or CRT), as a system, is the blood that pumps through the heart of this book. 

Christians preach the gospel of the Lord Jesus, so crowned at his ascension after conquering sin and death on the cross when he died for the sins of the world (Matthew 28:18, Psalm 110:1-2); He thus put to open shame the powers and principalities of this world in his resurrection, leading forth a host of captives. Jesus, seated at the Father’s right hand now draws all his elect to himself. He is assembling the largest multi-ethnic, diverse church ever, beyond even our imagination. Men and women from every tribe, nation, and tongue that no man can number are being brought to him through his sacrifice (Revelation 7:9). Therefore, in the question of identity politics, there are only two ultimate identities which matter. The identity that a Christian has in Christ, demonstrated at their baptism (Romans 6:4, 2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 3:28), and the identity in Satan and Adam our forefather (Ephesians 2:3, John 8:8, 1 Corinthians 15:52). As noted by Doctor Sandlin, “The only color that fundamentally matters is not black or white or yellow or brown, but red: the shed blood of Jesus Christ and all washed from their sins in that atoning blood.”

Intersectionality is a way of viewing the world and culture based on “intersections” of power and privilege, or oppression and suffering. In this system, the black, gay, transgender, athiest, disabled, immigrant, woman, would be at the bottom of the oppression diagram. This hypothetical person would have the most valid opinion based on the oppression suffered. On the other end of the spectrum, the white, cisgendered, straight, citizen, able bodied, Christian, man because of his power and privilege in society is inherently not trustworthy, and not valid in his arguments or perceptions. His privilege and power would corrupt anything he could say as would his inevitable societal conditioning to be inherently racist. This system is logically incoherent because it is based on an ad hominem attack on the person (and the identity assigned to them) regardless of the validity of their argument. 

For Christians, this system of thought is to be rejected outright as a pagan example of “science falsely so called.” (1 Timothy 6:20) CRT is foreign to a biblical understanding of the world. It is not founded from a fear of the Lord, which proceeds all wisdom and knowledge (Proverbs 1:7). It is without example, or teaching in the Scriptures, which stand as the final authority for Christan faith and practice. As the Westminster Confession of Faith says, “The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” (1.10)

And as the Scriptures say in Colossians 2:8, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Paul writes this because Christians can be led away from Christ towards vain philosophy of men, of which intersectionality and CRT are examples. Paul says prior that it is Christ, “…In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (verse 3). Thus beginning from a perspective of intersectionality, critical race theory and identity politics, this book is doomed to fail before it begins. One is left without any wisdom at all, for it is all in Christ, who has been abandoned in favor of secular ideologies and science falsely so called. This is evidenced in that the author is literally founding her argument in the ad hominem logical fallacy, and using racism to fight racism. When Christ is rejected you are left with nothing but absurdity which is what the rest of the book cannot help but proclaim.

The majority of the author’s writing was spent on the definition, defense, and examples of the structural racism she is against, and exploring the fragility of white people who oppose her view. DiAngelo redefines racism from the common understanding found in Webster’s dictionary as: “1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race…” Instead, she dogmatically asserts that racism is definitionally systemic. She defines racism as prejudice and discrimination reinforced by systems imposed by the dominant culture (whites), to the exclusion of any other prejudice or discrimination. This means that acts of discrimination, or attitudes of prejudice, are not racist when done by people of color, but are when done by whites. Incredibly, the author grants that any form of prejudice and any discrimination are natural, and unavoidable. “All humans have prejudice; we cannot avoid it,” (DiAngelo 38). Somehow, however, prejudice and discrimination as an unavoidable fact of life is supposed to be both preventable and abhorrent in their systemic application. 

This idea is seen in a logical reductio ad absurdum when applied in the author’s own words on page 94 (emphasis mine), 

“While everyone of every race holds prejudice and can discriminate against someone of another race, in the US and other white/settler nations, only white people are in the position to oppress people of color collectively and throughout the whole of society. This claim defines racism as a fluid dynamic that changes direction according to each group’s ratio in a given space. While a white person may have been picked on—even mercilessly —by being in the numerical minority in a specific context, the individual was experiencing race prejudice and discrimination, not racism. This distinction is not meant to minimize the white person’s experience, but aims to clarify and to prevent rendering the terms interchangeable and thus meaningless.” (DiAngelo) 

According to DiAngelo, for racism to be applicable to the actions of a person of color would render the term meaningless. This is because her foundation is that of intersectionality and identity politics, and she is without the fear of the Lord which is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom, but I digress.

Racism according to DiAngelo is definitionally systemic; it is a system that prevents people of color from succeeding academically, financially, and professionally. All of these things are perpetuated by whites because they benefit from hindering success of people of color. White Fragility then, is a defense mechanism enacted by whites to turn them into the victim when they would be confronted with their participation and privilege from a racist society which has them as the authority and beneficiaries. DiAngelo examines in length the patterns of behavior that whites exhibit when accused of being racist, or challenged to recognize offensive actions or attitudes they have perpetrated. White Fragility as a phenomenon can be anything from a deflection from the offense a person of color felt to the intent of the statement or action, to shutting down and refusing to participate in the diversity workshop, to crying when a problematic statement is exposed as racist. Whites become defensive, explain away, minimize, and distract when confronted with either their own racism or the racism being attributed to them because they are white. 

One of the main reasons that DiAngelo gives for this is her observation of the good=non-racist and bad=racist dichotomy. In the experience of the author, whites, especially progressives and liberals, view racism as something that makes you a bad person. As DiAngelo explains, “After the civil rights movement, to be a good, moral person and to be complicit with racism became mutually exclusive. You could not be a good person and participate in racism; only bad people were Racist.” (84)

Because of this observation, DiAngelo notes that naturally, white people do not like being called racist, especially progressives. What is sad is that in DiAngelo’s worldview, there is no redemption from the systemic guilt of racism all white people bear. She says that all white people are racist, and that all people discriminate and are prejudiced, and that is just the way it is, forever and ever amen.  “Racism is so deeply woven into the fabric of our society that I do not see myself [or you] escaping from that continuum in my lifetime” (DiAngelo 98) According to DiAngelo this cannot be overcome, but only slightly improved through education and personal striving. DiAngelo expects to go to her grave and still be a racist. This hopeless victory of the White Fragility gospel is explained by Challies, 

“The world she would lead us into would still be defined by race, still be broken by white supremacy, still be scarred by whiteness, still see the deepest divisions between black and white. The only hope she offers is raising the consciousness of white people, but even then she makes it clear that we do not have what it takes to fully eradicate our racism or to adequately atone for it. The solution must come from within ourselves, but we are too selfish to loosen our grip on the structures and institutions that keep us in power. We are the only hope for change, but we will not change.”

This is completely antithetical to the redemption in Christ found in the Scriptures. Christ cleanses his people from their sins, taking them away forever! There is an irreconcilable difference here between the Christian gospel and the gospel of antiracism preached by DiAngelo. Wilson agrees, “…there can be no peace between the God of forgiveness and the god of recrimination, the God of no condemnation and the god of all condemnation.” 

This is why at the core, Christians cannot be neutral towards the ideas in this book. This is a gospel issue. Christians serve a God who in Christ “…[blotted] out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;” (Colossians 2:14). The price for the sin of the Christian has been paid, and it is finished, forever and ever, amen. Christians do not find their identity in sin, whether homosexuality, alcholism, racism, or any other sin. “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:11, emphasis mine) Thus, these sins do not claim Christians as their own, or define who they are. Even if the Christian struggles with these sins until they die, the Holy Spirit will continually mortify the sins of the believer by the power of God, not the power of man, as they are molded into the image of Christ. And in Christ, there is no condemnation. For those in DiAngelo though, there exists nothing but condemnation. 

Of course the author sets up her own “superior” dichotomy. Racist=bad/nonracist=good is to be rejected, while educated and racially informed, falsely humble, antiracist=good, while ignorant and arguing that you are not racist=bad. This is based on exclusively the subjective preaching of the word of DiAngelo, the postmodern prophetess of the goddess intersectionality. While Jesus says that you will either be for or against him, and that you cannot be neutral, (Luke 9:50), DiAngelo, presenting herself as the white savior, presents the same option. 

“Speak your truth [is an unhelpful guideline in these discussions]: The admonition to speak the truth seems to be an unnecessary guideline. I have not seen a pattern of lying in these groups. Have I seen defensiveness, distancing behavior, silence, avoidance of taking risks? Yes. But have I observed people not speaking their truth? No. More importantly, what if your truth is that you are color blind? Because no one can actually be color blind in a racist society, the claim that you are color blind is not a truth; it is a false belief. Yet this guideline can position all beliefs as truths and, as such, equally valid. Given that the goal of antiracist work is to identify and challenge racism and the misinformation that supports it, all perspectives are not equally valid; some are rooted in racist ideology and need to be uncovered and challenged. We must distinguish between sharing your beliefs so that we can identify how they may be upholding racism and stating your beliefs as “truths” that cannot be challenged.” (133 Emphasis mine)

She places her perspective as objectively true, a rare thing for postmoderns, while providing no justification for doing so. You are either antiracist and on DiAngelo’s side, or you are ignorant, and pro-racism. She allows no avenue for someone to oppose what she has to say, and not be expressing white fragility, and further perpetuating racism.

As the book reached its end, I found myself wondering what the author could possibly be advocating as the solution to the problems she has raised. Incredibly, the author actually writes an entire book on the issue of white fragility and then has the gall to say, “What has enabled you to be a full, educated, professional adult and not know what to do about racism?” (147) She incredibly criticizes the people she says have been bred into a racist system with no possible way of not being racist for not knowing what to do to stop racism. She then gives a list of assumptions which she explains, if internalized, would bring revolution to the systemic racism of our society. These assumptions are basically the entirety of the points made by the author throughout the book, some examples being, “Being good or bad is not relevant… Racism is a multilayered system embedded in our culture… All of us are socialized into the system of racism…Racism cannot be avoided… My analysis must be intersectional (a recognition that my other social identities—class, gender, ability—inform how I was socialized into the racial system).” (127-128)

DiAngelo also encourages the reader to: seek education, build relationships with people of color, change their environment if there are no people of color in the current environment, break with white solidarity in confronting other whites in their racism, and finally learn to be “less white” through receiving feedback on your racism, reflecting, and working to change the behavior.

My favorite of DiAngelo’s points is her analysis of man and his desire to justify himself. DiAngelo is made in the image of God, and by common grace she shows it in offering her perception of man’s sinful state. She has correctly identified a problem. The problem is that man will do anything to avoid repentance when confronted with sin. She gives examples ad nauseum of the fragile whites who can’t handle being confronted with their racism. However, I wonder what DiAngelo would say if she was confronted with the fact that her well educated and woke self had offended a holy God with her sin. If a preacher declared to her that Jesus is Lord, and that God commands her to repent and trust in Jesus to be saved, I fear she would self-justify: appeal to her good deeds, appeal to her intentions, make excuses that make her out to be the victim, compare her sin to others, and say she didn’t mean it. I fear she would say or do anything to avoid the fact that Jesus is Lord and she is a sinner that must repent. All of these are things DiAngelo observes whites do when confronted with racism, rather than humbly acknowledge their sin. These are the same behaviors exhibited by all men, but for God’s grace, when they are confronted with their sin and the consequences of it in the call of the gospel.

It astounds me how presuppositional the arguments of the author are. She unapologetically starts from the assumption of the objective truth of the presuppositions of systemic racism, intersectionality, the racism of all whites, etc. It is beyond rejection, because you are blind in your sins, without enlightenment from some higher being, which instead of the Holy Spirit of God, is DiAngelo and her woke gospel. “Thus saith the goddess intersectionality, therefore go and make ‘woke white shaming racists’ of all white people, baptizing them into the name of DiAngelo, and Marx, teaching them all the wokeness I have commanded you, and lo you are racists always, even to the end of the age.” 

The devil is a liar. He does not create, he only distorts. The gospel being preached by the author of White Fragility takes many truths of Christianity and distorts them, to make them fit the intersectional, woke, liberal progressive ideology. The system has an original sin: the sins of our fathers in American chatel slavery, Jim Crow laws, lynchings etc; it has a Christ figure, the enlightened white savior who comes to the rescue of the helpless and oppressed black people, along with the ignorant but well-wishing white progressives. The system has an atonement model,  offering to continually oppose all systemic racism and educate all. This atonement is never truly finished, but always progressing towards the future utopia where somehow the unavoidable prejudice and discrimination is only perpetrated by those without systemic power. There is an eschatology where the knowledge of white fragility covers the earth as the waters cover the seas, and all opposing, defensive, ignorant white voices are silenced. For as DiAngelo freely admits, “…the ability to determine which narratives are authorized and which are suppressed is the foundation of cultural domination.” (119) While she doesn’t explore this in the book, she is clear that all “false beliefs” are not valid and have no business being shared. Of course false being defined as any opinion different from hers.

“As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:9) In the final analysis, DiAngelo borrows many elements from the Christian worldview for her work. In her book, there is an objective truth, there is a sin needing absolution, there is a savior, an atonement, a federal headship, a presuppositional argument and a corporate identity. However, each of these elements is fatally twisted from the Scriptural truth. 

DiAngelo cannot offer you the gospel, for what she preaches is science falsely so called; it is a vain philosophy of men which has no power of God for salvation for those who believe it. I plead with you not to be won by her plausible arguments, for the devil comes looking like an angel of light. 

There is one gospel, and it is the good news for salvation to all who believe: Jew, Greek, Synthian, Barbarian, Slave, Free, Black, White, Person of Color, or whatever other man-made identity we could contrive. Racism or tribalism is real. It has real guilt, for the individual and the society, and in Christ Jesus that guilt can be atoned for once and for all. It has real devastating effects for those who have been its victims, and there is a savior who offers healing, belonging, safety, and peace in his multi-ethnic family. 

The Lord Jesus Christ, the son of God and second person of the Holy Trinity came to earth by the sovereign plan of the triune God. He lived a perfect life, without sin, as an ethnic man, a person of color. He spent his ministry preaching the good news of the kingdom of God to those who were oppressed and those who were in power and oppressors. He was tried and executed on a cross though he had done no wrong. He died, bearing all the wrath of God for sin in the place of those who would come to him in faith and repentance. He suffered at the hands of wicked men who were given power over him by God’s plan and design. He died and was buried. He rose again on the third day, vindicating his sacrifice and his identity as God, rising in a glorified ethnic body as a Jewish man. 

He commanded his church to preach the gospel to every creature; He ascended to the right hand of the father, from whence he is steadily defeating his enemies and expanding his church and kingdom. He calls men and women of every tribe, tongue and nation to be part of his redeemed humanity, for which he will return one day to claim as his bride. He will judge all, and all will give an account of their lives to him. Those who are not united to him will be condemned forever in hell, justly bearing the guilt and punishment of their sin. 

Jesus commands all men to repent of their sin, individual and systemic, and to believe the good news that he is King and has died and rose again for the sins of the world. This is the only answer to racism. The answer is in the cross of Christ where the justice and mercy of God meet, and you and I, and every man and woman made in God’s image who would repent by God’s grace, may be united to Him by faith. In the gospel reconciliation with God and man is found. It is only Christ who has “abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:” (Ephesians 2:15-16)

Why would you turn from this, the living waters, to drink from the cracked cisterns of CRT and serve the false prophetess DiAngelo? I beg you to be reconciled to God. Repent of your sins, and seek him today when he can be found. 

Soli Deo Gloria,

Asher Clark

Works Cited

Challies, Tim. “Is White Fragility a Helpful Resource for Christians?” Tim Challies, 5 Aug. 2020, www.challies.com/book-reviews/is-white-fragility-a-helpful-resource-for-christians/?fbclid=IwAR3eQXMaEVW4uv-cbYMEiNH4axdrYvlVEYofa8gc0kw7OGTIFlaHUkgYCCI.

DiAngelo, Robin. White Fragility: Why It’s so Hard for White People to Talk about Racism. Allen Lane, an Imprint of Penguin Books, 2019.

King James Bible. Thomas Nelson, 1991.

“Racism.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism.

Sandlin, P. Andrew. “A Blunt Christian Statement on Racism .” Christian Culture, 16 Aug. 2017, docsandlin.com/2017/08/16/a-blunt-christian-statement-on-racism/.

Sey, Samuel. “White Fragility Is Pro-Racism.” Slow To Write, 10 July 2020, slowtowrite.com/white-fragility-is-pro-racism/.

Westminster Divines. “Westminster Confession of Faith.” PCA, 1646, www.pcaac.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WCFScriptureProofs.pdf.

Wilson, Douglas. “Minneapolis Burning and Black Privilege.” Blog & Mablog, 2 June 2020, dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/minneapolis-burning-and-black-privilege.html.

The Authority of the Bible: “Thus Saith the Lord”

When discussing the Bible, the question of authority is a natural and important one. As all matters of ethics, morality, and law, the ultimate question is one of authority; who says? In the rebellion of humanity against the one true God, the redefinition of right and wrong is rampant. People disobey the commands of the one true God, regardless of whether or not they claim to be Christians. Therefore, the issue of authority will always be at the root of discussion on the Bible. One must confess someone to be Lord, it may be Jesus Christ, it may be Caesar, and it may be self in the form of reason or feelings. But you and Jesus cannot both hold the throne. Warfield agrees, “The authority which cannot assure of a hard fact is soon not trusted for a hard doctrine. Sooner or later, in greater or lesser degree, the authority of the Bible in doctrine and life is replaced by or subordinated to that of reason, or of feelings, or of the Christian consciousness…” (181). Humanity, like the days of old, would supplant the one true God, substituting themselves as in the garden of Eden, or substituting a god that looks just like them as with the golden calf. When the golden calf is god or the individual is their own god, suddenly there is no authority to question one’s actions or demand obedience, other than one’s desires. However, just as in the days of old, the Christian answer to the golden calf worshipper and self-idolater alike is, “thus saith the Lord”. The one true God speaks in the Bible, and thus it carries all authority of the triune God speaking in all things.

The authority of the Bible is defined by the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) as follows, 

The Bible speaks authoritatively and so deserves to be believed and obeyed. This authority does not depend on the testimony of any man or church but completely on God, its author, who is himself truth. The Bible therefore is to be accepted as true, because it is the word of God. (1.4)

Thus, when the Bible speaks, it is to be regarded as the very word of God in whatever it says. It is to be believed and obeyed. This authority is based on the one true God who is speaking and commanding, not the human authors, not the preacher, or a book, but God himself. Warfield agrees, “God and the Scriptures are brought into such conjunction as to show that in point of directness of authority no distinction was made between them,” (299). The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is of relevance here, that is that the Bible is the only final authority in matters of faith and practice. This is again because the Scriptures are definitionally from God, and thus the Protestant confesses that God through the Scriptures is the sole authority to which they bend the knee. “As a final authority, Scripture, being God’s Word, stands alone. Yet, wise people read the Scriptures not alone but with others, including those who have gone on before us,” (Van Dixhoorn, 5). 

This does not mean that Protestants or Christians do not observe other God-ordained authorities, or consult other sources for purposes of interpretation. But at the bottom line, the Scriptures carry more weight of authority than Pope, Caesar, President, Church Fathers, Psychologists, Sociologists, emotion, culture, and preference. The Christian weights every claim to knowledge, every directive of morality, and every authoritative decree against the Scriptures as consulting God himself. Macarthur agrees, 

The only One who has the right to speak to His people authoritatively is God. The Father called sinners out of the darkness of sin and fitted them for the work of His kingdom. Christ purchased the church with His own blood. He is the head of the church, and the head of the church mediates His authority through His Word. And through the Word, the Holy Spirit does His work of sanctification in every believer’s life. The Trinity speaks to the church, accomplishing the work of redemption through the Scriptures, (43).

This argument would be pointless if it could not be defended with the very words of Scripture itself, the final authority being put forth. However, the Biblical justification for this view is plentiful, with the treatment of Scripture by the prophets, the apostles, and Christ himself. The most relevant of such passages is the following quote from the apostle Paul, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work,” (ESV, 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Paul here identifies all of Scripture and attributes it all to the “breathing out” of God. This is the doctrine of inspiration. This is what the New Testament authors and Jesus Himself believed. If all Scripture proceeds from God and God has all authority, then the Scriptures as God’s word have all authority as God speaking. Further, as the Lord Jesus said, “All authority in Heaven and on Earth has been given to me, ” (Matthew 28:18). And the Apostle Peter testifies, “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified,” (Acts 2:36). So ultimately the question of the authority of the Scripture boils down to the authority of God, and further to the authority of the Lord Jesus who has been declared to be Lord of all and seated at the Father’s right hand. Therefore, all attacks on the authority of the Bible are not at the root one of an intellectual nature, or of a lack of understanding, but a rebellion against the Lordship of Christ. Rejection of Biblical authority is seeking to unseat the risen Jesus on the throne, claiming the seat of King of Kings as one’s own.

Common objections to the Bible’s authority are many. 

“I don’t need a book of rules to tell me how to be a good person.” “The Bible is just an old book written by people.” “The Bible has errors in it and is full of contradictions.” “The Bible has changed over time.” “The God of the Bible is evil.” 

These objections can be heard from the common man on the street, the angsty fifteen-year-old, and the Princeton graduate and apostate New Testament scholar alike. But ultimately, each of these has at the root a rebellion against the Lordship of Jesus. The man who thinks he doesn’t need a book of rules to be a good person believes his unwritten book of rules is better. He believes his standard of righteousness to be superior to that of the Lord God. He has placed himself in the place of judge and is attempting to supplant Christ as Lord. Thus, at the root of these objections is rebellion. Sproul agrees, “If we do not believe it, we have sinned. It is not so much an intellectual issue as a moral issue. If the Lord God Almighty opens His mouth, there is no room for debate and no excuse for unbelief. It is the word of God, and everyone is duty bound to submit to its authority,” (13). To presume to place oneself in the seat of judge over the Scriptures is blasphemy. The WCF elaborates, 

The Holy Spirit speaking in the Bible is the supreme judge of all religious controversies, all decisions of religious councils, all the opinions of ancient writers, all human teachings, and every private opinion. We are to be satisfied with the judgment of him who is and can be the only judge. (1.10)

God alone is the judge of all the earth who will do right. God alone is the infallible source of truth with all authority over creation. God alone is truth within His very being. Christ alone is Lord, and there is no other. The eternal Word has spoken through the word of God and demands fealty. Thus, let God be counted as true even if every man is a liar.

The authority of the Bible, therefore, when rightly understood, is as universal as the authority of the Triune God who has spoken through it. Just as there is not an inch of our universe that the Lord does not claim as His own, there is no hearer of God’s word who can rebut, “…that’s not my king.” For, “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein,” (Psalm 24:1). Those in rebellion against the Lordship of Jesus Christ may attempt to claim ignorance or immunity from Him, with no success. For to whom much is given much will be required, (Luke 12:48). There is none without knowledge of God through general revelation (Palm 19, Romans 1). But for those in rebellion who have been granted special revelation in the Scriptures and the preaching of the gospel, their condemnation will be that much more severe, (Luke 10:14).

For the Christian, Jesus Christ is both their “Lord and God,” (John 20:28), and thus His Word likewise commands obedience. The Bible for the Christian is to be regarded just as if Jesus Himself is speaking to us, “exhorting, [and] rebuking, with all authority”, (Titus 2:15). The difference between the response of the Christian and the non-Christian to God’s word is that the Christian has the illumination of the Holy Spirit of God revealing the truths of His word to them. As the WCF states, “…However, we [Christians] are completely persuaded and assured of the infallible truth and divine authority of the Bible only by the inward working of the Holy Spirit, who testifies by and with the word in our hearts,” (1.5). And the Apostle John testifies, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth…” (John 16:13)

When the authority of the triune God in the Scriptures is considered in our day, there are several hot-topic issues that show a blatant substitute of authority. The issues of the LGBT agenda and abortion are examples of topics that Christians throughout history have had a stance with humble subjection to the plain and authoritative Word of God. In recent history, however, many Christians and non-Christians have deemed the Scriptures to have no weight in speaking to these issues, or worse, they have twisted the word of God to fit their cultural presuppositions. To do this is to place words in Gods’ mouth which He has not said, placing one in the place of a false prophet (Ezekiel 22:28), and bearing God’s name in vain, (Exodus 20:7). This is a fearful place to be, and the Christian church must repent of these things, placing recognition in only the authority of God, as found in the Scriptures.

God has spoken. The true and triune God has declared His law and His gospel in the Holy Scriptures. The Bible as God’s Word carries therefore, all authority in all things. All authority in Heaven and on Earth has been given to the Lord Jesus, who is seated at the right hand of the Father, and is destroying all His enemies, (Psalm 110:1). Regardless of whether one is a Christian or not, the charge of God is to “Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way” (Psalm 2:12). All pseudo Lords, false Christs, golden calves and Caesars who claim an authority contrary to the Bible as God’s Word will eventually be crushed. For their striving is vain, (Psalm 2:2). The only appropriate answer to all questions of morality, ethics, and truth, is “thus saith the Lord.” And when the Lord has spoken, He demands obedience.

Works Cited

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version Containing the Old and New Testaments. Crossway, 

2011.

MacArthur, John. Final Word: Why We Need the Bible. Reformation Trust, A Division of 

Ligonier Ministries, 2019.

SPROUL, R. C. TRUTHS WE CONFESS. LIGONIER MINISTRIES, 2019.

Van Dixhoorn, Chad. “Sola Scriptura.” Tabletalk, Apr. 2020, pp. 4–6.

Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge, and Cornelius Van Til. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Benediction Classics, 2017.

Westminster Divines. “The Westminster Confession of Faith.” Evangelical Presbyterian Church, 

2010, 

epc.org/wp-content/uploads/Files/1-Who-We-Are/B-About-The-EPC/WCF-ModernEnglish.pdf.

Non-binary: A Christian Response

Recently a post went across my newsfeed. This post was an article written by a high school classmate who was coming out as non-binary. The author of this article proclaims to be a Christian, and encourages intersex, same-sex attracted, and gender dysphoric people to find their identity through expression of LGBTQ+ sexuality/gender as the author is doing. The perspective being propagated asserts that the Bible is not an obstacle to an LGBTQ+ identity or practice, that gender and sex are unrelated/independent of each other, and that to love someone who is LGBTQ+ you must affirm them without hesitation. This is celebrating sin, and finding personal value and identity in sin (rebellion from God) rather than repenting of sin. My classmate sets forth several supports from various scholars and offers interpretations of some relevant biblical texts to support this position. I am concerned for the author based on the position being advocated as well as the numerous Christians who have responded positively and been influenced by this position. I am setting forth to examine this position from a historical, Christian, theological and exegetical perspective seeking to show that this viewpoint is incompatible with a meaningful understanding of the Bible and incompatible with historic and orthodox Christianity. 

In light of the purpose of this writing, my hope is that the Christian would be equipped with confidence in God’s Word; I hope for the Christian to believe the historical position of the Christian faith in the areas of sex and sexuality. I also pray that non-Christian or confused readers would by God’s grace repent of their sin and trust in the risen Savior for their salvation, or, short of this, that they would not pretend to be Christian if they are not. The Lord Jesus articulated the two greatest commands of God’s law as, “love God, and love Neighbor,” (Matthew 22:36-40). My effort in this writing is to do both, but the Scriptures define love, not our emotions. 1 Corinthians 13:6 says, “Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness but rejoices in the truth.” So a Christian’s first obligation is to love God. Second, they must love their neighbor. But this love cannot be a celebration of things that are detrimental and damning to our neighbor. This is seen in that the Lord Jesus never (not even once), affirmed someone in their sin to continue sinning. The Lord Jesus never affirmed someone finding their identity in something that God had forbidden. 

When beginning to address this topic one must start at the beginning of humanity, looking at the creation of sexuality, marriage, and mankind. God created humans in His image in Genesis 1:27. This means that humanity is supposed to reflect what God is like. Humans do this by being in community as God is in community within the Trinity. Humans also image God by exercising dominion over the world, as God has done, by working for God as his stewards. Another way humans image God is with their moral agency, having the opportunity to make moral decisions with consequences. There are many other significant discussions on the image of God, but relevant to this discussion is that of gender and sex in the image of God. 

In the Genesis account, Adam is found without a suitable mate. He is alone, and none of the animals that God created are suitable to serve as a helper for him. God declared that this was the only “not good” part of His creation and created Eve, to be his wife. Eve was taken from Adam’s side, formed from a rib of Adam, as Adam had been formed from the dust of the earth. Eve is called “woman” because she came from man. Together, the sexes serve together as God’s image. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them [plural],” (Genesis 1:27). This is significant because of the distinction. There are very clearly two sexes seen here. And there are two corresponding genders. Walker agrees, “Male and female, according to the biblical portrait, are fixed, bodily realities; meaning they are not interchangeable or eradicable.”

There are also different roles for each sex seen in the Genesis account. Adam works and he leads (1 Corinthians 11:3). Eve, his wife, supports Adam and produces children (1 Timothy 2:15). At the irreducible core of the distinction of the sexes are these roles, which continue throughout the biblical storyline. In the fullness of redemptive history, the union of marriage points to the relationship of Jesus Christ with His bride, the church (Ephesians 5:23). Jesus leads, and does the work necessary for the salvation of the church. The church submits to Christ the Lord, and serves as a “helper.” They do this in preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God (Matthew 28:18-20). In a spiritual sense, the church is the vessel that “bears fruit” in bringing forth children. The church does this by discipling new believers that are born by the Holy Spirit (John 3:3).

If one is to blur the lines between the distinctions of the sexes they are approaching Christological heresies. This is done when what they say about the sexes is translated to Ephesians 5 and the nature of Christ and the church. If there is no real objective sex or gender then Christ and the church are interchangeable; if this is the case, the gospel is nonsense and there is no true redeemer. Biblically the distinction between gender and sex is completely absent. The author is entirely right that there are different ways for gender to be expressed in different cultures. However, masculinity is masculinity… A scholar, a football star, a soldier, a hunter, a waiter, a chef, a writer, and a painter can all be masculine. Any of these may be valid representations of masculinity, and just because it varies slightly in different societies does not mean that the scholar, the hunter, and the soldier are all different genders or a spectrum of different genders. Jesus Christ is the standard of true masculinity as He sacrificed of Himself for His bride. He leads, makes hard decisions, and subdues all His enemies. Jesus kneeling to wash the feet of His disciples was not taking an effeminate role but being truly masculine in leading His people to serve after Him. 

Often it is alleged that Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality, or issues of transgenderism. However, Jesus when challenged to address divorce in Matthew 19 actually quotes Genesis. In doing so Jesus affirms the age-old definition of sex/gender and marriage, leaving no room for any perversions. Jesus says, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? (Matthew 19:4b-5). If one holds to the orthodox position that Jesus is, in fact, God in the flesh, the second person of the Trinity, who died for the sins of the world, and rose from the dead on the third day— they are forced to believe Jesus not once took the opportunity to affirm the “unjustly suffering” LGBTQ+ individuals in second temple Jewish society. Instead, Jesus took this opportunity to perpetuate the classical understanding of marriage and sexuality in correcting the unjust practice of no-fault divorce. This despite statements like the following from scholars of this perspective quoted by the author, “On the one hand, if God loves human beings, then God cannot abide the pain of gender dysphoria. It is not real love to allow such harm to take place…” (Michaelson). Answering this, the article says the following, citing two sources that agree, 

“…the Bible obviously never explicitly references being Transgender, but celebrates people who rebelled against their gender roles. Everyone from Deborah the Judge, to Jacob, to even Paul. The only one explicit condemnation being against eunuchs (in Deuteronomy) which is later revoked in both Isaiah and by Jesus himself in Matthew.” (The article from my classmate)

But the author’s exegesis (extracting meaning from the text) is severely lacking here to a frankly stunning degree. I agree that the Bible does not explicitly mention being transgender, and that is because the whole dichotomy between gender and sex integral to this perspective is entirely absent from the Biblical worldview. 

Esau was a man, and Jacob was a man. Esau liked hunting, and Jacob liked cooking. Esau was hairy and Jacob didn’t have much body hair. This is hardly proof that Jacob was transgender, or even that he was feminine. These are all completely morally insignificant facts that are not presented in a positive or negative light. Their masculinity was expressed in different ways, each masculine. The Bible mentions Jacob with male pronouns (and every other male in the Bible) consistently. Likewise, Deborah is identified as a woman consistently… Not only that, but she tries desperately to not take the role that she was forced into of leading the forces of the Jews into battle (Judges 4). The book of Judges chronicles a dark time in Israel’s history, and the point of the narrative is that the men are being negligent, disobedient, and cowardly. The point is not that Deborah was a man (or defying her God-given gender or sex). 

To twist the words of Jesus, Paul, and Moses as has been done in this article is truly exegetical gymnastics: one tries desperately to make one’s worldview fit into the biblical text. Deuteronomy 23:1 says that men with damaged genitals cannot enter the temple. The author interprets this to mean be a moral prohibition of eunuchs and therefore gender fluid, transexual, or intersex people. The author then understands this prohibition to be later reversed by Jesus who says “there are eunuchs made such for the Kingdom of Heaven.” The article even goes so far as to say that Paul was effeminate and defying gender roles by being a eunuch of sorts by being celibate. However, this Deuteronomy passage is a law of ceremonial purity, not a moral condemnation of eunuchs. Laws like these pertaining to ceremonial purity pointed forward to Christ and His holiness (Colossians 2:17, Hebrews 8).  In Matthew, Jesus talks about those made eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus speaks of those like Paul, who functioned as eunuchs in that they were celibate because of the dedication they gave to the things of God (1 Corinthians 7). Jesus likewise was celibate, and yet Jesus is presented as thoroughly male. Jesus is the Son of man (Daniel 7), the Son of God, with whom the Father is well pleased (Matthew 3:15). Jesus even now is seated at the right hand of the Father, in a resurrected and glorified male body, (Psalm 110:1-2, Acts 2:32-34, John 20:27). To state that celibacy makes Jesus or Paul effeminate is incoherent, intellectually dishonest, exegetically lazy and deceptive. For those looking to better understand the masculinity and the sexuality of Jesus, I cannot more highly recommend Mere Sexuality by Todd Wilson to explore these issues in greater depth.

The diatribe also addresses some of the so-called “clobber texts,” these are the direct and clear portions of scripture that condemn homosexual practice. First, addressing the topic of the destruction of Sodom. This narrative in Genesis 19 details the destruction of a wicked city by God. In the account, two angels come to the city to confirm the wickedness of the inhabitants. After arriving in the city, the men (ALL of them) surround Lot’s house, where the angels are staying for the night. They demand that Lot bring out his visitors so that they can gang rape them. Lot refuses, and incredibly offers his daughters instead (this is not excused or advocated in the text). Before Lot’s daughters can be harmed, the angels miraculously blind the wicked men. The text says the men literally exhausted themselves trying to find the door to rape Lot’s guests. Ironically, the men Lot fends off from the angels accuse Lot of judging them, but this is neither here nor there. The advocated new interpretation says that the crime of these men is that they were inhospitable. Classically, the sin of Sodom has been understood to be, in fact, sodomy. This traditional view results from a face-value reading of Genesis 19 and requires no special hermeneutical tricks other than letting the Bible say what it says. The contrary interpretation is based on poor exegesis of Matthew 10:12-14. Matthew writes of when Jesus sent His disciples to preach the gospel to the surrounding towns. Jesus says that for those who don’t receive the disciples and their message, it will be “better for Sodom than for those on the day of judgment.” Proponents of this view would read into this text that Jesus is responding with indignation against these cities for their lack of hospitality. The assumption then is that it is the same sin committed by these cities as by Sodom… since Sodom is referred to. Therefore, the sin of the Sodomites wasn’t homosexuality or sodomy, but inhospitality. However, this view is entirely novel to the gospels and completely absent from the text of Genesis 19. The point Jesus is making is found in the immediately following passage in Luke’s account (Luke 10:11-14) of the same sending of the disciples. Luke elaborates on the same event giving more detail than Matthew here. Luke tells of Jesus rebuking the cities that He had preached to and performed miracles for that would not repent (turn from their sin). Jesus says that if other famous cities destroyed in the past, Tyre and Sidon, had heard His preaching and seen His miracles they would have repented… This principle is that of “to whom much is given, much will be required,”(Luke 12:48). Jesus is condemning the cities that reject his disciples because they reject the gospel, a chance that Sodom, Tyre and Sidon were never given… a chance to repent and welcome the King, Jesus. The disciples represent Jesus, and the Jewish cities that rejected Christ and His disciples were given more revelation than Sodom, Tyre and Sidon, therefore their guilt was that much worse. 

Leviticus 20:13 is expressly more difficult for the new progressive perspective. “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them,”(NASB). This is clarified by a previous verse, Leviticus 18:22, “you shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination.”(ESV) This isn’t obscure. There are not a lot of ways to say this more clearly if you were trying to prohibit homosexual practice. While I am not a Hebrew scholar, it is interesting to note that the word for wife and woman is the same in Hebrew, and must be determined by context. So this could be read as, “you may not sleep with a man as you do your wife.” Likewise, the word for man in both verses is the same word translated as husband, the context must determine the meaning. So likewise Leviticus 20:13 could read, “if a husband lies with a male as with his wife…” However, neither passage has to be translated this way to be clear. Both the ESV and NASB English Bibles sufficiently say what the text says without any ambiguity. The author’s interpretive argument is entirely based on the word “mankind” or “male” in Leviticus 20:13 being ambiguous and/or being in reference to temple prostitutes. However, this word means simply male. Context grants clarity, but the NASB translated it as boy 4 times, and male 54 times (this is just the Old Testament). This online study tool helps show this linking to Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew interlinear/concordance. The opposing argument here is less than persuasive. 

Another so-called clobber text is Romans 1:18-32, in which Paul writes about those who rebel against God, and many of the external manifestations this rebellion reveals. Paul says unequivocally, God does not believe in atheists. He says that those who rebel against God will be given over to what they have chosen instead of Him to their own destruction. The critics of the traditional and face-value reading of this text interpret this as either pedophilia, sex slave and master relationships, or cult prostitutes… seemingly anything to get away from what it says. Punt (one of the cited sources) comments “The anti-homosexual use of Romans 1 generally harbours a thinly vieled [sic] heteronormativity…” The hinge that Punt refers to in his work is that of the word nature. He argues that this is speaking of heterosexual people committing homosexual acts contrary to their nature. However, the nature of man that Jesus references in His dealings with marriage (see above) is that of the created order, it is Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, man and woman created in God’s image. Man and woman covenanted in marriage for a one-flesh union, a unique bond of spiritual, emotional, physical, and sexual complementarianism that is integral to the created order. So I may be assuming a “heterosexual-normality” to this passage… But so does Paul, and so does Jesus, and so does all of Christendom for 2 millennia. To dismiss this appeal to the created order is not to dismiss my opinion or even that of the historic Christian church, but that of the Lord Jesus Himself in Matthew 19.

Punt objects to the identification of homosexual acts as sin because it is given as an effect of judgment rather than a cause of judgment in this text. This is an astute observation, 

“In Romans 1, however, homoeroticism is already the consequence of sin, the failure to acknowledge God as God.” (Punt) I agree with Punt here. But this does not negate what has already been established in divine revelation through the Law. This is exactly Paul’s argument, judgment is terrible because not only are you punished, but you keep sinning and you keep sinning in deeper perversion and wickedness. God removes His gracious restraint from you and lets you plunge into the mire that you love instead of Him. This is how the wrath of God is revealed even now against the wicked: God loosening His restraining hand and giving them what they have desired. We serve the creature rather than the creator. Ultimately, the creature we would rather serve is ourselves or at least a god that looks very much like us and likes all the same things we do because it is a god of our own invention. We do this because we hate God (v.30), and instead love self (2 Timothy 3:2) which is a sick inversion of God’s law to love God and love our Neighbor.

The author’s diatribe ultimately does the same thing those “silly” Christians are reportedly doing. The writer accuses Christians of cherry-picking what they want from the story of Sodom, and yet, then in an alternative interpretation of Romans 1:18-32, and Leviticus 20:13 chooses to condemn cult prostitutes, prostitution, and pedophilia. My question is, by what standard are these rejected? This is the logical fallacy of special pleading, where these prohibitions of the Christian ethics are accepted but those against homosexuality are rejected… and why? If one has rejected what Jesus says about marriage, rejects Moses, rejects Paul in favor of one’s own preferences they lose all standing to call anything wrong. The pedophile, the rapist, the incestuous, the animal abuser, or the polygamous can only be different, not wrong. When one loses their objective standard (God’s Word and God’s standard) then they are left with no actual standard other than preference. One may be left with some form of religion, some form of moralism that is extracted from their preferences, but whatever that is, it isn’t Christianity. One is left with another religion altogether, with a different god who is not the true God, and with a savior who offers no salvation.

Briefly, I would recognize that gender dysphoria, same-sex attraction, and intersex people are a reality. I am not an expert on these issues nor do I suffer from these experiences, so I do not want to speak from ignorance. These must be addressed with compassion in a case by case pastoral setting. A broad brush does not work here. But there is a big difference between these people, and the larger transgender movement and the LGBTQ+ community. According to one expert, the percentage of the population that is intersex is 0.018% (Sax). This would amount to an approximate number of intersex people in the US of 58,896. However, according to recent estimates, there are 1.4 million transgender people in the US (Hoffman). This number is quite disproportionate if intersex is to be taken as God’s allowance of transgenderism; The discrepancy is because we are living in a Romans 1 world in a society under the judgment of God. We have been given over to a reprobate mind to do what ought not to be done, and we are collectively rebelling against our creator to serve ourselves instead of the triune God.

Often, one will say that because someone is born gay or born transgender, it is something to be celebrated not suppressed. The author agrees, “So when God fearfully and wonderfully made us, He also made us Trans and/or Gay. It is not a deviation from God’s plan and creation but a fulfillment of it.” However, the message of Christianity is that we live in a broken world because of sin (Genesis 3:17-19, Romans 8:22) while we await the Lord who will make all things new in His consummation and return (Revelation 21:5). We are born inherently under God’s wrath, and born dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1). This means that we all are born with certain proclivities towards one sin or another, but just because one man is naturally promiscuous, or someone is a liar by nature, or someone is drawn to murder or rape does not excuse these behaviors. The message of Christianity is that Jesus gives new life, and He redeems those who were once homosexuals, drunks, gossips, murderers, and idolaters (1 Corinthians 6:11). He washes His people and makes them new so that their identity is not found in those sins (even though the temptation may remain) but their identity is found in their unity with the risen Savior (2 Corinthians 5:17, Romans 6:4).

The contrite and broken people suffering from these issues are not condemned by Jesus. They are welcomed and called to new life in Him. Jesus says to the contrite and humble (Psalm 51:17), “Come to me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest,” (Matthew 11:28) But the movement of LGBTQ+ is not contrite and humble. In the pride marches and abhorrence to all who dare disagree, the movement is a defiant fist raised towards heaven. The LGBTQ+ movement represents reveling in the things that we know are against God’s law and defying their creator (Romans 1:32). Those who justify homosexuality or any other sin, are not the poor in spirit that Christ speaks of (Matthew 5:3). Paying Jesus lip service is not enough. Jesus says, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and yet do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46). Just trying hard to be loving towards a neighbor or God will not save you. Loving God and neighbor is God’s law and, “for by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight since through the law comes knowledge of sin,” (Romans 3:20). So even trying to be loving will not save you anymore than trying to be a good person will save you. Jesus is the only one who saves. 

The message of the gospel is that Jesus is King. The Lord Jesus Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father after being raised from the dead. Jesus died for the sins of the world, and commands men and women to repent of their sin and trust in Him (Mark 1:15, Acts 17:30-31) because there will come a day when He will return and judge the living and the dead. Regardless of your sexuality, your gender identity, or however you have lived your life, you will stand before His throne and give an account for your life (Hebrews 4:13). Only those who are found in Christ will be declared righteous and forgiven. The rest will bear the just wrath of God against their sin forever, (John 3:36). Paul writes of the gospel saying, 

23 …“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith… so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:23-26)

Jesus Christ in His death on the cross satisfied the wrath of God that the sinner deserves, and He offers free redemption for those who repent and trust in Him. If you have read this paper then you have been given much, and much will be required of you… In the name of Jesus Christ, I implore you to repent of your sin and turn to the living God. 

Inviting further dialogue, 

Soli Deo Gloria,

Asher Clark

Addendum

4/28/20

A common response to the the above examination of the sin of Sodom by progressives is an appeal to Ezekiel 16:48-49 (ESV). ^“As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” The argument then is made that the sin of Sodom was that of pride, indulgence, and lack of concern for the poor (not sodomy). However, the Bible is really helpful when we read it, and if one reads the next verse, they see “They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it,”(v. 50). It doesn’t take an attentive eye to recognize the parallel to the passages in Leviticus discussed above. Sodomy, is specifically identified as an “abomination” by God’s law. And let us remember the scene of Genesis 19, where ALL the men of the city gather out front of Lots house to gang rape his guests. Is the argument that this was a one time thing? When one reads the text, it is clear that Lot is scared for the angels if they were to stay in the town square as they suggested. I think it is a reasonable assessment that this was a regular accurance in Sodom. My basis for this is previously in Genesis Sodom is described as wicked (13:13), and the Lord had already declared his judgment upon the city, (18:20).

However this argument is not required for the sin of Sodom to still be understood as Sodomy. The New Testament writers also understand the sin of this city to primarily be sexual immorality. When Jude is discussing the sons of God and their immorality, he compares them to Sodom. “…just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire [see Romans 1], serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 7)

When these verses are considered in the context of the previously covered passages, the universal witness of the Scriptures is that the primary sin of Sodom was sexual immorality, the act of Sodomy (an abomination before the Lord). This sin was them compounded by their pride and haughty attitude(Ezekiel 16) as they turned up their nose in a pseudo-righteous indignation towards all who would oppose them (Genesis 19:9), just like today.

Works Cited and Referenced

Hoffman, Jan. “Estimate of U.S. Transgender Population Doubles to 1.4 Million Adults.” 

The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 June 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/health/transgender-population.html.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version Containing the Old and New Testaments: ESV. 

Crossway, 2011.

The Holy Bible: Updated New American Standard Bible: Containing the Old Testament 

and the New Testament. Zondervan Pub. House, 1999.

Little, Becky. “Male, Female or Both? Reactions to Intersex People Through History.” History, 

Aug. 2019, http://www.history.com/news/intersex-people-casimir-pulaski-thomasine-hall.

Michaelson, Jay. “What Does the Bible Teach About Transgender People?” The Daily Beast, The 

Daily Beast Company, 4 Mar. 2018, 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/what-does-the-bible-teach-about-transgender-people.

Punt, Jeremy. “Romans 1:18-32 amidst the Gay-Debate: Interpretative Options.” University of 

Stellenbosch, NTSSA Congress, 2007, pp. 1–18.

Sax, Leonard. “How Common Is Intersex? a Response to Anne Fausto-Sterling.” Journal of Sex 

Research, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Aug. 2002, 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12476264.

Walker, Andrew T. “Gender and Sexuality.” The Gospel Coalition, 

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/gender-and-sexuality/.

Wilson, Todd A. Mere Sexuality: Rediscovering the Christian Vision of Human Sexuality. 

Zondervan, 2017.

Recommended Reading

Rosaria Butterfield, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert

James White, The Same Sex Controversy

Todd Wilson, Mere Sexuality

Doug Wilson, Father Hunger