The sin of racism: A Gospel response

Comments (3)
  1. Stephen Hoffman says:

    I know this article was written out of true, loving, Christian intentions, but I think it unfortunately causes more confusion around the subject (at least for me) than it provides answers.

    A few examples of confusing phrases:

    1. “The church does not fear homosexual or trans people.”
    A correct, and unavoidable, assumption in this article is the “sameness” we have as God’s creation; as humans. After the Fall, part of that “sameness” is recognizing that we our sinful, the knowledge of which comes from the Law. God’s Law, as His Word, shows us Truth, and Truth tells us that we are created male & female. The consequences of which allow for no recognition of language that obscures this Truth, such as “transgender” or “cisgender”, and for that matter “homosexual” or “heterosexual”. No one is transsexual (and, by extension, “cisgender” is therefore also a made up word) so we shouldn’t use that term.

    2. “The church should not get itself balled up in secular policy debates when the Bible does not clearly mandate one Christian response.” followed by “Christians should vote. Christians will not always come to the same conclusions on these matters.”
    Identifying what is merely a secular policy debate and Christians agreeing on what the Bible clearly mandates appear to have become increasingly difficult endeavors in our age. Although the statements above are factually true, the church getting involved more often may assist untangling our confusion. Additionally, if Christians are essentially the church, and they vote, then the church really isn’t not involved to begin with. Clear statements by the leadership of a church body may in turn bring about greater unity among Christians and their conclusions on things.
    I’m happy to hear in this case that the subject of “antiracism” will be discussed as a church at the Making Disciples for Life conference.

    3. “Meanwhile, the church has THE antiracist policy — the Gospel.”
    The Gospel isn’t a policy encompassing antiracism, because “antiracism” is a meaningless word. It’s used, as again this article rightly calls out, to attack fundamental Christian teachings. The Gospel alone isn’t a cure against things opposed to Christianity.

    I don’t mean to be hateful or harsh. The article mentions many good things, but seems to work against itself in various, and (maybe to some) small ways. But little misguided steps or phrases ball up into much larger issues down the road. We are living through such a nightmare in our own time.

  2. Doris Houghtaling says:

    Excellent article. Rev Keith Haney also did a Bible study that helped to understand our status regarding racism. All of us carry biases and we need to recognize them in order to ask for forgiveness and direction from our Lord and Savior. Seeing another human being as being made in the image of God let’s us celebrate our uniqueness.

  3. Roger Staley says:

    I recently joined the LCMS close to me because the ELCA has spent millions of congregates dollars creating a hundred or more statements, open letters by Eaton concerning every social situation on the planet, gender affirming “demands”, transgender bishops and homosexual pastors with a homosexual partner/spouse sitting in the same worship service. So far, I have not seen but a handful of social statements handed out of St. Louis and I pray it stays that way. The church needs to love everyone, however, it does not need to be engaged in insisting it’s members are racists and white supremacists or any other “ism”. The church should stay out of civil affairs. I feel people want to go to a church that focuses on Jesus and his salvation and teachings and not proclaim itself a partisan church body as most Council of Churches denominations practice!