Gender and biological sex are equivalent and cannot be separated. A person’s gender is determined at conception (fertilization), coded in the DNA, and cannot be changed by drugs, hormones, or surgery. Rejection of one’s biological sex (gender) or identifying oneself by the opposite sex is a sinful rejection of the way God made that person. These truths must be communicated with compassion, love, kindness, and respect, pointing everyone to the truth that God offers redemption and restoration to all who confess and forsake their sin, seeking his mercy and forgiveness through Jesus Christ (Genesis 1:26–28, 5:1–2; Psalm 51:5, 139:13–16; Jeremiah 1:5; Matthew 1:20–21, 19:4–6; Mark 10:6; Luke 1:31; Acts 3:19–21; Romans 10:9–10; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11; Galatians 3:28).
Human death (both physical and spiritual) as well as all animal death, disease, bloodshed, suffering, extinction, thorns and thistles, and all other natural evils (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.) entered this world subsequent to, and as a direct consequence of, man’s sin (Genesis 2:16–17, 3:8, 3:19, 4:4–8; Romans 5:12, 8:20–22; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22).
The concepts of “social justice,” “intersectionality,” and “critical race theory” are anti-biblical and destructive to human flourishing (Ezekiel 18:1–20; James 2:8–9).
The concepts of “social justice,” “intersectionality,” and “critical race theory” are anti-biblical and destructive to human flourishing
they cite Ezekiel 18:1-20 and James 2:8-9.
The relevant part of Ezekiel seems to be this message:
The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father
While James says:
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.
But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
I’d love to hear the author of the AIG article try to explicitly draw the connection between these passages what their conceptions of social justice, intersectionality, and critical race theory. I doubt they have any understanding of these concepts at all if they think they’re addressed by the aforementioned biblical passages.
I know CRT is very popular to condemn but I have no idea what it is still.
The idea of a concept is so general that it seems to clash with the specificity of other statements. I’m picky about words.
It is hard to know even what is meant by “social justice.” The phrase means very different things to different people. I’ve been called a SJW (didn’t know what it meant then) by pushing back on something someone said about racism.
This is one of my biggest problems with the CRT/social justice vilification. It almost seems intentional in certain conservative circles to use very broad, ill-defined terms, then claim it is “anti-biblical”.
I am convinced that there are a large number of evangelicals/fundamentalists that really do care about people in a way that the Bible teaches. I just don’t understand this prevailing sentiment that we need to be extremely cautious about caring for other people, lest we do a CRT.
Valerie, I believe I know you well enough to safely put you into the “good evangelical” group, so rest assured I am not lumping you in there!
I wonder why this was deemed necessary? Are there really YECs who could’ve signed the old SOF but not the new one? Or are they just trying to show their street cred to their ultra-conservative base? So bizarre.
Anything that signals loyalty to the tribe and increases fear and loathing of the other tribe is beneficial. I can’t see how this would serve any other function.
Theoretically, if I worked for them, I’d sign it if I had definitions for the last bullet. I generally think they do a decent job of exposing and condemning racism from what I’ve become familiar with them in the last year - watched a bit of a series they had on the subject. So it’s a bit disappointing they don’t also have a positive statement in this bullet.
(EDIT - I just skimmed through the SOF and see there is a positive statement right above that one)
Since all humans are made in the image of God, all humans have equal dignity and value regardless of age (including the unborn), intelligence, gender, physical ability, shade of skin tone, religion, ethnicity, or any other characteristic (Genesis 1:26–27, 3:20, 11:9; Acts 17:26–28).
I think it’s better upfront to know when you have to part with the organization if your views change or theirs do.
Perhaps for the reason above. I noticed also that the second bullet in the OP excludes a GAE-type of belief and anything that applies the fall retroactively. Not sure how clear the statement before was to exclude those. I’d have to look. But that’s the reason why I think GAE doesn’t work holistically and philosophically anyway and so I’m not sure how many YECs are like me or not or just want a literal interpretation, whatever that means, and don’t consider other implications.
This sounds like an interesting discussion once I learn what CRT is. After reading through the prophets lately I’m now starting in Exodus to read through the rest of the OT. Learning a lot just reading through entire books. If you remember passages point to them, as I’d generally guess the laws most often treat everyone the same. But I do not have those books memorized.
Your tendency toward pithy, cryptic contradiction impedes communication. Please explain how you reconcile that statement with GAE. It seems to require a commitment to YEC and flood geology, however you choose to define “human”.
Sort of ironic that this was my biggest parenting fear before I had children. I had watched some television show on intersex babies and was fearful if it happened to me that is make a wrong decision. After I had kids, that fear went away. All of parenting is basically making the best decisions you can with the information you have at the time, and realize you will make mistakes. In this case I wouldn’t have to confront all the implications until I was in that position and was being given relevant medical information just like any other condition a child may have. I don’t know what XXXXY does other than the article I skimmed that you shared that refers to males. Generally I think though the exceptions prove the rule: biological sex is most often very, very obvious and chromosomal abnormalities are rare. Otherwise they wouldn’t be considered abnormalities, also affecting so many other biological systems.
Frequencies of Various Causes of Nondimorphic Sexual Development
Cause
Estimated frequency per 100 live
births
Non-XX or non-XY (except Turner’s or Klinefelter’s)
0.0639
Turner Syndrome (45,X or 45,XO)
0.0369
Klinefelter Syndrome (47,XXY)
0.0922
Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (i.e. Complete AIS)
0.0076
Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (PAIS)
0.00076
Classic CAH (omitting very high frequency population) (Congenital Adrenal
Hyperplasia)
0.00779
Late-onset CAH
1.5
Vaginal agenesis
0.0169
True hermaphrodites (now termed ‘Ovotestis’)
0.0012
Idiopathic
0.0009
Total
1.728
Source: Anne Fausto-Sterling, 2000, Sexing the Body, Basic Books, page 53. ISBN 978-0465077144
I don’t want to argue about what “rare” means, but this condition obviously makes up the bulk of your quoted 1.7% and it isn’t an abnormality of the X or Y chromosomes.
The % left fits my own definition of “rare” or “exceptional.”
After reading through the prophets lately I’m now starting in Exodus to read through the rest of the OT. Learning a lot just reading through entire books. If you remember passages point to them, as I’d generally guess the laws most often treat everyone the same. But I do not have those books memorized. 
.
