Welcome To The Woke Church: Where Even Jesus Is Accused Of Racism
There are difficult passages in Scripture that deserve careful study, historical context and humility.
But there is a growing tendency in progressive Christianity to approach those passages with an entirely different assumption: if Jesus does not conform to modern ideological expectations, perhaps Jesus Himself was wrong.
That disturbing approach surfaced again this week at Grace Presbyterian Church in El Paso, Texas.
On August 9, Rev. Janie McElwee-Smith preached a sermon titled “Crumbs,” based on Jesus’ encounter with the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15. Grace Presbyterian identifies McElwee-Smith as its pastor and publicly posted the service under that sermon title.
Her interpretation was stunning.
Jesus, she suggested, called the woman a dog as a racial insult. This was “not a good moment” for Him. His humanity was showing. He was apparently contradicting principles He had taught earlier.
And the Canaanite woman?
She became the courageous heroine who challenged Jesus while He was “having a bad day.”
Think about what that interpretation requires Christians to believe.
Jesus displayed racial prejudice.
A woman recognized His moral failure.
She challenged Him.
Jesus changed.
That is more than an unconventional interpretation of Scripture.
It fundamentally alters the character of Christ.
Did Jesus Really Have A Racist Moment?
Matthew 15 tells us that a Canaanite woman begged Jesus to heal her demon-possessed daughter.
Jesus initially explained that He had been “sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
When she continued pleading, He responded:
“It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
She answered:
“Yes it is, Lord. Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
Jesus then responded:
“Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.”
Her daughter was immediately healed.
The progressive interpretation takes the reference to “dogs,” imports modern racial categories into the passage, and concludes that Jesus revealed prejudice.
But the entire encounter points in another direction.
Jesus was explaining the order of His earthly ministry.
The Messiah came first to Israel.
That same pattern appears throughout the New Testament: Israel first, followed by the Gospel moving outward to Samaritans, Gentiles and eventually all nations.
That is not racial hatred.
It is redemptive sequence.
And this Canaanite woman becomes one of the clearest early signs that God’s mercy would extend far beyond Israel.
She Wasn’t Correcting Jesus
Modern interpreters also turn the woman into someone the passage never says she was.
She does not accuse Jesus of racism.
She does not rebuke Him for prejudice.
She does not demand that He examine His privilege.
She calls Him Lord.
She even addresses Him as Son of David, a profoundly significant Messianic title.
Then, rather than rejecting Jesus’ illustration, she responds brilliantly within it:
“Even the dogs eat the crumbs.”
Jesus responds not with repentance, but praise:
“Woman, great is your faith.”
The woman did not expose Jesus’ sin.
Jesus exposed her faith.
The encounter revealed persistence, humility and trust so remarkable that Christ publicly commended her.
This Is Not An Isolated Interpretation
Unfortunately, the El Paso sermon is not the first time progressive Christianity has presented Matthew 15 this way.
Progressive pastor Brandan Robertson attracted widespread attention several years ago after arguing that this same encounter demonstrated racial prejudice in Jesus.
Robertson said the woman’s willingness to “speak truth to power” changed Jesus’ mind. He went even further, declaring that Jesus “repents of his racism” before healing her daughter.
He described the account as evidence that Jesus, because He was human, possessed “prejudices and bias” that He was willing to confront.
Another progressive pastor writing about the passage in 2020 similarly declared Jesus “guilty of uttering a racial slur” and argued that the Canaanite woman effectively shamed Him into recognizing His racism.
So this is not simply one pastor in El Paso choosing unfortunate words.
It reflects a recognizable theological trajectory.
And that trajectory has enormous consequences.
A Jesus Who Needs Moral Correction
Historic Christianity teaches that Jesus was fully human.
It does not teach that Jesus was sinful.
Hebrews tells us Christ was tempted as we are, “yet without sin.”
Peter writes that “He committed no sin.”
Paul says Christ “knew no sin.”
If racism is sinful—and Christians should certainly consider it sinful—then accusing Christ of racism is accusing Christ of sin.
There is no theological loophole called “Jesus was having a bad day.”
Jesus became tired.
He became hungry.
He wept.
He experienced anguish.
His humanity was entirely real.
But His humanity was never morally corrupt.
That distinction is central to the Christian faith.
Because once Jesus becomes merely another flawed person whose prejudices needed correction, Christianity’s entire understanding of Christ begins to collapse.
How can a morally compromised Savior become the spotless Lamb of God?
How can someone needing repentance Himself bear the sins of others?
When Culture Becomes Jesus’ Judge
This is where the woke church eventually leads.
Scripture no longer judges the culture.
The culture judges Scripture.
Biblical teaching is placed before the tribunal of today’s political and social assumptions—and apparently even Jesus Himself must answer to them.
If His words offend modern sensibilities, they are reconstructed.
If His actions appear insufficiently progressive, hidden prejudices are assigned to Him.
If necessary, Jesus becomes the student and modern ideology becomes His teacher.
That is not Christianity adapting its language to reach a changing culture.
It is Christianity changing its Christ to satisfy one.
Matthew 15 does not reveal a racist Jesus being corrected by a courageous woman.
It reveals a Gentile woman with extraordinary faith encountering the sinless Messiah.
She did not teach Jesus how to become more righteous.
She recognized who He already was.
And when pastors begin preaching that Jesus Christ Himself needed to overcome racism, prejudice or moral failure, the question Christians need to ask is no longer simply, “What interpretation of Matthew 15 is this?”
The more serious question is:
Which Jesus are they preaching?
Can You Be Fired For Your Christian Beliefs? This Case Could Help Decide
Two flight attendants questioned their employer’s political advocacy.
They lost their jobs.
Now, years later, their case is headed toward trial–and the outcome could carry implications far beyond Alaska Airlines.
Lacey Smith and Marli Brown were fired after criticizing or questioning Alaska Airlines’ support for the Equality Act, legislation designed to expand federal civil-rights protections involving sexual orientation and gender identity.
The women contend that their dismissals amounted to religious discrimination. Alaska Airlines and their union dispute that claim.
A federal appeals court has now determined there is enough evidence for a jury to hear the case.
That distinction matters. The court has not ruled that Alaska Airlines discriminated against the women. A trial will determine the merits of those allegations.
But even before a jury reaches a verdict, the case raises a much larger question:
How much room remains in the modern workplace for employees whose religious beliefs conflict with their employer’s social values?
When Diversity Includes Disagreement
Corporations routinely tell employees that diversity should be celebrated.
But diversity becomes much more complicated when it includes deeply held religious beliefs.
According to the case, Alaska Airlines announced its support for the Equality Act and invited employee feedback.
Smith responded with a simple question:
“As a company, do you think it’s possible to regulate morality?”
Brown went further, arguing that the legislation could threaten religious liberty, parental rights and protections for women.
Those comments clearly challenged the company’s position.
But that is precisely what makes this case significant.
If employees are invited to provide feedback, are they genuinely allowed to disagree?
Or does “inclusion” increasingly mean employees are welcome to participate only as long as their beliefs remain within acceptable ideological boundaries?
That question extends far beyond one airline.
Believe What You Want–But Don’t Say It?
American workplaces increasingly find themselves navigating disputes that once would have been considered deeply personal or political.
Pronouns. Gender identity. Sexuality. Abortion. Race. Religious expression. Political activism.
Companies are no longer merely determining wages, schedules and working conditions. Many now take explicit positions on some of society’s most divisive moral questions.
That creates an unavoidable conflict.
The moment an employer adopts a position on morality or sexuality, some employees will disagree–sometimes because of religious convictions they consider non-negotiable.
What happens then?
There is an enormous difference between requiring employees to treat coworkers and customers respectfully and requiring employees to affirm every belief embraced by corporate leadership.
The first is a reasonable workplace expectation.
The second moves much closer to the territory of conscience.
And that distinction may become one of the defining religious-liberty battles of the modern workplace.
When Disagreement Becomes “Unsafe”
One of the most revealing elements of the Alaska Airlines dispute is the language reportedly used to describe Smith’s comments.
According to court filings, some employees said her statements made them question whether they could “fly safely” with her.
That language deserves attention.
Traditionally, workplace safety referred to physical danger, threats, harassment or genuinely dangerous conduct.
Increasingly, however, words such as “unsafe,” “harmful” and “threatening” are also used to describe ideological disagreement.
That changes the rules dramatically.
Once an opinion is categorized not simply as wrong or offensive but as a threat to someone’s safety, disciplinary action becomes much easier to justify.
The question then becomes:
Can expressing a traditional religious belief itself be treated as creating an unsafe workplace?
If the answer becomes yes, religious liberty could theoretically remain intact on paper while becoming far narrower in practice.
You would remain free to believe.
You simply might not be free to say what you believe when it conflicts with prevailing institutional values.
The “Opposite Sex” Question
Another allegation from the litigation illustrates how fundamental these conflicts have become.
First Liberty says an Alaska Airlines executive testified that use of the term “opposite sex” could violate company discrimination policy because it implies there are only two sexes.
That is not a minor disagreement over terminology.
For millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims, belief in the biological distinction between male and female is intertwined with their understanding of creation, marriage, sexuality and human identity.
A corporation may adopt a different view.
But when corporate policy and religious doctrine directly contradict each other, something eventually has to give.
That is why cases like this matter.
The conflict is no longer simply between conservative and progressive employees.
It is increasingly between institutional orthodoxy and individual conscience.
The Religious-Liberty Battle Is Moving To Work
Americans often think about religious liberty primarily in terms of churches.
Can pastors preach freely?
Can religious schools maintain their beliefs?
Can churches operate without government interference?
Those questions remain important.
But for ordinary believers, the more immediate battles may increasingly occur somewhere else:
At work.
A Christian employee may never face a government official demanding that he renounce his faith.
He may instead face an employer asking him to use language he believes is false.
A teacher may encounter policies involving gender identity.
A medical professional may face procedures conflicting with conscience.
A counselor may confront demands involving sexuality.
A corporate employee may be encouraged to endorse political or social causes.
And most people cannot simply walk away from their careers without consequences.
That makes workplace conscience protections increasingly important.
A Case Worth Watching
The Alaska Airlines case will ultimately turn on specific evidence, employment law and the facts presented at trial.
Perhaps the airline will persuade jurors that its decisions were based on legitimate workplace concerns rather than hostility toward religion.
Perhaps Smith and Brown will convince them that their religious convictions played an unlawful role in their dismissals.
That remains to be decided.
But the larger cultural conflict is already here.
Corporate America often tells employees to bring their “whole self” to work.
For religious Americans, the question is whether that invitation includes the parts of themselves that disagree with corporate orthodoxy.
True pluralism cannot simply protect different identities.
It must also leave room for different convictions.
Employees should be expected to treat one another with dignity. Harassment and genuine discrimination should not be tolerated.
But disagreement is not the same thing as discrimination.
And an unpopular religious belief is not automatically an unlawful one.
If religious liberty protects people only when their convictions remain private and unspoken, it becomes a very thin form of liberty indeed.
That is why this case matters far beyond two former Alaska Airlines flight attendants.
It represents an emerging struggle over a question millions of Americans may eventually face themselves:
When your employer’s values conflict with your deepest religious convictions, which one are you expected to leave at the office door?