James Talarico should not apologize for saying God is non-binary. He should explain why he said it.
Talarico is a teacher and a seminary student. Teachers sometimes begin a lesson with a statement designed to make people stop and ask, “What do you mean?” The purpose is not simply to shock. It is to challenge an assumption and make the listener think.
“God is non-binary” does exactly that.
Most Christians grow up calling God “He” and “Father,” so it is easy to picture God as an old man somewhere in heaven. But Christianity does not actually teach that God is a biological male with a male human body. Jesus was a man. God is something much harder to put into a human box.
Genesis says God created humankind in God’s image—male and female. If both male and female are created in God’s image, then God’s image cannot belong exclusively to one sex.
Then there is that strange sentence immediately before it: “Let us make mankind in our image.” Christians have debated for centuries what “us” means. Some see the Trinity. Biblical scholars have discussed a heavenly council. Either way, Genesis itself is considerably more complicated than simply saying God is a man.
The Holy Spirit makes it more complicated still. Christianity does not teach that the Holy Spirit has male reproductive organs or a male human body. God, according to the Gospel of John, is spirit.
So what was Talarico trying to teach?
Something fairly simple: human categories are too small to contain God.
Male and female describe human beings. God created both. Christians may use masculine language for God, and Jesus entered history as a male human being, but that does not require Christians to believe that the eternal God is biologically male.
Talarico chose the modern word “non-binary” to force people to confront that distinction. Maybe it was politically dangerous. Maybe another word would have caused him less trouble. But a politically dangerous statement is not necessarily a theologically foolish one.
And backing down now would be worse.
If Talarico apologizes and says he should never have used the phrase, his opponents will not stop running the clip. They will run the clip and his apology, telling voters that even Talarico admits he was wrong.
Instead, he should do what teachers do: finish the lesson.
He could say:
“Yes, I said God is non-binary. I was teaching. I wanted people to think about something Christians have discussed for centuries: God is not a human being with a male or female body. The Bible says male and female are both created in God’s image, and it says God is spirit. I used a modern phrase to make people examine an old assumption. You may disagree with my choice of words, but I am not going to pretend I meant something I didn’t.”
Then stop.
No Hebrew lesson. No ten-minute explanation of gender theory. No retreat.
His opponents get five words: “Talarico says God is non-binary.”
Talarico needs about fifty words to explain them. That is an electoral disadvantage, but he cannot make it disappear by running away from what he said.
Sometimes the answer to a five-second attack is not an apology.
It is finishing the lesson.
