By Rev. Dr. Toni Dunbar
June 18, 2026
Long before I had ever heard of Rev. John Robinson, I knew that the Bible was not a good and ethical source of theology for all people. Anything that can be made monstrous enough to justify slavery, misogyny, state-sanctioned murder, war, ecological destruction and the long catalog of atrocities at theology’s feet does not apply to the peaceful culmination of life on this planet. It just seemed to me that God had more truth and light to shed.
So I studied. I obtained the obligatory degree. I became enamored of the liberation theologies emerging around the world — Minjung, Black, ecofeminist, womanist, Latin American, African, feminist. We stand on the shoulders of those who articulated an alternative vision of what God was doing and saying in the scriptures: Ahn Byung-Mu, James Cone, Françoise d’Eaubonne, Yvette Flunder, Gustavo Gutiérrez, John Mbiti, Rosemary Radford Ruether, and Delores Williams, who established that Old World thinking is inadequate for New World problems. Thanks to them, we peer over walls of ignorance, violence, and repression, and glimpse light.
What masqueraded as hope for some was death for others — witness the Crusades and the Inquisition, witness the Middle Passage and the Trail of Tears, witness the state of the world in 2026 with its calamities, wars, despotic leaders, poverty, illness, and unequally distributed wealth despite the prayers of the faithful. If, as the Second Testament asserts, “no testing has overtaken you that is not common to everyone” (1 Corinthians 10:13), they constitute the inexorable, evolutionary arc of human history.
Of course, there is more to life than calamity and sorrow. This is where theology comes in. Theology has always been about ordering and separation: good from evil, darkness from light, poverty from wealth, beauty from repugnance, sorrow from joy, pain from pleasure, day from night, the waters above from the firmament below, the Priestly, the Yahwist and the Elohist, the Old, or First Testament and the New, or Second Testament. At issue for us Christians is Christ — and this is where we ultimately diverge. Which Christ ravaged every continent and subjugated its peoples? Which Christ compels us to despise siblings who do not resemble natural kin? Which Christ informs Christian nationalism today — as demonstrably anti-Christian as it is? Which Christ supports the death penalty, and which does not? Jesus declared, “It is finished.” What is finished? Certainly not the demand for his blood, nor the blood of countless martyrs. Theology is not life. Life is theology. Our hermeneutics need a thorough overhaul.
The First and Second Testaments are foundation — not terminus — for a Third. The Third is no superficial reinterpretation, no sprinkling of salt and pepper on a packaged meal, but a profoundly rethought, remixed, and reimagined recipe, drawing on ingredients post its conventional origins.
So many Christians have been ill-served by shoes that don’t fit, cloaks that don’t provide warmth, houses that fail to shelter, fear calcified into hate yet masquerading as love. The majority of Christians throughout history and around the world have been thus misserved.
Consider again chattel slavery in the United States, and with it the reverend mystic Nat Turner who believed divine command authorized indiscriminate lethal violence. Neither he nor the abolitionist John Brown and his Secret Six were well-served by the faith. I side with John Robinson: “The Lord hath more truth and light yet to break forth out of His Holy Word,” even as the pilgrims he blessed with those words planted innumerable sorrows in this fertile new world.
Theology is not life; life is theology. It’s time for a radical rethinking and a radical restructuring of what we’ve built on an incomplete foundation of ancient books and scraps of papyri. The Third does not signify destruction, or repudiation, but appending. The Third does not protest that we walk in darkness, just that there is more truth and light to be revealed.
Rev. Dr. Toni Dunbar is an ordained UCC clergyperson, and a founding minister of the City of Refuge United Church of Christ in Oakland, California. She gratefully acknowledges the Rev. Dr. Yvette Flunder, who first publicly introduced the phrase “Third Testament,” and thereby sparked her interest in this area of theological reflection.
© 2026 T.Dunbar
I am stunned by the blasphemy in this article and that the conference shared it. That our denomination makes room for these voices does not oblige us to lift up these voices.
The assumption underlying this argument is that the Bible was completely written by humans without divine inspiration or authority, and therefore we humans know enough to change it, edit, and ADD TO THE CANON when we feel it doesn’t work for us. It is a religion of self-reliance and self-salvation. When the ‘3rd testament’ is written and is then corrupted by human sin over the next 1,000-2,000 years, will we then write a fourth testament to correct our words from before? This is not advocating for a different interpretation of scripture, it is talking about writing an entire new religious covenant all together.
I share here a quote I just read to a parishioner as we were planning a women’s retreat for this fall. This comes from Wilda Gafney in her book Womanist Midrash: “Womanists at the intersection of biblical scholarship and religious faith and practice engage the Scriptures of our communities as members of those communities. No matter how misogynistic, how heavily redacted, how death-dealing, how troubled, troubling or troublesome the text, womanists who teach and preach in the black church do not throw the whole androcentric text with its patriarchal and kyriarchal lowlights out of our stained-glass windows because of its Iron Age theology. We wrestle with it because it has been received as Scripture. Our wrestling should not be taken to mean that we affirm texts that do not affirm us.”
Wow Amanda– your comment feels so reactionary to me. I found Rev. Toni’s article a brilliant reflection on our sacred texts, and it can be argued, in my reading, that the scriptures themselves leave wide open space for the continuing revelation for which she advocates. Our own denomination’s tagline– God is Still Speaking…that feels pretty core to me. I don’t know you, but your response also feels like it comes from a very white perspective. Are you really saying that calling out the horrors of slavery and the cruelty of misogyny supported by scripture, for example, is self-serving — and simply “doesn’t work for us?” Really? Why not support your colleagues in this denomination and see what a Third Testament might just reveal? I do not want to be reactionary to your reaction — but I do want to name what feels to me like a theological rigidity that comes from a lack of understanding of the oppression that so many have suffered by the abuse of our sacred texts. Some texts are not worth redeeming. So I for one welcome some additional revelation that is written by those closest to the pain.
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns. Your response reflects a deep commitment to Scripture and to the faith that has shaped your ministry and discipleship. We recognize that conversations about biblical authority, interpretation, and the future of the Church often evoke strong convictions, and we are grateful that you have engaged thoughtfully rather than remaining silent.
The Northern California Nevada Conference of the United Church of Christ seeks to be a place where faithful people can wrestle with difficult questions while remaining in covenant with one another. Sharing an article does not necessarily imply institutional endorsement of every theological claim it contains. Rather, it reflects our commitment to fostering meaningful conversation around issues that are shaping the life of the Church today.
The United Church of Christ has long embraced the understanding that “God is still speaking.” This conviction does not require agreement on every interpretation of Scripture or every theological proposal. Instead, it invites us into the ongoing work of prayerful discernment, trusting that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church as we engage Scripture, tradition, reason, and lived experience together.
Your concern that the article appears to challenge the authority and integrity of the biblical canon is one that many faithful Christians share. Others may read the article as an invitation to consider how God’s continuing revelation is experienced within the life of the Church today. These are significant theological differences that deserve careful study, respectful dialogue, and humility from all who participate in the conversation.
The quote you shared from Wilda Gafney is a valuable contribution to that dialogue. Her reflection reminds us that many scholars and believers choose to remain deeply engaged with Scripture—not because every passage is easy or affirming, but because they believe that wrestling with the biblical text is itself an act of faithfulness. That perspective enriches the conversation by demonstrating that engaging critically with Scripture is not synonymous with rejecting its sacred role.
As a Conference, our hope is not to eliminate theological disagreement but to cultivate spaces where differing convictions can be expressed with grace, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to following Jesus Christ. We believe that our unity is found not in complete agreement on every theological question, but in our covenant to love God, love our neighbors, and remain in conversation with one another even when we disagree.
Thank you again for your honesty and for your willingness to participate in this important conversation. We pray that the Holy Spirit will continue to guide all of us as we seek wisdom, humility, and faithfulness in discerning God’s call for the Church.
On behalf of
Rev.Dr. Davena L. Creer-Jones
Conference Minister & Staff
MeLinda LaViene
Conference Managing Administrator,
NCNC, UCC