This has me wondering if I maybe just don't enjoy the way that ethicists write? It feels like there is often so much posturing, framing, denoting, and distinguishing the point one is making that the bulk of the content ends up being about that rather than the point. It made for a truly frustrating start-stop-start-stop reading experience where I felt like I was just constantly struggling to follow the argument in stride. But, by and large, I still found the arguments compelling. This was written in 2006 (honestly a surprise given that the subtitle reads like a nod to the Black Lives Matter movement) and some aspects read a bit dated in the 2020s. As a womanist scholar, West consistently weaves the lived testimonies and even voices of various Black women (pastors, activists, assault survivors) into her essays. Notably, she often lets them "speak for themselves" rather than provide her own reflection and analysis on the content (this is especially the case in the final chapter on Leadership featuring interviews with faith leaders advocating for LGBTQ inclusion) and I do wish she'd woven things together a bit more. Honestly, that's probably the biggest downside of the book at large –– it very much reads as a series of disconnected essays rather than following an ongoing thesis or umbrella-argument (other than the very broad one that racism and women's lives matter, I suppose). I felt like the strongest chapter was on Liturgy, exploring the covert and subtle ways that many Protestant rituals and faith practices reinscribe racist narratives and reinforce white supremacy.