Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 383 | My Disagreements with IF:Gathering, John MacArthur & Beth Moore

Episode Date: March 10, 2021

First, we discuss recent comments made by John MacArthur about religious freedom. Is it right to fight for the religious liberty of those who hate you? Then, we briefly address Beth Moore leaving the Southern Baptist Convention. She's been a controversial figure in the SBC for some time, and it seems they will be parting ways. And, it was disappointing to see elements of critical race theory and other aspects of leftist social justice creeping into IF:Gathering, a conference for Christian women. --- Today's Sponsors: Built Bar: Don't give up on your resolution. Built Bar is the answer. Go to BuiltBar.com and use promo code 'RELATABLE' to get 20% off your next order. ABC - Life in the Womb is a fun and educational alphabet book for kids to learn how babies grow and develop in their mother's womb. To find out more about the book or their Pro-Life Promise, visit their website at LittleLifeStages.com. 40% of all proceeds go to pro-life pregnancy centers across the U.S. --- Past Episodes Mentioned: Ep 381: Glennon Doyle's Gospel vs. the Real Gospel https://apple.co/3rAUF3Q Ep 292: Trump vs. Biden 2020: Religious Liberty | Guest: John MacArthur https://apple.co/2N5vMON Ep 282: Exposing & Opposing Social Justice Theology | Guest: Dr. Voddie Baucham https://apple.co/3rCUBAx Ep 275: Critical Theory: A Disastrous, Unbiblical Worldview | Guest: Dr. Neil Shenvi https://apple.co/2PMXoZT --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. I'm super excited about today's episode because we're going to talk about three subjects that you guys have been asking me to cover this week. They're hot topics within the evangelical church. I am going to touch on the if gathering. That is a large Christian women's conference, which is being streamed nationally, maybe even internationally. And I have gotten so many messages from you. you guys asking me for my thoughts on it. So this is not going to be, it's not going to be any kind of like call out or accusations or anything like that. I'm going to give you my thoughts on a particular subject that was covered that you guys expressed concerns about. We're going to do that at the end. First, I'm going to talk about John McArthur in his statement that I wouldn't fight for religious freedom because I won't fight for idolatry. I'll tell you what I think about that is someone who cares about religious liberty and does say that we should fight for religious liberty,

and also someone who aligns pretty solidly, theologically with John McArthur, someone who admires him a whole lot. I'll tell you my thoughts on that. I'll also give you some thoughts on Beth Moore leaving the SBC. That's the Southern Baptist Convention. So before we get started, I do want to say, if you love this podcast, And it has been helpful to you at all. Of course, let me know, message me if that's something that you want to do. That means so much to me. But please feel free also to leave a five-star review on Apple. If that's where you listen, subscribe on YouTube. If you watch the podcast, that really is super helpful to me and super helpful to the show. Thank you to those of you who already have done that. But if you have it, feel free to leave that five-star review. If you truly love the show, that would mean a lot to me. Okay, let's start with this John McArthur story. So according to the Christian Post, John McArthur said, I would not fight for religious freedom because I won't fight for idolatry. John McArthur says that he doesn't support religious liberty as a core component of American

cultural values because it allows for idolatry. The Christian Post goes on to report it this way. The pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, was giving his state of the the state of the church addressed last Wednesday. It was replacing this year's Shepherds, our Shepard Conference, which has been postponed, and he, quote, urged evangelicals to stop forming alliances with non-Christian groups to promote religious freedom because Christians don't need religious freedom, he argues. The gospel offends the sinner and seeks to break the sinner's comfort and contentment by bringing him into stark realization of the eternal judgment of God. John McArthur said, evangelicals have become like Peter. They are looking for alliances

with Satan that they think somehow can aid the kingdom. I told our congregation a few weeks ago that I could never really concern myself with a religious freedom. I wouldn't fight for a religious freedom because I won't fight for idolatry. Why would I fight for the devil to have as many false religions as possible and all of them be available to everyone? He goes on to say, well, people would say, that's a terrible thing to say. What about Christianity? Christianity, and he says, Christianity advances whether there is religious freedom or not. Every false religion is going to be free because it's linked to the kingdom of darkness that operates in the world. And Christians, whatever the label of religious freedom might be in its broadest sense, Christians are

always the target, even with religious freedom, of the hostility of sinners. And so he goes on to support his argument with scripture. He uses Ephesians 5, 5 through 8. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure or who is covetous, that is, an idolater, has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things, the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore, do not become partners with them, for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.

Walk as children of light, for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right. and true. So this, of course, is going to be a compelling argument by Dr. John McArthur. As I said at the top of this, I love John McArthur. He has helped me so much. I've had him on this podcast. Ironically, it was the podcast episode about religious liberty. And if I were you, I would go back and listen to that conversation that we had. It's also on my IG or my Instagram, IGTV page. And, you know, I have disagreed with him on various things. He believes certain things about the foundation of America actually being sinful because it was a violation. He believes of Romans 13. And I disagree with his eschatological views as well. He is pre-tribulation, for example. I am post-tribulation.

But for the most part, I mean, I really agree with John McArthur. And I know that me even saying that sounds silly because this is a man who has had a faithful and wonderful and vibrant and helpful and popular ministry for, I don't know, double the time that I've been alive. So who am I to disagree with someone like John McArthur? And I'm certainly not claiming to have any kind of superior theological or historical or political knowledge to him at all. But I do find myself disagreeing with him on this subject. And I think that's okay. I think that I can humbly say, look, I know that I don't know as much as people who are farther along than I am. I know that I don't have all of the degrees and all of the experience that he does. And I defer to his wisdom.

I'm thankful for his wisdom. I'm thankful for the success that the Lord has accomplished through him and still say, but I'm not sure that I can go with you on that. And I'll explain why. The Christian Post, also published an op-ed by someone named Adam Groza, who disagrees with John McArthur. I wanted to read you his perspective. He says this, that there is a big problem with John McArthur's argument, which is that religious liberty does not, in fact, promote false religion. Religious liberty does not promote religion any more than gun companies promote suicide by making guns that are routinely used by individuals to commit suicide. Religious liberty is a view that citizens should be free to make individual decisions in regard to lawful worship and that such decisions should be governed

with equal protection under the law. He goes on to say Adam Groza for the Christian Post goes on to say what about MacArthur's claim that Christianity has flourished without religious freedom and that Christians don't need any help from the government? Well, sure, Christianity doesn't need any help from utility companies either, but I am guessing Grace Community Church is kept cool in the summer and warm in the winter thanks to Southern California Edison or some other provider. It simply doesn't follow that if something is not needed, that something is not good. I am much more sympathetic to Adam Groza's argument in regards to religious liberty than I am John McArthur's. And I am totally willing to be proven wrong on this.

I understand this is a debatable topic. And as someone who is a conservative, I could probably be accused of allowing my political leanings and my admiration of the founding and my admiration of the Constitution. I could be accused of allowing that to color my theology. I don't think that's what I'm doing. I think that I have a pretty good argument for religious liberty that is not in any way contradictory to Scripture and actually is in line with it. So I don't agree with this idea, and this is what Adam Groza said as well, I don't agree that with this idea that fighting for religious liberty is fighting for idolatry, is fighting for the promotion of other religions.

Religious liberty is what allows and what has allowed by the grace of God, America, to be the number one center of missionaries, the number one adopter of orphans, the hub for the best hospitals, most of which were founded by Christians home to the best academic institutions in the world, many of which were founded by Christians. And of course, we understand that many of these institutions, as well as our government, has lost its way. But the freedom, the religious liberty that Christians and people of other religions have enjoyed in the West, and in particular in the United States over the past few hundred years, has been used by the power of God. according to the grace of God in magnificent ways. I'm not saying that God needed religious liberty to do that,

but he doesn't really need any vessel. And yet he chooses to use certain vessels and certain policies to accomplish his goals. And it's hard for me to look at the history of the United States and the history of the influence of Christianity in the United States and abroad and not thank God for the religious liberty that was so obviously used by him to help advance his gospel. Again, that's not saying that God needed that religious liberty in order to do that. He so obviously used it and it was so obviously good that it's hard for me not to say, wow, this is an amazing blessing that we should absolutely try to preserve. And it's not just about the preservation or the promotion of Christianity, although as a Christian, it is someone who believes,

that Christianity, who knows that Christianity, although people have done terrible things in the name and the false name of Christianity, Christianity, followers of Christ have done more good for the world, for the poor, for the vulnerable, for the least of these than any other group by far. It's not even just about that as a Christian. It is also about protecting other people who are covered by religious liberty. Like, let's think. about countries where there's not religious liberty. Because it's not just Christians who are persecuted. It's people of all faiths in China where one million Uighur Muslims are forcibly sterilized in concentration camps. Like I'm not sure that that is preferable to, quote, idolatry,

allowing, being allowed to flourish under religious liberty. In India, Buddhists are violently persecuted against in the Middle East. All kinds of people are tortured and put to death for not believing in Islam. In Western countries, the threat to religious liberty looks like legislation in Australia, which under the guise of protecting kids from so-called conversion therapy, it bans pastors, counselors, mentors, and parents from discussing gender and sexuality in any way that may be considered, quote, non-affirming. And according to the bill, that includes, quote, carrying out a religious practice, including but not limited to a prayer-based practice. So this is not just banning actual terrible conversion therapy. This is banning any kind of speech, especially religious speech,

that might question the progressive non-affirming stance of gender identity, even when it comes to children, even when it comes to what parents talk about with their kids and pray about over their kids. Is that really better for children or teens or adults who may be struggling or confused and who genuinely want help from the church in that way? In America, it looks like religious adoption agencies losing funding and being forced to close down because they won't affirm the secular progressive definition of the family so that now all of those kids who were under their care are just subject to the whims of the state. Religious liberty is not about promoting one religion over another. Religion, Christianity in particular, and the freedom to practice it,

to speak it, to operate your business or organization or lead your family according to it, serve as a buffer between the most vulnerable and the merciless state. It is true. It is 100% true that the church does not need religious liberty to survive and to thrive. That is a thousand percent true. If you look at the church in China, if you look at what Christians throughout the Middle East and Africa are enduring, it's stunning that the numbers continue to grow. Matthew 168, the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church.

It's also true that the church actually thrives on the world. margins, that we don't have to fight to be mainstream in the hopes that God's will will be done. God's will will be done. Job 42, too, no plans of God can be thwarted. The word of God will not fail. The will of God will not be thwarted. We can trust that. We can know that for sure. We don't have to be desperate to try to keep Christianity mainstream if that is not God's will. But in this mysterious and miraculous concurrence that we live in where God's total sovereignty is interplaying with our actions, our obedience or disobedience, we are still to do what is right here. We are still to do what is right for the least of these. We still want to push policies

that are best for families, that are best for churches, that are best for children, that are best for the most vulnerable people in our society. And like I said, religious freedom allows religious organizations, a particular Christian organizations, to serve as that protection, that buffer between the most vulnerable and the merciless policies of the state. And so if I care about the well-being of this country, it's not just about whether or not the church rises and falls on religious liberty, because I know it doesn't.

But if I care about the well-being of this country, which I think that I am called to do, then yes, I do care about religious liberty. Of course I do. And yes, that means that other people are going to be able to practice their religions too. Religions that I do not agree with. Religions that I believe are wrong. Yes, that's true. But it also gives us the liberty to be able to speak as boldly and as freely as possible. And again, I know even if we don't have that freedom, we are to continue to speak. We are to continue to obey, and we absolutely will. But what an amazing miracle.

What an amazing respite Christians have had throughout church history in the West and in particular in the United States to be able to freely preach these things. How wonderful that God has chosen to use religious liberty as a vessel to help so many people, not just spiritually, but also meeting their physical needs. I think of Jeremiah 29, 5 through 7. And of course, we know that this is, this is Jeremiah's letter to the exiles. And we know that America is not ancient Israel. And so I say that a lot. I am not saying that the United States is now the new Israel and God's chosen people because it's not. Like, we know that God's chosen people is

the universal church of Jesus Christ and that believers are his chosen ones. We are. We are the ones all of us believers, no matter where you live, are the ones who are exiles here on earth. So that is the comparison to Israel in the Old Testament, not the United States. I still think that we can read about Israel in the Old Testament and apply the same principles that we who are Christians, who are here in the United States or anywhere, are serving as exiles in the same way that Israel was an exile, for example, in Babylon. and that we can operate under the same principles that God gave to them. And one of those principles was to seek the welfare of the city in which God had placed them.

So this is Jeremiah 29, 5 through, let's see, we'll do 5 through 7. Build houses and live in them. Plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters. Take wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters, multiply there and bear. do not decrease, but seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare, you will find your welfare. So it seems to me that Christians, wherever we are, whether we're in the United States or whether we're in England or somewhere in the Middle East or whether we're in Asia, it doesn't matter. Wherever Christians are,

we are exiles on earth, our home, our citizenship is in heaven, yet we're we're in the least, while we are here, it seems that we are called to advance the welfare of the city of the nation in which we are dwelling. That doesn't mean that we depend on religious liberty for our happiness, for our obedience, for our contentment, and for our comfort. But because we care about the least of these, because we care not just about Christians who are persecuted, but all people who are persecuted, because we don't like what we see going on in places like China, we absolutely should care about religious liberty. That is part of seeking the welfare of the country in which we are dwelling.

So that's my take on all of that. And again, I'm willing to have pushback on that. Like I have gotten a lot of thoughtful emails in the past couple of weeks after the Max Lucado and Ravi Zacharias episode that we did. And I always appreciate thoughtful and biblical emails. I read them. They make me think. There's a lot of trolley type of emails to you that I just don't read.

But you guys always give me good perspectives and good thoughts. And I appreciate that. And I welcome them in this case because I could see how I would be, how it could possibly be getting something wrong. But it's hard for me to track with this argument that promoting religious liberty promotes idolatry. Promoting idolatry promotes idolatry. But promoting the freedom to be able to make individual choices is not a direct promotion

of idolatry. And we see that the alternative to that is very bad, not just for Christians, but for all people. All right, I'm going to get into this Beth Moore story. All right, this is according to Christianity today, Beth Moore says she is no longer a Southern Baptist. So I think a lot of people who didn't grow up in the evangelical church, either you grew up Catholic or maybe you didn't grow up in the church at all, have some confusion about what denominations are. And it is, it's very confusing. And it's kind of like the nuances of a particular language. Like if you didn't grow up speaking a language, it can be hard to understand like all of the intricacies and the nuances and the slang that comes with the language.

It's very Christianese to talk about the different kinds of denominations. So the Southern Baptist Convention is a particular denomination of Baptists. You can be a Baptist without being part of the Southern Baptist Convention. And there are, you know, different theological tenets that come with being a Baptist. One of them is being a credo Baptist. Baptist that means you believe in believers baptism rather than, for example, infant baptism. Most Presbyterians do infant baptism. Catholics obviously do infant baptism. But Baptists do not do infant baptism. We don't believe that that is part of a necessary consecration of a child to the Lord. And we could, get into all of that, but I won't get into that right now because we don't have time, but you can be a

Baptist without being a part of the Southern Baptist Convention. There are lots of churches, not just in the South, but are part of the Southern Baptist Convention. And there are, there's a particular confession that Southern Baptist churches must adhere to and must affirm to be a part of the Southern Baptist Convention. There is, you know, if you're a United Methodist Church, there is a certain creed that you abide by. If you are a Lutheran, that's another denomination. And so there are lots of different denominations within the Protestant church. Some of our disagreements are more gospel-centered, like if it is a works-based salvation or if it's by grace through faith, like Ephesians 2, 8 through 10 says. So we've got some bigger disagreements between these denominations,

and we also have some smaller disagreements between denominations, for example. So there's Presbyterian Church of America, there's Presbyterian Church of the United States of America. One is more liberal. One is more conservative. The conservative Presbyterians tend to align with Southern Baptists on a lot of theological issues, but one issue that we disagree on is infant baptism. Of course, like I said, but we don't regard that as a salvation issue.

Like I've got a lot of friends who are Presbyterians when I went to college. I went to a Presbyterian church for a part of college. And so that's, you know, infant baptism, eschatology. These are all very important issues, but we don't typically regard these as salvation issues. And then within denominations, you also have a different beliefs. For example, Calvinism versus Armenianism. And there are a lot of differences in Calvinism and Armenianism. but one disagreement that we have is predestination versus free will when it comes to salvation.

And so there are some secondary and tertiary, although very important disagreements between all of these different groups. But when it comes to denominations, Beth Moore leaving the Southern Baptist Convention is not leaving necessarily, necessarily and explicitly a particular belief system, but just a particular group of churches. So I hope that's clear as mud. And this is kind of, we've seen this coming for a while. She has certainly gotten louder politically over the past few years. She has been a voice for a kind of anti-Trumpism within the evangelical church. She has been pushed back on, for example, for preaching to men in certain contexts. She has been questioned about her stance on sexuality and her

partnering in friendship with particular teachers that most Christians would consider false teachers. And so there's been a lot of, and not just that, people also have questioned some of her teachings and whether or not they're biblically solid, like if she believes in kind of this word of faith, name it and claim it, contemplative prayer type thing that a lot of people are troubled by. So she is no stranger to controversy, especially over the past few years. She has no stranger to criticism, especially over the past few years. Of course, her simply having controversy and criticism doesn't necessarily make her controversial or worthy of criticism. And I'm not saying that she's not either. But I'm just saying the existence and the presence of those things don't necessarily

validate criticisms and controversy if that makes sense. But you guys know that I do disagree with Beth Moore on a variety of things. I've talked about that. I've talked about how she has kind of waded into the waters of of wokeness in particular areas and how I just think that she's wrong on that. She's talked about Christian nationalism and multiple times I've tried to press her on what she actually means by the things that she is saying. I have tried to get her to define her terms in a variety of contexts and unfortunately I haven't been able to get any kind of response to that. And so I am not particularly surprised by her leaving the Southern Baptist Convention. There were a few other churches that decided to leave the Southern Baptist Convention

after the SBC came out opposing critical race theory and saying, look, like, of course we believe that racism is wrong. Of course, we believe that we should reckon with any kind of part of our history that still needs to be confronted or any wrongs that need to be righted. But we believe that critical race theory is the wrong way to go about that, which is absolutely true, by the way. It's like, duh, I don't even see why that's controversial at all. But some churches, that people would probably categorize in some ways as more progressive, at least when it comes to so-called racial justice, they decided to leave the SBC. And Beth Moore also decided to leave the SBC, maybe not for the same reasons, but I would guess that's probably part of it.

She has also tried to bring up instances of emotional and maybe even sexual abuse within the SBC that she doesn't believe that they have properly taken care of. It seems, like she also has had a, you know, she has a lot of good relationships within the SBC. And so most of the people that I saw that she has been friends with kind of applauded her for this, patted her on the back. She also ended her a relationship with Lifeway Christian that they have published her books and they have sponsored her events for a very long time and she is no longer doing that. But it sounds like she's leaving on good, on good terms. And so honestly, I don't necessarily have a whole lot of insight into this. I don't really have very many

thoughts on this. This is kind of expected of Beth Moore. She's got lots and lots of followers and readers and people that she has influenced and people that really love her. She's also got a lot of critics. I have been someone who has critiqued her theology and some of her studies and dances in the past at the same time, I totally understand why people like her. I totally understand why people love her. Speaking of her and speaking of John McArthur, you'll remember, I think it was about a year ago, the controversy of him telling Beth Moore that she needs to go home, that she basically needs to stop preaching from the pulpit, preaching to men from the pulpit, and she needs to go home. At the time, I did not like how that whole thing.

was handled. I thought that it seemed like they were making fun of her with an attitude that wasn't of edification, but was a little malicious and patronizing and belittling at the same time when it comes to theology and when it comes to who I trust as far as teaching goes, I am going to go with John McArthur. So there's been some tension, like between conservative evangelicals and Bethmore for a while, not just. just because of her preaching in front of men and not just because of her theology, but also because of her politics. And the politics of the SBC is something that she probably just doesn't align with. And maybe she also, like I said, has a problem with how they've dealt with conflict and how they've

dealt with racial issues and how they've dealt with accusations of abuse. And so, I mean, that's that. That doesn't really affect me all that much. I don't think it necessarily affects anyone, I saw some reporting saying that, oh, a lot of people are going to follow Beth Moore out of the SBC. I highly doubt that a single person, like, I highly doubt that if a woman goes to her church, she likes her church, she agrees with the teaching, she serves at her church, she respects her pastor, and that church happens to be a part of the SBC, that woman is not going to get up and change churches. and especially if she is married to someone who also feels at home at a particular church and is under solid teaching, like that woman is not going to get up and leave her church. And nor should you, by the way.

Like, please do not leave your church on behalf of Beth Moore. Leave your church if it's on biblical teaching. Leave your church if it's not, if your pastor isn't preaching the gospel, leave your church if he's not preaching sin and salvation and repentance 100%. But please do not leave your church because Beth Moore left the SBC. be such a silly and flippant reason. I think so often the people that report on changes within Christianity or any kind of event that happens in Christianity, they still have their secular goggles on. And so they are viewing the church in Christianity through the lens of their secular worldview, not understanding how families and churches and dynamics and choices work within the church. If you feel like you need to leave your church, like I said, use discernment, use prayer,

talk to people, talk to your pastor, I would encourage you before you do so. But please, do not make that kind of decision based on Beth Moore. Honestly, we don't even know the full reasons why she left the SBC. So it would be so silly of us to make a choice based on something that Bethmore does. Now, there is a lot of information out there if you're curious about the things that Bethmore has taught, why people call her a false teacher. There's a lot of information out there about that. And there are legitimate concerns with her teaching that you can read about. I would encourage you not to shut your mind off to that concern and to that accusation if you're someone who like me has read a lot of her stuff and felt like you benefited from a lot of her stuff, her talks, her books,

maybe when you were in college, like I was. I would just hear out. the concerns about that. I am not a heretic hunter and I don't have time to like comb through every person's sermons and books. I mean, sometimes it's very obvious. We can call out particular false teachers and false teachings. Other times it's not as obvious. But I do always call us to discernment and call us to thoughtfulness and call us to prayer. And so if you're curious about why even people say that or accuse her of that, then there's plenty of information about that online if you want to know that point of view. As for this particular story, I don't have the much to say, okay, she left the SBC. I kind of think that I understand why it doesn't affect my belief system

in any way. It really doesn't affect me. And it probably honestly doesn't affect her all that much either. All right. That's all I have to say about those two stories. And now we're going to talk a little bit about the if gathering and I have just a message on a particular topic that is weighing on me that you guys know has been waiting on me for a long time since I started this podcast and I just kind of want to clear some things up about about something that seems to be very confusing and concerning to a lot of you. So as most of you guys know, and as I said at the top of this episode, the if gathering is a huge conference that has been around for a little while now. It's put on by Ginny Allen. She is an author.

She is a speaker. She has been a big name in Christian women circles for a while. And if gathering has been a very unique conference that has been specially for women. It's supposed to encourage women to edify women, to walk women through the Bible and help women understand the Bible, not just that, but to apply that faith to their everyday life. And I've gotten messages for the past few years about the if gathering asking me if I can talk about it, asking me to address it. And I have vaguely in the past. And it's a little bit difficult because I don't have access to all of the speakers that

are there to be able to have a private conversation with them. Mostly I think that there are good things that are being preached there. There are some things that I disagree with that are being preached there. Thankfully, I was able to watch the session online that a lot of you guys were very concerned about. It was session four. It was about social justice and so-called racial justice, something that we have talked a lot about on this podcast.

And we have talked to a lot of other people, other Christians about it on this podcast as well. And I have gotten so many messages from you guys telling me that you are very concerned. by what was said and wondering if it was biblically based. The assertion was made that people, for example, that don't hop on board this particular kind of racial reconciliation that this one author is promoting in her books are not part of the remnant or not part of the true church, which the gates of hell will not prevail against. And that in itself is troubling.

When it comes to racism, when it comes to actual injustice, the argument that conservative Christians like me are making is not that racism doesn't exist, that injustice doesn't exist, that we should just ignore it, that we should look off to the side, but that I don't actually think that a lot of what is coming down the pipeline and a lot of what is being presented to us in the way of racial reconciliation is actually biblical at all, but is actually a lot more secular and progressive than anything that is in accordance to scripture. And that would include this particular author's work, by the way. And so I understand your concerns. I don't feel comfortable like calling certain people out and things like that. I'm just not sure if that's fruitful. I'm not sure if that's

productive. I don't want to take away from any truly scriptural benefit that women got from this, not from this particular session, but from the conference in general. And like I said, I am not like some kind of heretic headhunter. That's not what I want to do, but I do want to infuse clarity where there seems to be confusion, especially when it comes to social and racial justice. So I get lots of questions about particular teachers and Bible studies and women's conferences and whether or not, I think that they're solid or not. And I can't answer all of these questions because I don't always have enough information to make an assessment, like I said. And I do want to avoid gossip. And two, of course, I am very thankfully not the arbiter of who is solid and who is not. But we do

have a really good way to discern which teachers are worth following or which teachings are worth following and which ones are not based on God's word. And so I just want to talk about this subject that I think is throwing so many people into a wheel of confusion, leading so many people in the wrong direction, that even teachers that we typically deem solid seem to be getting wrong. And we talk about it a lot. And that is this race and justice issue. And I know, I know some of you might be thinking, Who am I to talk about this subject? I'm just a white girl. I'm just a podcaster.

I'm just 29. Why would I be talking about this? And if you want to dismiss me, for those reasons, that's totally fine. You can click away. But I will point out that doing so, discounting what I'm going to say based on that alone is a logical fallacy, a form of the appeal to authority fallacy that dismisses someone's argument based on their seeming lack of authority rather than contending with the argument. that they're actually giving. So I encourage you, if you will, to hang with me. This is a subject

that we talk a lot about on this podcast, but in light of the recent comments that I listened to at this gathering made by some very influential speakers at a very influential place, I feel the need to kind of clear some things up for you guys. So let me just say this. According to the Bible, There is no black church and white church. There are different churches in different communities, neighborhoods, cities, countries, but black and white churches are not real or biblical categories. Ultimately, of course, we know that there is one church, the ethnic makeup of which was preordained by God before the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1.4 says, he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before him. So that means a couple things.

That means that any history of racism in the Christian Church is an egregious sin that we should have no problem examining and confronting with specificity and with wisdom. James 2.9. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. So partiality is a sin. That also means that the way to write any racist wrongs is not a new form of partiality that categorizes the church as white versus black. and preaches a gospel of repentance to the former and a different softer gospel to the latter. And we'll get back to that in just a second. But first, in all of these conversations, it is so important to define our terms. So what is meant by white church and black church when the church is referred to in this way? Are we really just talking about skin color?

Are progressive white churches included in that? What about Asian churches? Where do they fall in all of this? What about multi-ethnic churches? or are we just talking about conservative white evangelical Christians when we say the term white church? Are we really talking more about political and ideological differences in the church than primarily ethnic differences in the church? Because neither the churches whose congregants have a high melanin count or a low melanin count

share all the views and experiences of other churches with the same kind of racial makeup. So I find those categories not only on biblical, but also illogical. Therefore, the conversation about reconciling the white church and the black church as it stands does not make a whole lot of sense because we're not even really sure who we're talking about. And this is the problem with forgiveness and repentance that is based on collective culpability according to your skin color, rather than on direct culpability according to what you have actually done or not done. We do not see any biblical precedent for collective racial grievance or repentance based on skin color. The examples of collective responsibility

for sin in the Bible are typically taken from the books of Ezra and Daniel, but even in these stories. Ezra and Daniel were talking about sins that were currently and actively being committed by their entire communities. And any attempts to point to Israel's collective guilt and calls to repentance fail to recognize that Israel was God's cohesive covenant people. White people, brown people, black people as groups today are not that. The fact is, as a white person, you might be racist. You may have sat by as leaders in your church mistreated black people in your congregation or in leadership or preached the curse of ham, for example, from your pulpit. And you may have to reckon with that. But you, as a white person, may not be. You may have no

culpability and no complicity to speak of when it comes to the sin of ethnic partiality or ethnic pride. And it is not biblical for you to feel the direct way of sin that may or may not be carried by those who look like you. You, as a black or brown person, may be racist or not. You could have a sinful pride or arrogance in your racial identity that God does not call any Christian of any color to have. You could assume the worst about people who don't look like you. you may be holding people in contempt because you ascribe to then the sin of racism without knowing them,

or that may not describe you at all. And it should never be assumed that it does. If you want people of all ethnicities to be brought together, then we've got to stop pitting the ethnicities against each other as if what we look like speaks to whether we have been harmed or whether we have harmed in the church because that's just not true. And I'm going to say something that I know makes some people mad, but I would urge you to just hear me, even if you end up disagreeing. The idea that we are identified by your skin color,

white or black, and then are categorized as oppressed or oppressor based on those skin colors, is a tenant not of Christianity, but of critical race. theory, which is a secular ideology that views every part of our world through black versus white racial power structure lenses. And I know, I know the reaction to that phrase from some. It's, you don't even know what critical theory is. You just read a blog about critical theory. Try me. Let's go. Let's talk about it. The truth is CRT has a different view of human nature, a different

view of oppression, a different view of justice, a different view of history, a different view of reconciliation and repentance and restoration, and it employs the sin of partiality against the so-called oppressors to achieve those goals, and it's not godly. There is justice, and there should be. It's biblical justice. There is reconciliation. Biblical reconciliation. There is repentance, biblical repentance. But these things will not be found in nor described by differing messages to white Christians and black Christians based on an ideology that is secular rather than scriptural. The message is, look, white, black, red, brown, you are dead in your sin apart from Christ. You're not more dead than him or her. You don't need Christ more or less than them.

You're not going to be judged more or less harshly for your sin than they will be. Your ancestors were sinners. Your ancestors were sinners. You're not guilty for the sins of your ancestors and you're not guilty for the sins of your ancestors. Your job is by the power of the Holy Spirit to respond to Jesus's call and be reconciled to him and live a holy life by loving God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself without partiality. That does not mean that we don't acknowledge differences in ethnicity. We do. God gave us our ethnicity so they are good. They are worth thinking him for it. We should be grateful for the exact melanin count that God gave us because he made us with purpose and attention and love and

affection and care. But we are not automatically oppressed or an oppressor because of that melanin count that is not a biblical reality and that is not actual reality. That doesn't mean that we ignore the different experiences or the different perspectives people of different skin colors may have or have had. That doesn't mean that we look past true oppression when it happens or racism when it happens, whether individual or structural. But it does mean that when we're talking about writing wrongs, we have to be two things. One, specific, and two, scriptural. So when we talk about racism or any injustice today, we need to say what exactly we are

talking about, not just listing off disparities between groups because disparities alone do not prove discrimination. We have to make sure what we're claiming is in line, not just with what we hear, not just with what someone is claiming, not just with a hashtag, but with what the numbers say, what history says, what the facts say. We have to be specific in who is responsible specifically and who is affected specifically. And when we see real injustice that is happening and we seek to write that wrong, which we should, our definition of justice has to be God's definition of justice, which is, as we have talked about and cited so many times before,

One, truthful. Two, proportional. Three, direct, and four, impartial. It is always based on what is actually true. Not based on narrative or politics or ideology. It is always proportional. The punishment fits the crime. It is always direct. Those who are responsible and those who are true victims are the ones involved. And it is impartial. It does not favor the richer, the poor, the small or the great, the black or the white. That last one, impartial, we see reiterate it. over and over again throughout scripture, how much God hates partiality, which is exactly why Christians should hate racism and why we should also hate any new forms of partiality that are proposed in the name of fighting racism or achieving so-called racial equity. So if there is tension between Christians of different ethnicities or different socioeconomic statuses, which by the way, we don't talk about very much, but the book of James, for example, certainly talks about a lot. we don't need to borrow from secular ideologies to do it. If there is injustice, we don't need wisdom from the world to confront it.

The God of justice, God who sent his son to die on the cross to reconcile us to himself and then Christians of all types to each other as Ephesians 214 lays out for us, that God and His Word are the only things that are going to guide us. So if you are racist against a black person or a white person, if you are partial toward one group or another, even if it's in the name of social justice and writing oppression, then that is a gospel heart issue. That means we are not living out the gospel, the way that we are supposed to among our neighbors. I often say this, and it's still true, do not let anyone make you think that loving God and loving your neighbor is not enough.

It is enough. Yes, that absolutely necessitates action, but do not be made to think that those two things are not sufficient in living the godly impactful life to which God has called you. And I understand the reaction to me saying all of this is that it might just be from some people that you're just uncomfortable with the truth or you just need to listen and learn. And I get it. That's an easy response. It frees you from any kind of obligation to actually respond to what I've said. But think, just as you think it's unfair to be categorized as, for example, a Marxist,

just for bringing up the possibility of racism, it is just as foolish for you to accuse someone of ignorance or complicity because they disagree with you. So that's just something to think about. We've talked a lot about justice versus social justice. We've talked a lot about critical race theory. We've talked a lot about systemic racism and all the issues that have been bubbling up over the past year. We've talked to a lot of Christians about it. We have sought God's word about it. And I'm not saying at all that I am the leading authority. on this, not even close. I'm not saying that I know everything or that nothing that I say is up for debate. It is. But gosh, guys, we've got to be better about offering clarity and confusion rather than

adding more confusion. And that's what I saw. I saw a lot of vagueness, a lot of biblical language used without any kind of specificity or any kind of true scriptural support. And that's a problem. Like, as Christians, we need to be adding clarity to the confusion. We need to be a respite from the chaos that the world is waging. We don't need to be adding to it with our own versions of Christianese. So those are all my thoughts. I hope that was at least sufficient for the concerns that you guys had on that. All right, tomorrow, super excited talking to Senator Rand Paul. He's got a lot to say. I've got a lot to ask him. it's going to be a really great episode. And so we'll be talking about that. We'll be talking about a couple more news and political items that we have been seen over the past week or so. So I will see you guys then.