Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 5 | The Only "Racial Reconciliation" the Church Needs is the Gospel

Episode Date: April 11, 2018

The cancer of "intersectionality" has started to seep into the church. It defines people by their individual, racial, ethnic, class, and gender oppression rather than who they are in Christ. Such worldly doctrine is antithetical to the gospel and is unnecessary for (and even counterproductive to) unity between the varying dimensions of humanity. Jesus is sufficient for that.

Hey y'all. It's Ali. What's up? Welcome to Relatable, where we break down relevant topics every week from Christian, conservative, millennial, and yes, relatable perspective. So we usually do one topic per week because I like to do a deep dive into the issues that we're facing right now. There are lots of good podcasts out there that talk about the news of the day. But this podcast is not necessarily one of those. We like to take a step back. I like to slow down. I like to do. I like to do. try to put the news in the context of our lives and our faith. I've gotten really good feedback from you guys, so I hope you continue to like it. If you do have some constructive criticism for me, though, please do let me know. My email is Ali at the conservative millennial blog.com. Millennial

has two L's, two ends. You can also message me on Instagram if you so desire. That's probably where I get the majority of my feedback is in my Instagram messages. I do check them from time to time. I don't respond to everyone because I get a lot every day, but I do usually read them. So feel free to send me a message, a feedback there. But please, please don't do it on the ratings on the podcast. That really hurts me. In fact, if you like the podcast, please go give me five stars and tell me why you like it and tell your friends about it too. That would mean so much to me. And if you really like me here, then you will love my videos, which you can find on a weekly basis at CRT. So one thing that you guys have told me, at least some of you, many of you have, is that you'd either

like this podcast to be longer or have two 30-minute podcasts per week. And what I just realized as I'm talking is at the top of this show, I made it sound like usually we talk about one topic per week, but today we're going to talk about two topics. That's not true. I don't really know why I did my voice like that. We're still only talking about. talking about one topic today. But I want to address this desire that some of you have expressed that you would like the podcast to be longer or you would like multiple podcasts a week. Okay. So on the first one, the funny thing is I've never actually planned for my podcast to be 30 minutes. I still every week don't try to make them 30 minutes. I sit down, I write my notes

and every time it's been about 30 minutes without me even trying, which to me means that if I added more to it, then I would be repeating myself or making insignificant points. I guess, like I almost alluded to, but didn't mean to at the beginning of the show, I could talk about more than one subject per week. But that, to me, kind of defeats the purpose of me trying to get you guys to really dig into a topic or me digging into a topic with you. And then the other option that you guys said is me having two podcasts a week. And I'm just not there quite yet.

So as the podcast grows and the demand for multiple shows a week really increases, then I can definitely assess that. But as most of you know, I'm really new to this podcast world. So I'm just taking it slowly. I will nevertheless, though, I will try my best to make these a little bit longer, maybe one week 30 minutes, maybe one week an hour, maybe one week 45 minutes. We'll kind of just have to see. But from my Instagram poll, my Instagram story, there was a slight majority of you

who wanted it to be longer. So I will try my best for the 51% of you. Anyway, what are we talking about today? Something that is actually more significant than the length of my podcast. We are going to talk about race, racism, and my take on both of these things as a Christian. So, you know, when a white conservative talks about this subject, it's going to be interesting.

Some of what I'm going to say might surprise you. Some of it probably won't. So let's go ahead and get into it. So the other day, I read an article on the gospel coalition, a site that I have really liked and from which I've gotten a lot of great reformed insight in the past. And this was on the anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination. And it was an article called We Await Repentance for Assassinating Dr. King. by Tabidi and Yabwele.

Okay. That title alone, we await repentance for assassinating Dr. King, should probably make you say, what? We await repentance for an assassination that happened 50 years ago? Why? How? Okay. A lot of times headlines, though, are purposely provocative only to make a very reasonable

logical point, so fine. But what does the article actually say? Well, the point of the article, you can read the whole thing, by the way, in totality on TGC.org. So I'll just summarize it here. The whole point is that since Dr. King was assassinated, we really haven't come very far. In fact, he says explicitly, I've been battling my unbelief and discouragement to maintain at least a slender hope that the commemorations would be one step, even one step in the long journey toward reconciliation, peace, and justice. In other words, this author believes, I think, I haven't talked to the guy, but it sounds like he believes that in the last 50 years we really haven't moved forward very much, that we are apparently still as racist in many ways as we were 50 years ago when the MLK Jr.

was assassinated. I don't know how else to interpret what he said, that we are still basically in a Jim Crow like America where segregation is acceptable, I don't think that anyone with a brain would tell you that that is true. But I can't stop there because that statement just really kind of lays a foundation for the rest of his thinking. He then goes on to say that while James Earl Gray was guilty of King's assassination, he wasn't actually a lone actor. He was helped by other white supremacists and racists who did nothing and said nothing. He was aided and abetted by their cowardice.

And actually, okay, I don't really have a problem with that really. I'm not really entirely in opposition to it. There were certainly some people in the South in this time who hated King in the civil rights movement. And because of their silence or even their outright hatred, this kind of thing was allowed to happen. Maybe, possibly. That's certainly part of it. There were definitely attitudes and general sentiments of communities that provided a platform for injustice and probably still do. But even so, his claim that the entirety of

white society is to blame for King's assassination is just not accurate. You think that there were no white people in the South that at that time who stood with the civil rights movement and marched alongside King? You think those who did stand up against injustice are still to blame for his murder? Why? Because they were white? But that's not. even the most contentious part of this whole thing. Here's the glaring hypocrisy and the irony in this. He says at the top of one paragraph, I don't need all white people to feel guilty about the 1950s and 60s,

especially those who weren't alive. Okay, great, wasn't planning on it. But then he concludes with, and this statement is really what summarizes, I think, the heart of his article. He says, My white neighbors and Christian brethren can start by at least, police saying their parents and grandparents and this country are complicit in murdering a man

who only preached love and justice. All right. Here it is. What he really wanted to say this whole time but needed several paragraphs as sanctimony to actually say, this really could have just been a tweet and it would have saved us all a lot of time. And remember, the title of this article is, we await repentance for assassinating Dr. King. So what he means is this. White people, right now today need to start by feeling guilty about what our grandparents and parents may or may not have done in the 50s and 60s that indirectly led to the assassination of Martin Luther King. That, he thinks, is the way to reconciliation and peace. That he thinks is the important message that we need to put out because that, according to him, is our big problem today.

Not that the world needs more Jesus, but that we need more personal shame and guilt over something that happened half a century ago. And if you're wondering if that message is antithetical to the gospel, which says that Jesus is a reconciliation and that in him there is no racial or ethnic or gender or socioeconomic divide, great job. You are correct. Yes, we should look in sorrow at the assassination of Dr. King. We should look in disgust at the KKK, white supremacists and racists who advocated for

discrimination. we should search our own hearts for a hint of racism which has no place in the body of Christ. Our hearts should break when we consider the lives of black people that were snuffed out or abused or devalued because of the color of their skin. We should feel empathy and compassion and create sadness when we consider the injustice our country allowed. We should assess where we are as a society and how far we've come. We should ask for mercy and for wisdom. We should seek to do all things in love and ask God that we would be able to see.

people as he sees them. But we should not automatically simply because they are white, consider our parents and grandparents complicit in murder. I don't find that kind of posture anywhere in scripture. If my parents and grandparents were somehow complicit, if they did stoke the flames of racism in the South, which to the best of my knowledge they never did, then that is their sin to bear. That is their forgiveness to ask for. Me considering my predecessors indirectly guilty of murder because of the color of their skin helps no one. There seems to be this theory, I guess both within and outside of the church, that if white people were just ashamed enough of the past sins of people who share our skin color, then we could reach a point of racial reconciliation.

We have conferences now about racial reconciliation, sermons dedicated to it, and we have articles like this one telling white people the ways that we can start bridging the gap. But wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Isn't there something Christians already have that bridges the gap between the races? Isn't there already a tool of reconciliation between people of all differing backgrounds? Isn't there something that makes the color of our skin and the past sins of people in our race obsolete? Oh yeah, it's the gospel. The gospel does that.

that. The gospel is our peace, our shared hope, our reconciliation, our bridge. The gospel of Jesus Christ and him crucified is what brings us together and allows us to join hands black, white, brown, red, whatever in love and grace and forgiveness and mercy and hope. The same gospel that allows a father of a teenage son killed by a drunk driver to forgive that drunk driver. The same gospel that allows a wife to forgive a husband who walked out on her and her kids. The same gospel that allows a person to forgive the friend that betrayed him. The same gospel that allows the abuse to forgive the abuser, the persecuted to forgive the persecutor, the rejected to forgive the rejector, the abandoned to forgive the one who

abandoned them, the lender to forgive the one who stole from her. The same gospel that allowed Jesus in all his holy perfection to forgive the people who crucified him. If Jesus, who knew no sin, became sin so that we, evil, twisted, corrupt sinners could become the righteousness of God, do you really think any of us black or white have any right to hold past sins over someone's head, especially sins we ourselves didn't commit? The way to racial reconciliation, as it's called, may indeed necessitate repentance on many of our parts. Perhaps there is bigotry and racism in our hearts we need God to. to seriously work out in us.

But it is not through perpetual and constant shame over what our grandparents may or may not have done. That is not the gospel. And it will do far more to divide us than unite us, which is exactly what Satan wants. Satan would love nothing more than for the body of Christ to divide along racial ethnic lines. He would love for us to reflect the rest of the world in our tribalism. He would love for us to embrace intersectionality, the idea that we all have our own own unique oppressions that define us and need to be addressed individually.

He would love for us to hop on board with these secular movements that promise to save humanity because they distract us from the one who did save humanity, Jesus. And maybe there is some value to these organizations and sermons and conferences dedicated to racial reconciliation. But I just fear that we are overcomplicating it. For us to come together as different races, I don't need to feel more guilty. Black people don't need to feel angrier. What we both need to do is to see ourselves as Ephesians 219 says,

that we are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, all of us who are in Christ, no matter our background or our skin color. Which means that there is no room for racism, by the way. In either direction. The gospel does not, cannot, will be able to. not coincide with racism, bigotry, or discrimination of any kind. It doesn't coincide with a white person demeaning a black person or a brown person, and it doesn't coincide with a black or brown person feeling antipathy towards white people. There is only room for absolute deference and love for our neighbor.

Now, listen to me. I am not saying that people don't have different perspectives and struggles based on their backgrounds. We are all different. God made us all different. I'm not saying we don't acknowledge at all and pretend like horrible things like Jim Crow, slavery, et cetera, doesn't exist. They did exist and they were extremely low points in American history. We can talk about them, even grieve them. But we should not allow ourselves to be defined by those things now. We cannot allow them to continue to drive a wedge between us. And that's exactly what this whole movement of so-called intersectionality does.

intersectionality is the idea that every different kind of person's oppression meets at an intersection and it seeks to allegedly acknowledge and deconstruct the power structures that cause this oppression. So my oppression as a woman intersects your oppression as a black person and so on. It might sound fairly loving and peaceful, but it's not. Because what we see from it is not reconciliation and unity, but division and conflict. Why? Because intersectionality doesn't actually exist to tear down oppression. All it does is pointed out. So intersectional feminists say that they're attempting to deconstruct these systems that are oppressing people like the patriarchy. But what are they actually doing besides just saying

that people are oppressed? And when all you do is talk about problems rather than solutions, conflict arises, which is why I call intersectionality the oppression Olympics. All that ever comes of intersectionality is people competing against who is more oppressed than whom. So I might be oppressed as a white woman, but I'm not nearly as oppressed as the Muslim black pansexual, bisexual person. So what happens is that it's not really an intersection in which we share in each other's unique struggles. It's a hierarchy with white male being at the very, very bottom. I as a white woman, especially one that voted for Donald Trump that might just disqualify me altogether, might have some oppression to bring to the table, but since it's not

as much as my transgender Asian lesbian neighbor, I don't have that much to say. That's what intersectionality says. So people are basically ascribed worth and value according to their oppression or at the very least their willingness to sit down, step back and so-called check my privilege. It's almost like your level of awesomeness in the world of intersectionality is how different you will. are from the mainstream, which is not always necessarily tied to actual oppression, by the way. Sometimes the oppression is perceived. And if you don't have a unique combination of characteristics that all have to do with race and sexuality, well, then they say you need to take a seat. And okay, I can see how that appeals to the world. I guess it's kind of like an attempt at

compassion and acknowledgement. But the tragic part is it's seemed to Christianity. And the problem is it is incongruent with Christianity. So I was tweeting, this is an example, I was tweeting some of this stuff this morning, and a girl started getting into it with me, telling me that I'm wrong about this, that actually Jesus was a spearhead of intersectionality, that he existed to defeat harmful systems and that we need intersectionality in the church. She asked, and I'm paraphrasing, did Jesus not confront broken power structures by interacting with people who it wasn't decent for him as a Jew to interact with?

And I mean, yes, she's right. The woman at the well, he told the parable about the Good Samaritan. He obviously dined with sinners and had close interaction with people on the margins of society. People who were deemed not just unpopular but unclean. He did. But, and this is what I said, his solution to, these injustices was not intersectionality. It was himself. It was the gospel. In fact, it was the opposite of intersectionality, which defines you by your oppression. He freed them from the confines of oppression

by giving them new hope in him. He healed the sick, locked eyes with the woman caught in adultery, noticed the woman at the well, and made sure that not just their physical situation was addressed, but their spiritual one. He didn't let them stay as they were. He didn't define them by how unfauntary. barely they'd been treated or the cards they'd been dealt, he looked straight past their skin into their heart. And her answer to my 280 character version of what I just said was, the gospel has yet to stop racism. And that is exactly what I've known is at the heart of some people's desire

to bring this secular idea of intersectionality and secular version. of quote racial reconciliation into the Christian church. They think the gospel has yet to stop racism, which means you do not believe the gospel is sufficient. This right here is what is at the core of the movement of intersectionality, both outside and within the church, that the gospel Jesus is not sufficient for our problem, so he needs our help.

He needs our worldly modern movement. to give him, you know, like a boost. The gospel, the only thing in the entire cosmos that has ever brought new hope, new life, new freedom is apparently not sufficient for our modern day problems of racism. So I just want to get this straight when people say that the gospel hasn't stopped racism. So isn't enough to stop racism. So we're talking just we're talking about the same gospel. I just want to be clear. So this power of the gospel, aka the power of God himself, was enough to raise Jesus from the dead after he was brutally crucified, but it's not enough for racism? The power of the gospel was enough to make the blind see, the deaf here, the lame walk, and the prostitute clean, but it's not

enough for today's racism? The power of the gospel was enough to convert Saul the murder of Christians into Paul the greatest missionary the world has ever seen. The power of the gospel is. The power of the gospel is enough to save the most wicked soul from the pits of hell. The power of the gospel is enough for millions of martyrs throughout history to die for, but it's not enough for racism? The power of the gospel is enough to change hate to compassion. The power of the gospel is enough to make alcoholics sober, to make abusers kind, to make serial killers loving, to make the suicidal hopeful, to make the fearful, unafraid, but not enough for racism? The power of the gospel is enough to transform entire families for generations to heal nations to shine light into darkness.

The power of the gospel is enough to save me from exactly what I deserve eternity without God, but it's not enough for racism? I don't buy that. The gospel is sufficient for all of our deficiencies, including racism, discrimination, bigotry. We do not need intersectionality as a church. We do not need any other kind of racial reconciliation beyond what is given to us graciously and fully in Christ. Now, will racism still exist? Yes. So will murder, rape, theft, extortion, kidnapping, all kinds of evils in the world.

So because evil exists, do we suddenly say the gospel isn't enough for these things? No, of course not. The gospel is the answer to all of it, to all of it. In one day, the gospel will answer all of it. But while we are in this life, we will have trouble. We will face injustice. Things will be unfair. Things will be messy and ugly.

Matt Chandler typically refers to this as what he calls the not yet. So in the midst of our brokenness, we are in the not yet. Do we fight against it? Yes. We call it out, yes. But that is not going to happen by assigning blame to our brothers and sisters in Christ and drawing lines along race and ethnicity. We fight against it with the power of the gospel.

We fight against it with the reality that there is no significant distinction in the body of Christ. So any bigotry or blame has no place. Both need to be repented of as they do nothing to advance God's kingdom. All this to say. I vehemently disagree with the article written about MLK's death on the gospel coalition. I wouldn't say that this person doesn't believe in the gospel or isn't a true Christian. I'm not really into that kind of thing. I just think that he is misguided on this particular issue.

And I think much of the church is at risk for being misguided in this for the simple reason that we want to look more like the world. Christians have become so afraid, I think, of being called. self-righteous zealots so afraid of sounding or looking like those crazy idiot people from Westboro Baptist who were holding the gays or going to hell signs that they soften not just their approach to preaching the gospel but the gospel itself like they think that the gospel this idea that Jesus came to save us from our sins is too offensive so they just are super tolerant and nice to people and accept everyone as they are no matter what and hey if Jesus is thrown into that later on, then fine. And you know what? I mean, they're partly right. The gospel

is offensive, especially to today's morally relativistic culture. The idea that we all have sin and not just like some sin, but sinned that sentences us to eternity in hell is very rude. It's rude. It's totally offensive. Not just because we tend to think that we're better than we are, but because society tells us that very few things are actually right or wrong. You do you, as long as you're happy, whatever feels good. We've allowed this what's right for you mantra. Trump, what is right? Not everything is just right for you.

Some things are just right. But the gospel totally demolishes moral relativism in this idea that whatever feels right is right. It says, no, actually your feelings are bad. just that, but you are bad. You're like death sentence bad. You're like filthy rags bad. No matter how good you think you are, the gospel doesn't work without acknowledging that first. The gospel of Jesus isn't a gospel worth telling if you don't start with the existence of sin, because there's no point in talking about a savior if there's nothing to be saved from. This message of unconditional tolerance and niceness is not saving anyone. The gospel, because of its irresistible power and

demands repentance. It demands perfection, actually, which Jesus satisfied on our behalf because we can't. It demands full and total surrender to Christ no matter how that feels. And in fact, we know that it doesn't feel good a lot of the time. We are constantly at war with our flesh, with what our flesh wants, our selfish ambitions, our worldly identities. We are constantly battling our own sinful desire to exchange eternal fulfillment for temporary pleasure. And that is not an attractive offer to people conditioned by society to believe that being happy right now is the only thing that really matters. I think the gospel, honestly, is becoming harder to accept for people.

And that's not because the gospel has changed, but because I think society has changed. Back when even our parents were young, the idea of sacrifice was very familiar. The idea of instant gratification was relatively foreign. People were used to the concept of laying yourself down to get a reward down the road, from writing letters to climbing corporate ladders. I don't think the idea of laying down your life for eternal glory with Jesus was that difficult or that foreign of a concept to buy into. I don't know.

Maybe I'm wrong. I wasn't alive back then. Maybe in some way every generation thinks that about their predecessors. but I do think that's why so many churches are buying into this secular progressive crap to make the gospel more modern and appealing to make Christians look super uber tolerance. Well, one, Christians aren't supposed to be tolerant, at least not in that sense. We're not supposed to be mean and judgmental, of course. We are supposed to speak truth in love.

And two, the gospel doesn't need our help. Like, have I made that abundantly clear? It doesn't need the help of the world or me or you or any worldly movement. It does not need to be made cool. It doesn't need to be watered down. It doesn't need to be made less offensive. It is sufficient in totality by itself. Okay.

I think I said the word gospel like 1511 times during that. I guess it's a good thing. If you're going to say a word a lot, I think that's a good word to say. So that is it for today, at least the meat of it. But I always like to end in a fun segment. I'm going to end in two semi-fund segments. It depends on what you have qualified as fun. One will be what I'm reading.

That is a new segment. I literally make up a new segment every week. And the second will be another round of things I just don't get. I did that a couple weeks ago. And now it is back by popular demand. Not really just by mine. So what I am reading. If you follow me on Instagram, you saw that I posted a story of my bedside table, not like the table,

but on top of the table, which has my books that I'm currently reading on it. I have this really bad habit of starting like 16 books at once and not finishing them for like a year. It's really, it's not good. Like you don't really retain enough information that way. It's not efficient. It's stupid. But the one I am reading mainly right now, I'm. I'm probably going to finish in like two days because it is super easy and it is not intellectual.

But it's really, really good. It's called The President. We'll See You Now by Peggy Grand. I think it's Grand, not Grande. And guys, I have cried like every single page. And it's not even sad yet. The author was Ronald Reagan's executive assistant for about 10 years after he served as president. And it's basically just an account of who he was as a man, all of their personal interoperations.

his interactions with other people, her relationship with his wife, Nancy Reagan. And it really just shows in such beautiful detail what a man of honor Ronald Reagan really was. He was a gentleman. He was a strong Christian, an adept leader, a sworn enemy of communism, down to earth, relatable, humble, kind, a people person, obviously a great communicator, since that was his nickname, the great communicator. He clearly loved his wife. intensely. I also have a book of letters to them back and forth. I'm like kind of obsessed with the Riggins. He loved his country. He served God. And really, really, at least from what I have read about him from so many people who knew him, was just a truly good man in every sense of the word. I know he wasn't

perfect. Some people definitely have issues with him. But he represented to me so much of what is good about this country. And I think I've cried throughout this book because one, I just have always had this problem. I guess you would call it a problem of just really easily and intensely getting attached to the people I'm reading about. Like from the time I was little, I've gotten so emotionally involved with every single story that I've read that it's always been hard for me to finish books. Like it was kind of honestly a problem growing up. Like I would get too attached to the characters I I was reading about and I would become like a recluse. It's kind of weird.

And even the stories that I wrote when I was like in second grade, I remember writing this story for class and I was sad to finish the story because I would miss the characters I was writing about. Anyway, I'm a communicator. I think that's just how God made me. I guess that's just how weak communicators are. But anyway, the other reason is because I think there's this bit of nostalgia in me when I read it for a time that I never got to experience. One, I've always loved the 80s and 90s.

And two, I just think that patriotism, if it's not dead, it's different. And I'm not saying that patriotism necessarily died with Reagan. It died with Obama. Just kidding. Not really. I'm not really kidding. But it certainly did change. And no matter how much she liked the Bushes, I like them as people. I mean, I don't know them, but I feel like I do. Um, we, We've never, we just never had another man in the office quite like Ronald Reagan. No one, to me, with as much integrity as him, has served as the president. He embodied the American dream and optimism and hope and pride. He truly believed in freedom and democracy, which is why he was so committed to spreading

it to the ends of the earth. So the author goes into stories of the people who thanked him. There was this Romanian lady who had been freed because of him and came into his office and literally fell to her knees and was weeping. and kissed his feet. I mean, I'm like crying thinking about it. Honestly, I'm getting choked up. And I think I'm reading all of these amazing stories anticipating when I have to read about his death. And that just makes me sad. They're symbols of an era in our country that will never get back. I know that sounds pessimistic. But I don't know. I just think that's, I think that's where we

are. But I do recommend it. Maybe it's not. Maybe it's not. Maybe you. we're going someplace hopeful. And if that's the case, either way, whether we are or not, I think it's important to read this book. You probably won't cry like I will because you're probably a normal person. It really is a very happy and upbeat read. It's easy to read and it tells you a lot about who Reagan was as a man and what he did. And like I said, I think that's important in a lot of ways to understanding where, to understand where we've come from and where we could possibly go. I have also been reading for. like three months every good endeavor by Tim Keller. It's taken me forever because I read like a chapter

every morning as part of my quiet time. But I highly, highly recommend this one because it tells you how to do your work in your industry in a way that advances God's kingdom. It's practical, it's insightful, it's challenging and comforting at the same time. You feel it's one of those books you feel smarter every time you read it and kind of just better about life. It just has offered me a lot of clarity. inspired me and motivated me in a lot of ways. So those are my two books for now. The president will see you now and every good endeavor. And on that, I will just say, as everyone's mom that is in the audience,

I will just say boys and girls that everyone should read. If you're not reading, you're falling behind. That is a true statement. And I say that is someone who does not make nearly as much time for it as I used to or as I need to. I used to read so much in high school. And in college, I just kind of fell off the bandwagon. And I haven't ever gotten back to reading as much as I used to. But I've really tried to be more disciplined about it this year because I truly love it. And I've noticed that the more I read, the better I write, the better I speak, the more deeply I think, the better ideas I have.

I truly just think it makes me a sharper and better, more empathetic, more compassionate, more creative person. And I think that's true for everyone. So read. Okay, last thing. And this is over 30 minutes. This is like 35 minutes. Good job. I'm trying to make it a little bit longer. But still, it's still always under 40 minutes. It's so crazy. I never planned that. Okay, last segment. Things I don't get. It's really quick. This was also on my Instagram story, but it is important to note. I do not like when people say no worries, when I didn't have anything to apologize for. I feel like this happens to me a lot. I wonder if I kind of like, If it's a female thing, like I kind of implicitly apologize when I have to remind someone of something. Like I say it in a way that's kind of apologetic. So it usually happens to me when another person, this is usually in a professional setting, like did something wrong or like annoying or not the right way. I say something like, okay, I know it's late, but could you please send me that thing I

ask for? And if anyone is listening to this who works for me, I am literally thinking of zero specific instances right now that actually have to do with work. This is just a hypothetical scenario. I am not actually thinking of a legitimate person. So I would say something to a random person. Like, I know it's late, but could you like, please send me that thing I ask for and they're like, no worries. Yeah. I'm just confused about that because I know there's no worries. Like, I have no worries and I don't need you to reassure me. I have no worries at all. Like you should be the one with worries and I should be the one to tell you no worries. I've been told that maybe I'm misinterpreting

that, which is totally possible, that maybe they're being like, oh, please do not be alarmed. I will do that now. But I don't think so. I think it's people's way of not apologizing. And I don't like that. I'm talking about in mostly work settings. Again, this is in the past. This is no one that I currently work with, but it's happened to me in the past. So I'm talking about mostly in the professional setting, but millennials in particular, I think have a really hard time with this because they have a hard time apologizing for things. They might like correct their mistake, but they're super uncomfortable. I guess I should say we, but I don't feel like I am, but most millennials are super uncomfortable apologizing. That is a character flaw, you guys. We as a generation need to get

better at that. If you made a mistake, you need to tell your boss or your colleague, sorry. You need to say sorry, not just like, sorry, but genuinely sorry and take ownership for it. Not just sorry you feel that way or sorry you're stressed, but like, sorry for what you did. Just do it. Don't over-apologize. Don't grovel. You don't want to look like a weak person, but do take responsibility and say, sorry, this is my fault. I'll make this right right now. I promise you that will get you very far. I've probably learned that the hard way at one point. Just a little tip for you. Maybe that's what I'll do. Maybe I'll do professional tips at the end. Not that I'm some pro, but I've learned a few things in my four years out of college. Okay, that is all for today, my friends. I try to make this

longer. It's like almost 40 minutes. Follow me on Instagram, Twitter, and the conservative millennial Facebook page. Make sure to go to CRTV.com slash Ali for my weekly videos. They're really fun. I hope that you like them. You can subscribe to CRTV with a promo code Allie 20 and then you get $10 off, which is totally worth it. Okay, see y'all next week. Bye.