Wow... just on the surface (and his opening statement), it looks like Pastor DeMars is set up to fail! Why would TGC produce a "woke debate" without a expert on wokeness? Did they not have Voddie Baucham's phone number or something?
Hi friend, Sean Demars here. Thank you for your concern. I would certainly hope that TGC wouldn't do something so sinister as to set me up for failure. Question for you: Did you watch/listen to the debate? Second question: Do you think I'm unqualified to speak on wokeness? If so, is it possible that you're employing the credentialism fallacy? Must one be an academic to be an expert on a subject? May the Lord bless you and keep you.
@@jesusrocks256 Typically, "on the surface" means just that... in the first couple minutes. I understand the need for humility, but if we have done the hard work of studying the Scriptures to establish God's truth on a subject, and then with those lenses, evaluated "the spirit of the age" (which it's clear you have, even though you try, perhaps unconsciously, to minimize the need for all of us to intellectually study and love the Lord with all our minds), it only helps your opponent to question why you're up there in the first place. I have no letters behind my name, but I'm confident, because of hours of investigation that you and I have done (even as nonexperts), that I could expose the dangers of CRT, Marcuse, Gramsci and Eric Mason. I feel you were set up because of the classic deflection your opponent employed (alternate definitions), the way she muddied the water with the sodomy association and her own struggle with that sin (even though she talks about her children on Twitter, so I assume she has had some victory there) and the assumption of white guilt, which you admirably called out. I do think it was a mistake to structure this debate as a friendly, collegiate discussion; that would have been appropriate 10+ years ago, but after we've seen the devastation and wreckage that Marx has worked inside and outside of the church in the West, false teachers like McLaughlin need to be exposed as wolves, not treated as co-laborers in the gospel.
Where in scripture are we called to repent for sins that other people did? If Rebecca stole something, would I be required to repent of her theft? I mean she's white, I'm white, and we actually live in the same time period... so if anything, I have MORE responsibility to repent of her sins than people from 400 years ago. Correct? Black guys stole my dog when I was a child. Do all black people need to repent of that? I'm confused on how "repenting for sins you didn't do" works. Is skin color the only thing that places us in the "repent of their sins as well" boat? Or is there other categories that make me responsible for the sins of other individuals? I'm bald with a beard. Do I need to repent for the sins of other bearded and/or bald people? What if it's a black bearded bald guy? What do I do then? He matches 2 of the 3 categories? Is there a flow chart for Wokianity? Since none of this is in scripture, it's hard to figure out what "proper repentance" looks like and when it's required.
@@jeremyfrost3127 perhaps but they also don't support those who claim there is no corporate application/repentance in the scriptures. They are very wrong.
Sad, but expected from TGC. If they truly valued clarity & balance on this subject, they would've invited an actual academic and an actual critic of wokeness like Jon Harris, Voddie Baucham, Owen Strachan, or Neil Shenvi.
@@rev_gavfelix He's not a pastor anymore; He has 2 bachelor degrees (Christianity & Sociology), a Master's in Theology (M.Div), a Doctorate in Theology (D.Min) and additional post-grad theological training from Oxford. Also he's literally the Dean of a Seminary in Africa. He's nothing if not an academic.
@@rev_gavfelix Amen! We just like to include those we agree with as the "Experts". I have read almost every major book re: "Wokeness" including Baucham, and I would say that Sean did a very good job of making the arguments that are found in those books.
@@Rio_Seco He wrote a book on CRT, as have many others. It has no bearing on whether the book was accurate, or dealt with the issues with any kind of balance or critical analyses.
This debate is a facade. If you want to actually "debate" this matter then get somebody who actually represents the position that you are contending conservatives hold. Somebody like Jon Harris or James White. People who have grappled with this issue for years and are not just going to be "yes men".
TGC is to full of race baiters and effeminate pansies to actually get a legitimate opponent. They got a guy who started off by saying he's uneducated facing off versus someone from Cambridge. Even when they try..... they show their true colors. TGC is Litterally meme now Iove it
@@nickeldan he seemed to want to be as uncontroversial as possible, thats for sure. Whereas the brit, i don’t respect her credentials enough, used every line in the book and and didn’t even really answer the main point of the debate
TGC: Here is a good-faith debate on wokeness. Non-woke guy: I’m not nearly as qualified as my opponent and people that agree with me are wrong about a lot of things and they watch too much Fox News. Pro-woke lady: I am super qualified because I read one-sided books about this and people that agree with you are wrong about a lot of things and they watch too much Fox News. The comments: This is such a good, civil debate!
Hahaha love it! Pretty pathetic "debate"... not sure who the Pastor is but he had his time to stand up for truth and God's Word and instead acted like a coward who sucked up the entire time and talked back about those supposedly on his side of the issue. Sounds like a great Shepherd - I bet he does the same thing with his congregation.
Thanks for inviting a guy who has no idea what he’s talking about and he’s done the work to debate a academic professor trained in debate! Fair and balanced for sure! Not.
I think the point of these debates is not to maximize depth but to maximize civility in debate between two conservative evangelicals on different sides of the issue. Like a more parochial Unbelievable?
@@F7dJa Represented honestly for whom? One person will not adequately represent every particularity of a for/against camp. But I certainly felt there was enough disagreement present to uphold a debate. Though this certainly doesn't settle the issue or provide exhaustive treatment.
He definitely put the work in for this debate and stayed humble the whole time while delivering how wokeness is truly pervading Christian’s views today. Not an ugly debate, like he said. Two Christians who have a disagreement.
Rebecca talked about repentance, which in the Greek NT is "metanoia" meaning "new mind". To the degree that a Christian has inherited racist attitudes from their cultural mellieu, they need a new mind our perspective. The question is... what perspective on race is truly Christian? What about Gal 3:28 -" there is neither Jew nor Gentile...( Black nor White?).. but all are one in Christ." -? i.e. a perspective that admittedly and unashamedly requires the sort of heart developed by deep faith in Christ and which doesn't further entrench a them-versus-us attitude and practice ( which even well-meaning affirmative action does.)
Pastor on one side with no qualifications other than being a pastor criticizing conservatives on American issues and a British, Ph.D, multi-published author on the other side criticizing conservatives on American issues, neither of who "debated" each other. And TGC calls these "Good Faith Debates".
Sean DeMars has written quite a bit of articles and short books, too. And Rebecca McLaughlin's PhD is in English, and she has written some popular (as opposed to academic) books and articles.
I am by no means an advocate of "wokeness", but I feel Sean DeMarrs is not providing a particularly discerning critique. I think I'd like to see this debate done again with Neil Shenvi in his place.
Did you know that WWII Black veterans and descendants are STILL not allowed GI bill benefits? Can you imagine teaching WWII and GI Bill and not mentioning this. There is a bill in the house and senate to change this. Authentic CRT seeks to uncover and remedy these inequities caused by systemic racism.
@@wademitchell3817 This is what I feel a lot of the evangelical "No-Woke Warriors" miss. While CRT clearly comes from critical theory which is Marxist, they don't allow it to critique some of the systems that do need attention, and give themselves a pass, because its root is Marxist! As Bible believers, we should care about the truth, and whether we like it or not, truth is in the nuance in the real world. Let's take what is true, and jettison that which isn't, but throwing it all out is akin to how the church has historically thrown the baby out with the bathwater when they don't agree with the opposition.
@@mikeg7609 Respectfully, I’m having a really hard time believing these *brilliant black scholars* who developed CRT in the wake of hard fought civil rights movement and were not content after observing *remaining systemic racism* would cast their lot with a racist and non-Christian world view. And somehow they don’t value merit and are encouraging victimization when they succeeded despite the odds. Please make this make sense. Their work helps us to further honor democracy so we can function better as a multicultural society. *Dr. Kendi is Christian* and both his parents are ministers. *Dr. Crenshaw is Christian* and related her early notions of intersectionality was learned firsthand about intersection of anti-black racism and Christianity at a majority white Christian school as a child. *Dr. Bell is Christian* and was an Air Force officer who specifically *denied* in an interview over 10 years ago any Marxist tie. Dr. Bell is smart enough to make the case that *systemic racism* is real and offer a framework to remedy without Marx. It’s amazing how much of the conservative analysis skips over clear influences like Christianity, MLK and the civil rights movement. the Marxist claim is a trumped up charge at best.
Exactly. As much as the CRT side likes to misappropriate the phrase "Ministry of Reconciliation", they are totally missing Paul's point in 2 Corinthians. In fact, I would go as far as to say they are turning Paul's entire point on its head.
TGC's blatant bias is revealed by who they chose to make the arguments. With all due respect to Sean, by his own admission, he is woefully unqualified. Why didn't TGC choose any one of many many published experts on this issue? Voddie Bauchem, Owen Strahan, or even just a proven debater like James White or Doug Wilson. Even podcasters who have regularly engaged this topic would have been better suited (AD Robles, Jon Harris, Darrell B. Harrison, Virgil L. Walker, etc).
@@markshaneh yeah, spoke to it a little. Didn’t charge very hard at all. Gave some decent examples, which is more than lots will do, but thats about it. Sorry, the little “he spoke about it not at it” dig is lame. It is something to speak at, because it’s already infected churches and is a large evil.
I do not think either speaker dealt with the real issue. The suppositions of wokeness are antithetical to biblical ethics (showing partiality) so the question about its implications on the church are misleading. Wokeness is theological compromise, as noted by other comments. If you are going to have a legitimate debate then get the leading proponents of each view to discuss the issues with cross examination. Then one may call the exercise a debate. It appears that the objective here is desensitizing the listener to these concepts by means of emotional appeals so that the woke agenda can thrive in the marketplace of ideas.
If you truly want A productive discussion/debate you should invite Jon Harris or Voodie Baucham. By the way, woke teaching it’s not a stepping stone but it is false teaching.
It’s sad because from the onset I, once again, am listening to someone on the woke side define wokeness in a way that is vastly different than what the powers that be define it. The authors of wokeness were atheists and they hate (hated) Christ. The current carriers of wokeness explicitly say they are trying to undo Christianity. Imagine saying you live for Christ and do so by upholding an ideology made by those who hate Him. And then to try to explain to other brothers and sisters that what you stand for isn’t what all the people surrounding you clearly say they represent.
When I stand before the flaming throne of God, He will not be preoccupied with the sins of my father, grandfather, great grandfather at the judgment seat. He will want to know about me, my culpability, my faithfulness.
I can definitely agree that because of Jesus Christ’s grace, I am not living out my family’s cycle. I feel that my previous generation does not affect my religious views…especially since I am born of a Buddhist and a pagan.
I think there's still a race essentialism problem on Rebecca's side. She talks about the "white" tribe based on phenotype and then how everyone who looks that way had parents and grandparents that took part in lynchings, etc. I mean a lot of "white" people in the U.S. now didn't even have parents or grandparents in the country then.
I would disagree as the European waves of immigrants ended in large numbers in the early 1900s. She is citing the lynching's of the early 1900s when it was very common to hang a Black man for a simple accusation and then bring the entire family to see and take pictures, Famous examples are the Newnan GA and Lawrenceville GA ones I think around 1917. Majority or close to it of White Europeans have roots generally 2 generations or back to the turn of 1900s in the US.
YES!! I am not guilty nor am I responsible for what anyone who is not me did in the past. It is not good to ascribe all evils done by one particular group to all members of that group. She should start with Biblical truth -- that we have ONE tribe, humanity. The solution is not repentance for what others have done, but doing the right thing today and loving others as we love ourselves. Sorry, me repenting of sins other white people committed helps nobody and actually hurts people and creates division rather than healing.
@@AngryAsianOG the number of blacks who were lynched between 1880 and 1970 was about 3,500. *Twice* as many blacks are killed in America *every single year* _by other blacks._ Also, I’m not defending lynching but it wasn’t typically “just an accusation” that brought that horrible fate on someone. That you think whites are psycho racists with a homicidal bent and that blacks were innocent angels back then (certainly not the case now, look at FBI violent crime stats), shows your anti-white bias. It was usually a real crime that was committed such as theft, rape, or murder.
I agree. Though I haven't done a Bible study on it. The only thing that comes to mind is the prophets and prayers of old were spoken as a group or collective as "we". This is all before the cross. And it's just off the top of my mind as I said didn't do a topical Bible study on it. But it would be a righteous prophet that would include himself as he prayed God would have mercy and forgive the transgressions of not only the nation but of the fathers.
Sean’s argument that corporate repentance only happens in national, ethnic, OT Israel ignores the fact that the NT actually heightens corporate solidarity rather than slackening it. Being “in Christ” (Eph 1:3) means deep connection (1 Cor 10:16-17) to other believers (1 Cor 12:12), including the “dead in Christ” (1 Thess 4:16). This can have at least something to do with sin if we needed salvation because of this multi-generational connection: “in Adam all die” (1 Cor 15:22) “because all sinned” (Rom 5:12). The pushback tends to be that I can’t repent of someone else’s sin in another generation. What they overlook is that I can, unknowingly even (Ps 19:12), sin “with” previous generations (see Ps 106:6; the Hebrew unequivocally means “with,” despite most English translations). The point is that when I do sin, I participate in a generations-old problem. So when I harbor racial prejudice, am dismissive of another ethnic group’s treatment, or blatantly ignore pleas from African American Christians to address hurtful trends in white churches or Christian organizations … I am sinning with racist believers of the past. And my repentance should dig deeper than my own soul, and penitentially lament the age-old nature of my sin (once again, see the model in Psalm 106).
I generally like Rebecca McLaughlin, and have recommended and given away her books. And I still will. But in this debate she used a lot of illogical arguments and English dept wordsmithing to make bad arguments sound good. For example, after discussing that greatness of Ruby Bridges, she said that while younger whites weren't there, "If you, like me, are a white evangelical, this is our tribe. And God have mercy on us if we do not repent." But, then why wouldn't Ruby Bridges, herself, and other Bible-believing black Christians also need to repent of those sins? After all, does a black Christian's tribe not also include white Christian brothers and sisters? Since McLaughlin is critiquing sins done in the name of the church, wouldn't all believers be guilty? And should we also collectively repent of the sins of all people everywhere at any time? Are we not all part of the same human tribe? Is McLaughlin repenting of the sins of Genghis Khan? Or, is McLaughlin saying that being white is the central guilt-factor in our need for repentance? What makes her guilty of the sins of the 1950s and 1960s isn't that she's an evangelical, because by belief Ruby Bridges was too, but rather than she's white. She also tried to prove that Americans actually believe in collective guilt by saying that we claim the accolades of past goods. She said we like to say, "We defeated the Nazis." And then she said we can't claim the credit for the past unless we also claim the guilt from the past. She says, "If we're not going to to go the route of corporate repentance, then let's also not go the route of corporate celebration of our past glories." But, this argument quickly fails when you analyze what's actually being said in each case. Nobody from the Boomers or younger is saying "We defeated the Nazis" in a way that means they could stand alongside a WWII combat vet and take credit for the victory, too. What they mean is that the values of America then, that we still claim, resulted in a victory, and so we celebrate those values and seek to continue them. Yet, someone who is disavowing the values of the past, such as racism, is not therefore also required to accept the guilt of those past values simply because they want to continue other, different past values. Again, this line of argument from McLaughlin would necessitate almost global collective sin. For, if you cannot celebrate "our" victory in WWII without also repenting of "our" sin in Jim Crow, then how can "we" celebrate the legacy of human rights without accepting the guilt of all human rights abuses? Can Westerners say that "we" developed a system of limited power in government, and seek to celebrate and continue constitutional government, without also accepting the guilt of nobles who abused peasants? Can McLaughling, herself, say that "we" Christians or Westerners built universities without her also personally repenting of the burning of Jan Huss and William Tyndale? Can McLaughlin say that "we" as a human race have an incredible history of technological innovation, going back thousands of years, without also accepting blame, for which she must currently repent, for all the evils ever done by those same humans?
This is exactly the point that I felt uncomfortable about Rebecca’s argument. i am Korean and i have some Japanese friends. during world war 2 Japan has done horrendous things to Korea and Asia. we still debate about whether Japan has done the proper apology or not. and we are still against Japan history textbook not teaching their past truthfully. but I would not force my Japanese or any other Japanese to repent on their past sin. Even if they don’t explicitly repent their sin, this doesn’t nullify their willingness to speak about other justice and righteousness issue.
White evangelicals were opposed to the Civil Rights Movement while black Christians supported it, so yes, a horrific record on race is part of white evangelicalism's legacy, whether you like it or not.
By "Debate" I guess you mean "someone who actually agrees with us but can pose as opposition in order to shift the overton window and reframe the conversation"
Hi friend, I'm not posing in any way. I vehemently oppose wokeism and have the scars to prove it. What you've said about me is slander, even though it's only a comment on UA-cam. I'd be more than happy to speak with you more offline if you'd like. -Sean
@@nickeldan because there's no true anti-CRT/woke representative. There's a liberal "expert" and a guy who says he's no expert and also isn't very conservative. If this was in good faith, they would have invited Voddie Baucham, Owen Strachen, or any one of the many, many conservative anti-CRT voices.
@@nickeldan “I’m not even sure that I can give a satisfactory definition of wokeness”. A conservative pastor definitely could do this. And there are many pastors who do fight this necessary battle in the pulpit and online. But this guy is not a good faith opponent against wokism. (He’s a safe choice, though, for these fake debates.)
I don't think I can give a satisfactory definition of "woke". It's a term that is bandied about so much without clarity that there's no singular "common parlance" definition. For example, a company that puts a rainbow on its logo during June could be rightly called "woke". However, some people link "wokeness" with Critical Theory. By that usage, putting up the rainbow decal doesn't necessarily make a company woke because they may or may not endorse CT. That's what Sean DeMars was saying. Because the term is so amorphous and used so differently by so many people, it becomes difficult to pin it down to an official definition. Now, if we're talking about CT specifically, then that does make the definitional job easier. You mention that that "there are many pastors who do fight this necessary battle in the pulpit and online." Do you not recognize that Sean is one of them? Are you unaware of the several video series he has critiquing CT in depth and warning that it is completely antithetical to the Gospel?
*A man is given 5 talents and earns 5 more* Jesus: Well done, good and faithful servant. Woke Christians: You didn’t really earn that since you started out with more. You are morally obligated to give your talents to the guy who started out with one.
Jesus in the passage right after the one you referenced: “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me”
Jesus at the end of the passage: As you did to the least of these, *My disciples*, you did to Me. The passage is not about using government force to help any random poor person. It is about voluntarily helping other *Christians*.
@@michaelhuguet5415 Excellent point. And to your point, when African American *disciples* say they still experience racism in America and in predominantly white churches (beyond one-off interactions, but also larger trends and pervasive attitudes), Matthew 25 constrains us to hear them out rather than label them as woke to avoid the penitence or change their rebuke might call for, per Matthew 25. The African American *disciple* seems to be Dr. McLaughlin’s primary concern in this debate, which means she is trying to follow Jesus’ commands for interacting with those experiencing affliction, not that she is woke and undermining Scripture. To be fair, maybe you weren’t claiming that about her with your comment. It seems like maybe you’re just frustrated with wider trends or government approaches?
That is correct. Also, woke types ignore that the Bible gives the accused the right to tell his side of the story (Proverbs 18:17) and the biblical standard is that evidence must confirmed by two or three impartial witnesses (Matthew 18:16 et. al.). We are forbidden from accepting an one’s story whole sale without following God’s standards of evidence.
You do not need to repent of sin that you already whole-heartedly repudiate and condemn. The Southern Baptists, to my knowledge, have already written two separate statements of condemnation of their past as it regards racism. There is no end to this demand.
Did they, who knew..I know of more than one Southern Baptist churches as of a few years ago in a city famous for the murder of black church goers that wont allow Black people to become members...They can visit and hang out, but not a member...
Hi friend, do you think that my initial argument was limp-wristed? Saying that wokeness is a threat to the gospel and that it's taking the church captive?
@@jesusrocks256 ,Tbh pastor, I actually enjoyed your opening argument and I believe you hit a lot of the points well. I appreciate that you made the effort to explain “woke” ideology as a form of idolatrous synctretism that is infiltrating the Church and distorting the Gospel. I can only pray that more Christians would actually understand what “syncretism” even means and how truly dangerous it is to Christian unity. My main critique is that it did not go far enough, and it was mostly directed at the discourse that took place after the opening statements. It appeared to me (and many others) that you were unwilling to label those holding/promulgating this false doctrine to be utterly outside the bounds of orthodoxy as though they should be considered co-laborers in Christ. You displayed such an open appreciation for the works of those who are operating outside the bounds of sound biblical teaching that it would be hard not to charge you with flattery… if not as an accessory. It was a half-measure when a stiff-arm was needed. It might have been a good swing if not for the poor follow-through. “Whoever rebukes a man will afterward find more favor than he who flatters with his tongue (Prov 28:23).”
@@Apeleutheros80 Hi friend, thank you for your feedback. Sincerely. (As an aside: Man, you have a way with words. The swing/follow through illustration is powerful.) As far as your main critique, I half way agree with you. I do think I got a little too soft, particularly at the 25:10 mark. As for the disagreement: I'm not prepared to label everyone who is in any way influenced by wokeness "utterly outside the bounds of orthodoxy". There are some manifestations of Critical Theory that are heretical, and I've pointed them out time and time again. I've named names. I will again, if and when the need arises. As of right now, I'm not prepared to call Rebecca a wolf. I understand that you think I didn't go far enough, but friend, please know that it's because I care so much about the matters of "first importance" (1 For 15:3) that I'm unwilling to call Rebecca a heretic. If I'm wrong, please pray that the Lord would give me eyes to see. Your brother in Christ, Sean p.s. I have many heart issues to deal with, but flattery isn't one of them. ;)
@@jesusrocks256 I appreciate your kindness and I hope I didn’t come across as being too harsh in my initial statement. TGC has been letting a lot of us down with their approach to cultural issues for some time now, and sometimes my pessimism toward the organization gets the best of me. The emotional draw of the oppressed/oppressor dynamic found in conflict theory is something that is capable of converting the best intentions of well meaning people into something for the enemy to use against the unity of the Church. As you know, part of the DNA of its design is to be very subversive and very divisive. There are good brothers and sisters in Christ being taken captive by the philosophy, so your reluctance to carpet bomb the whole house of God is understandable. While I do think it necessary for the church to take a firmer stance against it, I can respect your gracious approach. You seem like a good dude and I assume you’re a caring pastor. God bless.
Is the point of this that a debate in a woke church is not a debate, but rather an opportunity for people to agree with each other about wrong ideas ? Is this some sort of 4D-chess game ?
Dear James, Sean Demars here. Thank you for taking the time to offer feedback on the debate. Question: Does it seem to you that Rebecca and I agree with each other? It seems to me like we are very much in disagreement on what wokeness is, where it comes from, and the threat it poses to the church. What would ACTUAL disagreement look like to you?
@@jesusrocks256 Sure, you disagree with her on her definition of woke, but you push for the same actions in church as does she. You say you lament together with your church ( I'm assuming for the past racial sins of forefathers given the context here). You recommend a book which is arguably woke. You fail to see Keller's compromise on same-sex attraction. She wants to make a separation between the gay-woke vs. racial-woke, but you can't address the absurdity of that separation because you are blind to the compromise of Keller and such. In contrast, you speak with far more clarity of conviction over those "to the right". So, an actual disagreement would do things like, (1.) bring some "nuance" into the history, in fact churches did not align with MLK and his comrads for a variety of reasons many of which were far more political than racial (2.) you could push back about what exactly this "repentance" is for ? (3.) what about calling false teaching what it is ? Adding works to the Gospel ? Many have said a Gospel without social justice is not a full Gospel. That is a false teaching put forth by Dhati Lewis who was a leader for the SEND network of the SBC. This is a concrete example of how the woke church is not potentially leading to wrong theology, it IS wrong theology. I suspect you agree with much of what I said, but if TGC was serious about this debate they should have asked Jon Harris, or AD Robles, or Voddie Baucham, etc. someone who has studied and made a critical appraisal of critical theory. Finally, and this has nothing to do with you obviously, the "moderator" added to her points in a number of places, but never so far as I recall, helped you add deeper clarity to your criticism. He puts forth the idea that the debate is just over a disagreement in terms. But, this is absurd. It's not ivory tower abstraction. There are real schools that are teaching white children they're oppressors just because they're white. That happened, and it is happening. Wringing our hands over the injustice that happened before we were born does nothing to address the actual problems which are currently being instantiated by antiracists. The whole point of this debate for TGC is to set you up as a conservative so that when you deny the failing of SBC entities and TGC and Keller you have credibility. Your response to the question from the "moderator" around 48:30, that is the whole point of TGC posting this "good faith" debate.
Actual disagreement could look like telling this lady you think she’s oeddling dangerous things that ARE ALREADY causing a slippery slope, and damage to the church, give the reasons why, and ask her if you’re wrong. That would be a good start. You can do that civilly, in brotherly love, but maybe not winsomely
@@jesusrocks256 thank you standing on truth, brother. As a Black Christian, I am very disappointed with the general passion of the “woke” church when it comes to popularized issues; ie racial injustice, lgbtq agenda, but take what seems to be monumental effort to ignore the plight of the unborn. We must remember that it was also unpopular for Christians stand against slavery at one point in time also. Standing alongside the world is easy, it doesn’t require Christ. Standing when the world stands against you, is an act solely of Christ. Be blessed, brother.
13 Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” 14 Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” 15 Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.” 16 And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. 17 He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’ 18 “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. 19 And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’ 20 “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’ 21 “This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.” Luke 12:13-21
It would have been nice to actually see a debate here. Rebecca reduces "wokeness" to saying racism is bad. None of the Christian critics of woke church would disagree with that at all. This issue is about 1. Rewriting history, 2. Promoting racial essentialism, 3. Promoting unbiblical standards of justice and epistemology, etc. Why were none of these issues addressed, except in passing mention by Sean? Why is the entire conversation segment of this simply the uplifting of a very rosy image of "wokeness"? Again, if all we're talking about here is that racism is bad and Christians should recognize that, nothing new or illuminating has even been said. But this isn't in any way the substance of what we're dealing with in actuality, but a totalizing ideology that is, at nearly every possible point, hostile to the biblical worldview.
I’d be curious to ask Rebecca about quoting Yuvall Noah Harari, 5 times in her book, The Secular Creed. Is it because he is gay or because he is demonic?
Someone got Dawkins-ed. Remember when Dawkins debated John Lennox and Lennox widep the floor with him? Since that time Dawkins only debates flyover country backwoods Baptist types. I have absolutely no respect for TGC or Dr. M. This is what propaganda looks like.
Can someone (hopefully the moderator himself) explain why at the end when he said that the woke church being on a slippery slope is a logical fallacy? Why is this a logical fallacy? Why is it even a fallacy given the demise of woke denominations and churches, contrasted with the comparative health of their "non-woke counterparts". ? I do not know the narrator or participants name because introduction of people and place seemed to be rarely if at all mentioned. Otherwise I profited from this presentation. Thanks.
"slippery slope" is a logical fallacy. Though many people use it to indicate that something can lead to something else, in logic that's not a valid argument
@24:00 I was like, "Well, that argument for woke wasn't convincing. I feel like I don't even need to hear the argument against it." It was only then that I realized that whatever that first guy said wasn't an introduction to the debate, it was the actual negative position! Wow!
Madam Professor. I won,t take responsibility for things, that happened before I was born, and I didn't parti cipate in fighting the Nazis. You need to improve your arguments, in stead of setting up this ridiculous straw man.
I am sadly left broken hearted, supposed “Christians” even discussing this. The Bible clear states how we are to treat not just fellow Christian’s. Not that we shouldn’t care how a group is treated, but we are not called to fix these problems. We are called to preach the gospel, to make disciples and leave the changing of hearts to Christ, hearts are out of wheelhouse are humans. The problem is sin, it has always been sin, it will always be sin until Christ returns! Our job his to preach the gospel: how Christ died for us, rose again for the forgiveness of sin. Reconciliation comes from his death and resurrection! Not us! We just proclaim it
The gospel must be first and foremost, good call on that. Historically, preach the gospel ONLY was what many preachers said to MLK. He responds to that type of critique in his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” which provides good counterpoints to your post, as to what should be done in addition to the primary task of gospel preaching.
This is the point I find is the crux of this debate--- generational sins are found in the OT not NT. Christ calls us individually to repent, not in groups. He says in Matthew 12:50: "For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." Those who do the will of the Father are my family. All races are susceptible to the guilt of sin.
Woah. Some evangelicals do have valid concerns about Keller being woke/tilting to the left. Just some of his tweets about abortion and his support of Francis Collins who funded research with aborted fetal parts. Also how he indirectly called out John MacArthur for keeping his church open during Covid was a red flag to me. I don’t think you should be so dismissive of those who have concerns about Christian leaders. I still read some of Keller’s books and devotionals and greatly enjoy them, but we are still allowed to critique the views of our leaders.
I don’t have any concerns regarding registered Democratic operative, Tim Kellar. He endorses and supports a godless, Christ-hating, bible -hating, and Christian- hating political ideology rooted in Marxism. He does so because he’s the wolf in sheep’s clothing Jesus warned of in Matt. 7:15-19. Jesus commands us to mark and avoid false teachers like Kellar which is exactly what I’ve done. Problem solved.
From John Gill's Exposition of the Bible (2 Corinthians 5:16): "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh..... Since the death and resurrection of Christ, which has broken down the middle wall of partition, and has took away all distinction of men, we know, we esteem, we value no man on account of his carnal descent, and fleshy privileges, as being of the Jewish nation, a descendant of Abraham, and circumcised as he was; or on account of their outward state and condition, as being rich and honorable among men, or on account of their natural parts and acquirements, their learning, wisdom, and eloquence; nor do we own any man to be a Christian, that lives after the flesh, to himself, and not to Christ; nor do we make account of the saints themselves as in this mortal state, but as they will be in the resurrection, in consequence of Christ's having died for them, and rose again."
I have a great deal of respect for Rebecca on almost every issue. But this one... She defines wokeness in the most agreeable way. We can all admit to the horrible way black people were treated in the past. This is Including much of the "church". Nobody is arguing against this, or at least so few, why is she talking about it? It seems like a Motte and Bailey, to define "woke" as softly and universally agreeably as possible as historical wrongs, and then defend it. Wokeness is saying these same injustices are happening today, promotes the idea of white privilege and racial essentialism. She says nothing about the extreme excesses Sean brings up, and that is what is infiltrating the church. As for repenting, the New Testament says nothing about repenting for the sins of others. I do think lamenting is a far more appropriate word. Rebecca is far too intelligent to not know what these words mean. If we could all unite against the extremes of wokeness, then we could work on the actual injustices without lending credibility to ungodly and non-biblical Concepts like critical race Theory.
The Bible says a whole lot about repenting for our communities, and I'm not sure where you get the idea that we should arbitrarily limit it to the New Testament, but here's an example. Acts 2:22 is a passage where Peter addresses a crowd of at least 3000 and says they put Jesus to death. Were all 3k at the cross? Surely not. Yet they have a collective sin that Peter can nevertheless address.
Sean, Ramon here, I am curious to know your thoughts of why TGC decided not to have a person of color who is also an Evangelical address the “WOKE” topic? Also, on a separate note, as a Christian Psychologist, I find the narrative related to Freud often in church settings unsettling. Freud’s role on how we discuss the psychology of women is paramount to understand as evangelicals. Psychology, mental health all were influenced by church narratives, often in a negative way. Judith Herman, MD, is an expert in this field. All in all, people like Hegel, Freud, and Karl Marx and their views must be evaluated with charity. Evangelicals minimize the importance of their contributions in society, perhaps to our demise. Thank you for sharing your convictions with us, Sean.
Take down this debate and try again. The pairing of these two individuals in debate is certainly interesting. It’s obvious they tried to set this up to profit one side more than the other. Gross.
TGC, thank you for putting this beneficial video together. It helped me to hear the strengths and pitfalls of each side of the argument. I appreciate the graceful tone that the debate had as well.
Instead of spending so much of your life blaming others and crying about how others are "racist", how about addressing your own racism and lack of personal responsibility?
quite honestly, I have no interest in what these two have to say about what is imperative for the church of Christ while ignoring the scriptures, where God CLEARLY instructs the Church on how to conduct themselves and how to address the world and culture (2 Tim. 3:16).
I was excited about this series and this topic. Then the first presenter list 40 reasons why he is unqualified for this topic. I stopped watching. Discrediting yourself is a terrible way to start a speech/debate. Or if you really have no qualifications don’t say anything and don’t go. Arg… what a waste
You're probably right, John. It was intended to be a tongue in cheek attack on the credentialism fallacy often employed by the left, but it seems to have backfired on me. Thank you for your feedback.
One of my primary critiques of Christianity as a non-Christian was the seemingly all-consuming hate-filled xenophobia that I witness amongst people who called themselves Christians. Now that I’m a Christian and reading the Gospel and asking the Lord to discern my heart and create a clean heart within me, I am astounded at the amount of hate and pride within this comment section. A brother and a sister in Christ are discussing an important issue facing the modern church with a charitable disposition towards each other, yet the majority of comments I see here are slinging mud at both because their particular narrow-minded hate-filled view isn’t being represented in the way they want. This is the reason culture is leaving the church behind and waging war against Christians, not because the enemy is forcing them to but because hateful Christians turn them away themselves. Christ spoke very clearly about so called followers of Christ who turned people away from Him so while I’m not surprised some xenophobic warhawks have been lying in wait to snipe from a safe position behind their phone keyboards, I am deeply saddened by the disdain shown for Christ’s central most important commandment for His followers: Love one another as I have loved you. Read the gospel again and please pray about whether you are acting in humility and charity before you type out that hate-filled comment.
these people aren`t chrsitans. they are not all leftist., but they are not at all that much christian.., there are over 2 billion christiains on earth., the u.s. christians, are the most sorry among them all
Rebecca McLaughlin So I think we need to get into a place where we are humbly and with love and our hearts preaching and teaching truth when it comes to race, and preaching and teaching truth when it comes to sexuality and gender, recognizing actually the ways in which we Christians have also sinned in our treatment of RACIST people outside the church and in our failure to love PRONE TO RACISM brothers and sisters within the church. I think we can and should do that, while also being very clear about what the Bible calls us to when it comes to RACISM. but spoiler alert, it doesn’t call us to hateful treatment. If anybody you know, Jesus calls us to love even our enemies. So I think love it having a humble, loving, repentant, personally repented approach to all of these things, while we make much of Jesus and little little of ourselves is going to be the best way to guard the church.
Problem here is "hateful treatment" changes meaning. And I don't really know if "hateful" can ever be a thing of opinion. Now oppressing, withholding and denying someone or peoples because of what they look like or where they come from is sinful discrimination. Physically assaulting someone is also sin. These things are often done because the person has hate in their heart. Anything that hurts someone's feelings can be described as "hateful treatment" calling someone a viper or hypocrite could be considered "hateful treatment". It's just a messy term that can be used to control people.
I think Mr. DeMars did a good job of pointing out the toxicity of Wokeness but did not explain why it is toxic from a Biblical standpoint. If this was supposed to be in “Good Faith” TGC is obviously faithless.
I agree with the Lady on everything except the corporate confession. I think we should make a point to call it out together but just like we don't expect black Christians to repent I don't feel called to repent for our ancestors'sin. That said recognizing that we still have biases that are present in our life is important and we should repent of those. Also they said he doesn't want to use the word WOKE but then kept using it like a buzzword.
Thanks for this grace-filled wonderful debate. However, CRT stands in direct opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ which breaks down every wall of division between ethnicities. I would propose that Col. 3:10-11; Gal 2:11-14; 3:27-28; Eph. 2:11-19, etc., indicate we are all one “ethnos” in Christ. I preach a gospel that unifies us across all racial lines, a gospel where Christ has “broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility” (Eph 2:14). Galatians 3:27-28 (27) For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 2:11-14 (11) When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, because he stood to be condemned. (12) For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself, for fear of those in the circumcision group. (13) The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. (14) When I saw that they were not walking in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” Ephesians 2:11-19 (11) Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles in the flesh and called uncircumcised by the so-called circumcision (that done in the body by human hands)- (12) remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. (13) But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. (14) For He Himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has torn down the dividing wall of hostility (15) by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace (16) and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility. (17) He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. (18) For through Him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. (19) Therefore you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household, The whole book of Galatians is about this very issue! adherence to the law makes one a Judaizer who preaches a different gospel (Gal. 2:16, 19, 21; 3:2-3, 10-11;13;27; 5:1;6;9;18). Any ideology that would pit ethnicities against one another or make for instance Jews adhere to the law again…is a different gospel. CRT and Wokeness added to the gospel make it a pseudo-gospel! trust in Christ alone! That is the consistent teaching of the NT; Christ alone NOT adherence to the law. And pitting races against each other is anti-gospel. The gospel has torn down the “dividing wall of hostility.” These ideologies erect walls of hostility between races and ethnicities. The gospel tears them down! Blessings in Christ!
American History IS indeed a history of empire building in which the foundational roots are of discrimination - discrimination against the Native Americans. If you fail to deny that then you're not the kind of Christian organization that I can respect. (PS: I'm a Chinese-Canadian)
You American Christians are too fragile. You fail to take responsibility for the empire your government has built with their Military Industrial Complex and what the Western World has wrought unto this world with Colonialism + Industrialization + Capitalism. You're all way too fragile to own up to the sins of your forefathers and so all you can do is stand behind a pulpit and speak platitudes of "Jesus died for us" and blah blah blah. All you can do is spit out cliche after cliche because you're all too scared to stand up to the establishment of the American Empire and are brainwashed by the Red Scare environment of America. You all sicken me - being "woke" however has a good and bad side to it. There's a good/right way to be "woke" but there's a bad/wrong way to be "woke"... I for one as a Christian consider myself "woke", but not in the Neo-Liberal sense, more so in the sense that this world is the way it is due to a globally-inequitable reality whereby the West is responsible for the true Axis of Evil: 1) Climate Change 2) Poverty 3) World Conflict
The other problem you American Christians have is you all have a sanitized understanding of history - have you heard of Operation Paperclip, Operation Highjump, and the whole Arms/Space Race ONLY happened 'cuz the US cared ONLY about competition. Oh and you all love to celebrate the Ally victory over the Nazis, but you rarely talk about the Pacific Theatre - you now support Japan who was once an aggressor and still is... you rarely acknowledge the evils the Japanese Empire conducted against their neighbours, you rarely condemn them, only now have a Military-Industrial Complex and you rarely condemn that... you American/Western Christians uphold the status quo more so than denounce it and try to fix the problems within the status quo.
Every nation on earth has (throughout various times) committed discrimination. It doesn't make their sole history and founding one of discrimination. Some nations (like Canada and the US) have eliminated most of their discriminatory policies, others (like China, most of the Middle East and various other parts) are still actively engaged in discrimination as a matter of policy.
I agree with everything Rebecca has stated here, while Sean raises some very good points. We need to define these terms before we can even have a proper discussion. Most of all, I appreciate the civility displayed here. It's refreshing.
All the comments are like “this isn’t a debate! They’re not fighting!” That’s the point! This is what Christian charity looks like! If you want a fight go back to Fox News!
A debate isn’t a fight although I am pleased that they were civil to one another. It’s when parties put forth an argument with points that support their position and then defend it. This didn’t happen it this video. They simply stated their opinions. This video is a perfect example of why opinion is the lowest form of knowledge.
At one point of agreement (around 28:45) - that at a minimum we can lament, it is worth noting that no woke person will lament the destruction of the black family, the black poverty rate, or the black incarceration rate that all spiraled due to LBJ and the welfare state. Lament that you have tried to make Uncle Sam your husband/daddy, and turn to God as the source and authority. If we want to lament all the way back to the transatlantic slave trade, let's lament the tribal leaders who enslaved their own and sold them to another tribe, who owned the majority of the slave ships.
I would be careful to say "NO woke person will lament..." I agree that the voices that are most prominent now are not at all lamenting the things you describe. But in our current heavily tribalized culture, it is not helpful to speak in the absolutes of everyone, no one, none, all, etc. - I would argue it is important to lean into recognizing the spectrum and degrees people have on ideological camps. We can alienate people who would otherwise agree with us on a point if we are too quick to be absolute in attributing negative qualities to another group. Just like many will push back when they hear someone saying "all white people are actively racist unless they're entirely anti-racist [in the ways they themselves define]" - there is no room to come together for mutual understanding or reconciliation when your ideology or group has been uniformly painted with a negative quality. I apologize that this is long and likely seems pedantic over a small detail. It's because I agree that the recent cultural destruction is devastating, and I want to see that conversation grow as a healthy place for voices to be heard, so I would just advise care in how we approach it.
@Guido De Based 1561 I agree, especially as demands for apologies seem to keep shifting and not pinned to anything solid beyond accusations. It is very hard to see what reconciliation can look like in that - and honestly, it may simply be impossible with those bad actors who are using these causes for political gain or self-proclaimed revolution. I don't think that is everyone who would describe themselves as "woke" though, and so I think there is space to understand what grievances people do have. What I mean is, I remember in 2015 with the Ferguson shootings being mostly unwilling to listen to people saying there was a serious problem that they experience regularly - because in my immediate surroundings I didn't really see it, and I certainly didn't experience it (for numerous reasons), but over the years I've grown convicted that as Christians, we need to be open to *hearing* people in their pain and problems - are we as individuals and as a body willing to believe there is a problem we're not personally seeing? I don't think this means we have to agree on the proposed solution or the proposed reasons for the problem, but are we listening? I think this is the first step in what I think of with reconciliation, being willing to recognize that our perspective does have blind spots. Now I think it's important that I am very clear, I don't consider myself "woke" at all, and I tend toward a more traditional view of political conservative (social conservative values, limited power) though I recognize that Biblically there is some call for social care that may lead to more central or traditionally liberal social values (such as stated goals of protecting weak and poor, though I recognize that for the powerful elite it may be dubious how much that actually has been their values). I say all this because I just want to be clear that I think seeking Biblical reconciliation isn't really an issue of wokeness. But what I think reconciliation looks like is far more pro-active and focused on specific concerns rather than focusing on the vague ideas of "systemic" problems that in my experience tend to remain undefined. And then to hear what concerns people who are experiencing the problem are expressing (and I don't believe doing this by saying the other group needs to shut up or can't be part of the conversation/solution is the right answer - that is not reconciliation, which brings two estranged groups together). Repentance I think needs to be a ready option that Christians are looking at, because we recognize that we are all sinners in various ways. As such, we may not feel we need to repent, but it is something we consider. And I am honestly torn in the role of corporate confession/repentance, and also how to react when a group says "you must repent of XYZ" - part of me pushes back, but I am not sure that pushback is healthy. So, unfortunately, I don't have much to offer about repenting of previous generations' sins, but I know I am also really very ready to say "I am so sorry that XYZ hurt you. That was not God's way" to someone who expresses how past sins have hurt their lives. It's important, I think, also to recognize that reconciliation requires both parties to engage in it. We cannot force it on someone who doesn't want it. So, I think these days, there will be many times we can only do the part we are called to: offer repentance where we see we were in the wrong, and forgiveness for those who wrong us. But it may not lead to healing between the two estranged groups. In terms of this conversation, that may mean large groups that identify themselves as hurt by the church in some way may never look to re-gain trust with the church, but it still is our responsibility to do our part in the process. So, if, for example, members of the black community say they live in fear of the police, I need to not simply write off that serious issue but to take their complaint seriously. I don't necessarily need to agree with what they believe is the root cause of the issue, nor the best solution, but I do need to take it seriously. Unfortunately, many complaints I have heard personally, is that the church (as they see it) don't seem to be taking it seriously. And that is something we need to address for the sake of reconciliation, and especially for the sake of Christ and his glory among the nation.
While I enjoyed this conversation and the civility of it, I do think it would have been beneficial to have a black individual included-since black individuals were mentioned so much. While I admire these two for speaking up for black Christians and other people of color, it would have been helpful to have someone who has LIVED the things they were speaking about (segregation, racism, civil rights movement, etc.) there to share their personal experiences and thoughts. But, thankful for this conversation being had ☺️
This was hardly a debate. DeMars' assertions were weak at best and he literally undermined his own credibility from the start, which is a shame because McLaughlin is peddling lies straight from the pit of hell that must be met with equal measure a la Martin Luther. Sorry not sorry....
This had my dying laughing what a joke.... I've never heard anyone start a debate by saying how uneducated they are ROFL .... YOU guys got some really good experts lol. You got the liberal expert you wanted to push your narrative.... thank God that for now TGC has been revealed as a wolf in wolves clothing . I needed a laugh today praise God.
Wow... just on the surface (and his opening statement), it looks like Pastor DeMars is set up to fail! Why would TGC produce a "woke debate" without a expert on wokeness? Did they not have Voddie Baucham's phone number or something?
LOL EVERYONE CAN SEE IT.
And yet, DeMars makes the better case.
His opening statement nailed the problems with Wokism, and her opening statement showed a lack of comprehension of the philosophical roots of it.
Hi friend, Sean Demars here. Thank you for your concern. I would certainly hope that TGC wouldn't do something so sinister as to set me up for failure. Question for you: Did you watch/listen to the debate? Second question: Do you think I'm unqualified to speak on wokeness? If so, is it possible that you're employing the credentialism fallacy? Must one be an academic to be an expert on a subject? May the Lord bless you and keep you.
@@jesusrocks256 Typically, "on the surface" means just that... in the first couple minutes. I understand the need for humility, but if we have done the hard work of studying the Scriptures to establish God's truth on a subject, and then with those lenses, evaluated "the spirit of the age" (which it's clear you have, even though you try, perhaps unconsciously, to minimize the need for all of us to intellectually study and love the Lord with all our minds), it only helps your opponent to question why you're up there in the first place. I have no letters behind my name, but I'm confident, because of hours of investigation that you and I have done (even as nonexperts), that I could expose the dangers of CRT, Marcuse, Gramsci and Eric Mason. I feel you were set up because of the classic deflection your opponent employed (alternate definitions), the way she muddied the water with the sodomy association and her own struggle with that sin (even though she talks about her children on Twitter, so I assume she has had some victory there) and the assumption of white guilt, which you admirably called out. I do think it was a mistake to structure this debate as a friendly, collegiate discussion; that would have been appropriate 10+ years ago, but after we've seen the devastation and wreckage that Marx has worked inside and outside of the church in the West, false teachers like McLaughlin need to be exposed as wolves, not treated as co-laborers in the gospel.
Where in scripture are we called to repent for sins that other people did? If Rebecca stole something, would I be required to repent of her theft? I mean she's white, I'm white, and we actually live in the same time period... so if anything, I have MORE responsibility to repent of her sins than people from 400 years ago. Correct?
Black guys stole my dog when I was a child. Do all black people need to repent of that? I'm confused on how "repenting for sins you didn't do" works. Is skin color the only thing that places us in the "repent of their sins as well" boat? Or is there other categories that make me responsible for the sins of other individuals? I'm bald with a beard. Do I need to repent for the sins of other bearded and/or bald people?
What if it's a black bearded bald guy? What do I do then? He matches 2 of the 3 categories? Is there a flow chart for Wokianity? Since none of this is in scripture, it's hard to figure out what "proper repentance" looks like and when it's required.
Daniel 9 - offers repentance for nation.
Churches in Rev 2-3. Most of NT letters are corporate.
@@andrewgordon9318 those passages don't remotely support woke ideology.
@@jeremyfrost3127 perhaps but they also don't support those who claim there is no corporate application/repentance in the scriptures. They are very wrong.
Sad, but expected from TGC. If they truly valued clarity & balance on this subject, they would've invited an actual academic and an actual critic of wokeness like Jon Harris, Voddie Baucham, Owen Strachan, or Neil Shenvi.
Voddie is not an academic. He's a pastor just like the guy in this video.
@@rev_gavfelix He's not a pastor anymore; He has 2 bachelor degrees (Christianity & Sociology), a Master's in Theology (M.Div), a Doctorate in Theology (D.Min) and additional post-grad theological training from Oxford. Also he's literally the Dean of a Seminary in Africa. He's nothing if not an academic.
@@rev_gavfelix Amen! We just like to include those we agree with as the "Experts". I have read almost every major book re: "Wokeness" including Baucham, and I would say that Sean did a very good job of making the arguments that are found in those books.
Jon Harris a slavery apologist sooo
@@Rio_Seco He wrote a book on CRT, as have many others. It has no bearing on whether the book was accurate, or dealt with the issues with any kind of balance or critical analyses.
This debate is a facade. If you want to actually "debate" this matter then get somebody who actually represents the position that you are contending conservatives hold. Somebody like Jon Harris or James White. People who have grappled with this issue for years and are not just going to be "yes men".
Do you think Sean DeMars is a yes man?
TGC is to full of race baiters and effeminate pansies to actually get a legitimate opponent. They got a guy who started off by saying he's uneducated facing off versus someone from Cambridge. Even when they try..... they show their true colors. TGC is Litterally meme now Iove it
@@nickeldan he seemed to want to be as uncontroversial as possible, thats for sure. Whereas the brit, i don’t respect her credentials enough, used every line in the book and and didn’t even really answer the main point of the debate
TGC: Here is a good-faith debate on wokeness.
Non-woke guy: I’m not nearly as qualified as my opponent and people that agree with me are wrong about a lot of things and they watch too much Fox News.
Pro-woke lady: I am super qualified because I read one-sided books about this and people that agree with you are wrong about a lot of things and they watch too much Fox News.
The comments: This is such a good, civil debate!
Did you and I expect anything else when we clicked, though? Haha.
Hahaha love it! Pretty pathetic "debate"... not sure who the Pastor is but he had his time to stand up for truth and God's Word and instead acted like a coward who sucked up the entire time and talked back about those supposedly on his side of the issue. Sounds like a great Shepherd - I bet he does the same thing with his congregation.
Thanks for inviting a guy who has no idea what he’s talking about and he’s done the work to debate a academic professor trained in debate! Fair and balanced for sure! Not.
I think the point of these debates is not to maximize depth but to maximize civility in debate between two conservative evangelicals on different sides of the issue. Like a more parochial Unbelievable?
@@F7dJa Represented honestly for whom? One person will not adequately represent every particularity of a for/against camp. But I certainly felt there was enough disagreement present to uphold a debate. Though this certainly doesn't settle the issue or provide exhaustive treatment.
@@elijahofmalachi45-68 go away demon
He definitely put the work in for this debate and stayed humble the whole time while delivering how wokeness is truly pervading Christian’s views today. Not an ugly debate, like he said. Two Christians who have a disagreement.
Rebecca talked about repentance, which in the Greek NT is "metanoia" meaning "new mind". To the degree that a Christian has inherited racist attitudes from their cultural mellieu, they need a new mind our perspective. The question is... what perspective on race is truly Christian? What about Gal 3:28 -" there is neither Jew nor Gentile...( Black nor White?).. but all are one in Christ." -? i.e. a perspective that admittedly and unashamedly requires the sort of heart developed by deep faith in Christ and which doesn't further entrench a them-versus-us attitude and practice ( which even well-meaning affirmative action does.)
Pastor on one side with no qualifications other than being a pastor criticizing conservatives on American issues and a British, Ph.D, multi-published author on the other side criticizing conservatives on American issues, neither of who "debated" each other.
And TGC calls these "Good Faith Debates".
Sean DeMars has written quite a bit of articles and short books, too. And Rebecca McLaughlin's PhD is in English, and she has written some popular (as opposed to academic) books and articles.
I am by no means an advocate of "wokeness", but I feel Sean DeMarrs is not providing a particularly discerning critique. I think I'd like to see this debate done again with Neil Shenvi in his place.
HAHAHA
Did you know that WWII Black veterans and descendants are STILL not allowed GI bill benefits? Can you imagine teaching WWII and GI Bill and not mentioning this. There is a bill in the house and senate to change this. Authentic CRT seeks to uncover and remedy these inequities caused by systemic racism.
@@wademitchell3817 This is what I feel a lot of the evangelical "No-Woke Warriors" miss. While CRT clearly comes from critical theory which is Marxist, they don't allow it to critique some of the systems that do need attention, and give themselves a pass, because its root is Marxist! As Bible believers, we should care about the truth, and whether we like it or not, truth is in the nuance in the real world. Let's take what is true, and jettison that which isn't, but throwing it all out is akin to how the church has historically thrown the baby out with the bathwater when they don't agree with the opposition.
@@mikeg7609 Respectfully, I’m having a really hard time believing these *brilliant black scholars* who developed CRT in the wake of hard fought civil rights movement and were not content after observing *remaining systemic racism* would cast their lot with a racist and non-Christian world view. And somehow they don’t value merit and are encouraging victimization when they succeeded despite the odds. Please make this make sense.
Their work helps us to further honor democracy so we can function better as a multicultural society.
*Dr. Kendi is Christian* and both his parents are ministers. *Dr. Crenshaw is Christian* and related her early notions of intersectionality was learned firsthand about intersection of anti-black racism and Christianity at a majority white Christian school as a child. *Dr. Bell is Christian* and was an Air Force officer who specifically *denied* in an interview over 10 years ago any Marxist tie. Dr. Bell is smart enough to make the case that *systemic racism* is real and offer a framework to remedy without Marx. It’s amazing how much of the conservative analysis skips over clear influences like Christianity, MLK and the civil rights movement.
the Marxist claim is a trumped up charge at best.
I've never seen a definition of 'wokeness', which is nothing more than a made-up word.
How about NOT making your identity about being "black" or "woke" or a "victim" but in Christ?
BLASPHEMY
@@MPPetit key word is "OR"
Exclusive
@@MPPetit - I'm seeing a "show less" button on UA-cam but do you have a "write less" button??
Exactly. As much as the CRT side likes to misappropriate the phrase "Ministry of Reconciliation", they are totally missing Paul's point in 2 Corinthians. In fact, I would go as far as to say they are turning Paul's entire point on its head.
AMEN!
TGC's blatant bias is revealed by who they chose to make the arguments. With all due respect to Sean, by his own admission, he is woefully unqualified. Why didn't TGC choose any one of many many published experts on this issue? Voddie Bauchem, Owen Strahan, or even just a proven debater like James White or Doug Wilson. Even podcasters who have regularly engaged this topic would have been better suited (AD Robles, Jon Harris, Darrell B. Harrison, Virgil L. Walker, etc).
Perhaps, rather than 'blatant bias' maybe they only contacted TGC members?
Sean is a podcaster who has regularly engaged this topic. Check out Defend and Confirm Podcast.
No, unlike voddie, Owen or James, sean spoke to the topic , not at it ✌🏼
@@markshaneh yeah, spoke to it a little. Didn’t charge very hard at all. Gave some decent examples, which is more than lots will do, but thats about it. Sorry, the little “he spoke about it not at it” dig is lame. It is something to speak at, because it’s already infected churches and is a large evil.
Should have been called the weak debate.....intentionally mismatched. A.D. Robles saw this coming miles away.
Perhaps mismatched in terms of credentials, but how do you think Sean did in the debate?
I do not think either speaker dealt with the real issue. The suppositions of wokeness are antithetical to biblical ethics (showing partiality) so the question about its implications on the church are misleading. Wokeness is theological compromise, as noted by other comments. If you are going to have a legitimate debate then get the leading proponents of each view to discuss the issues with cross examination. Then one may call the exercise a debate. It appears that the objective here is desensitizing the listener to these concepts by means of emotional appeals so that the woke agenda can thrive in the marketplace of ideas.
@@acagle92 i think he did not good
If you truly want A productive discussion/debate you should invite Jon Harris or Voodie Baucham. By the way, woke teaching it’s not a stepping stone but it is false teaching.
they'd never do that. TGC couldn't wait to get rid of Voddie when he moved to Zimbabwe. He refuses to obey the 11th commandment
It’s sad because from the onset I, once again, am listening to someone on the woke side define wokeness in a way that is vastly different than what the powers that be define it. The authors of wokeness were atheists and they hate (hated) Christ. The current carriers of wokeness explicitly say they are trying to undo Christianity. Imagine saying you live for Christ and do so by upholding an ideology made by those who hate Him. And then to try to explain to other brothers and sisters that what you stand for isn’t what all the people surrounding you clearly say they represent.
Motte & Bailey in action. The deception is intentional.
When I stand before the flaming throne of God, He will not be preoccupied with the sins of my father, grandfather, great grandfather at the judgment seat. He will want to know about me, my culpability, my faithfulness.
And do you think you are going to say with confidence that you are not repeating what your father, grandfather and great grandfather have done.
@@mazza8408yes. Next question
@@JesusPeopleSF well that's not arrogant lol
@@mazza8408 thank you for confirming that it is not.
I can definitely agree that because of Jesus Christ’s grace, I am not living out my family’s cycle. I feel that my previous generation does not affect my religious views…especially since I am born of a Buddhist and a pagan.
I think there's still a race essentialism problem on Rebecca's side. She talks about the "white" tribe based on phenotype and then how everyone who looks that way had parents and grandparents that took part in lynchings, etc. I mean a lot of "white" people in the U.S. now didn't even have parents or grandparents in the country then.
I would disagree as the European waves of immigrants ended in large numbers in the early 1900s. She is citing the lynching's of the early 1900s when it was very common to hang a Black man for a simple accusation and then bring the entire family to see and take pictures, Famous examples are the Newnan GA and Lawrenceville GA ones I think around 1917. Majority or close to it of White Europeans have roots generally 2 generations or back to the turn of 1900s in the US.
YES!! I am not guilty nor am I responsible for what anyone who is not me did in the past. It is not good to ascribe all evils done by one particular group to all members of that group. She should start with Biblical truth -- that we have ONE tribe, humanity. The solution is not repentance for what others have done, but doing the right thing today and loving others as we love ourselves. Sorry, me repenting of sins other white people committed helps nobody and actually hurts people and creates division rather than healing.
@@AngryAsianOG the number of blacks who were lynched between 1880 and 1970 was about 3,500. *Twice* as many blacks are killed in America *every single year* _by other blacks._ Also, I’m not defending lynching but it wasn’t typically “just an accusation” that brought that horrible fate on someone. That you think whites are psycho racists with a homicidal bent and that blacks were innocent angels back then (certainly not the case now, look at FBI violent crime stats), shows your anti-white bias. It was usually a real crime that was committed such as theft, rape, or murder.
I agree. Though I haven't done a Bible study on it. The only thing that comes to mind is the prophets and prayers of old were spoken as a group or collective as "we". This is all before the cross. And it's just off the top of my mind as I said didn't do a topical Bible study on it. But it would be a righteous prophet that would include himself as he prayed God would have mercy and forgive the transgressions of not only the nation but of the fathers.
And then what do you do with mixed-race people?
Do they half-repent?
Could you guys do me one favour and turn up the lights so we can actually see the debaters🤣
why so dark TGC? lol
Sean’s argument that corporate repentance only happens in national, ethnic, OT Israel ignores the fact that the NT actually heightens corporate solidarity rather than slackening it. Being “in Christ” (Eph 1:3) means deep connection (1 Cor 10:16-17) to other believers (1 Cor 12:12), including the “dead in Christ” (1 Thess 4:16). This can have at least something to do with sin if we needed salvation because of this multi-generational connection: “in Adam all die” (1 Cor 15:22) “because all sinned” (Rom 5:12). The pushback tends to be that I can’t repent of someone else’s sin in another generation. What they overlook is that I can, unknowingly even (Ps 19:12), sin “with” previous generations (see Ps 106:6; the Hebrew unequivocally means “with,” despite most English translations). The point is that when I do sin, I participate in a generations-old problem. So when I harbor racial prejudice, am dismissive of another ethnic group’s treatment, or blatantly ignore pleas from African American Christians to address hurtful trends in white churches or Christian organizations … I am sinning with racist believers of the past. And my repentance should dig deeper than my own soul, and penitentially lament the age-old nature of my sin (once again, see the model in Psalm 106).
I generally like Rebecca McLaughlin, and have recommended and given away her books. And I still will. But in this debate she used a lot of illogical arguments and English dept wordsmithing to make bad arguments sound good. For example, after discussing that greatness of Ruby Bridges, she said that while younger whites weren't there, "If you, like me, are a white evangelical, this is our tribe. And God have mercy on us if we do not repent."
But, then why wouldn't Ruby Bridges, herself, and other Bible-believing black Christians also need to repent of those sins? After all, does a black Christian's tribe not also include white Christian brothers and sisters? Since McLaughlin is critiquing sins done in the name of the church, wouldn't all believers be guilty? And should we also collectively repent of the sins of all people everywhere at any time? Are we not all part of the same human tribe? Is McLaughlin repenting of the sins of Genghis Khan? Or, is McLaughlin saying that being white is the central guilt-factor in our need for repentance? What makes her guilty of the sins of the 1950s and 1960s isn't that she's an evangelical, because by belief Ruby Bridges was too, but rather than she's white.
She also tried to prove that Americans actually believe in collective guilt by saying that we claim the accolades of past goods. She said we like to say, "We defeated the Nazis." And then she said we can't claim the credit for the past unless we also claim the guilt from the past. She says, "If we're not going to to go the route of corporate repentance, then let's also not go the route of corporate celebration of our past glories."
But, this argument quickly fails when you analyze what's actually being said in each case. Nobody from the Boomers or younger is saying "We defeated the Nazis" in a way that means they could stand alongside a WWII combat vet and take credit for the victory, too. What they mean is that the values of America then, that we still claim, resulted in a victory, and so we celebrate those values and seek to continue them. Yet, someone who is disavowing the values of the past, such as racism, is not therefore also required to accept the guilt of those past values simply because they want to continue other, different past values.
Again, this line of argument from McLaughlin would necessitate almost global collective sin. For, if you cannot celebrate "our" victory in WWII without also repenting of "our" sin in Jim Crow, then how can "we" celebrate the legacy of human rights without accepting the guilt of all human rights abuses? Can Westerners say that "we" developed a system of limited power in government, and seek to celebrate and continue constitutional government, without also accepting the guilt of nobles who abused peasants? Can McLaughling, herself, say that "we" Christians or Westerners built universities without her also personally repenting of the burning of Jan Huss and William Tyndale? Can McLaughlin say that "we" as a human race have an incredible history of technological innovation, going back thousands of years, without also accepting blame, for which she must currently repent, for all the evils ever done by those same humans?
Good logic here! Thanks for sharing.
This is exactly the point that I felt uncomfortable about Rebecca’s argument.
i am Korean and i have some Japanese friends. during world war 2 Japan has done horrendous things to Korea and Asia. we still debate about whether Japan has done the proper apology or not. and we are still against Japan history textbook not teaching their past truthfully.
but I would not force my Japanese or any other Japanese to repent on their past sin.
Even if they don’t explicitly repent their sin, this doesn’t nullify their willingness to speak about other justice and righteousness issue.
White evangelicals were opposed to the Civil Rights Movement while black Christians supported it, so yes, a horrific record on race is part of white evangelicalism's legacy, whether you like it or not.
please don't give away her books they are compromised
Goodness me, The Gospel Coalition is officially “woke.” So much heresy and disgust that I barely finished the video.
K.
By "Debate" I guess you mean "someone who actually agrees with us but can pose as opposition in order to shift the overton window and reframe the conversation"
Hi friend, I'm not posing in any way. I vehemently oppose wokeism and have the scars to prove it. What you've said about me is slander, even though it's only a comment on UA-cam. I'd be more than happy to speak with you more offline if you'd like. -Sean
This is laughable. Not a good faith debate at all. But this is what I’ve come to expect from TGC.
What makes you say that it’s in bad faith?
@@nickeldan because there's no true anti-CRT/woke representative. There's a liberal "expert" and a guy who says he's no expert and also isn't very conservative. If this was in good faith, they would have invited Voddie Baucham, Owen Strachen, or any one of the many, many conservative anti-CRT voices.
What makes you say that Sean DeMars isn't very conservative?
@@nickeldan “I’m not even sure that I can give a satisfactory definition of wokeness”. A conservative pastor definitely could do this. And there are many pastors who do fight this necessary battle in the pulpit and online. But this guy is not a good faith opponent against wokism. (He’s a safe choice, though, for these fake debates.)
I don't think I can give a satisfactory definition of "woke". It's a term that is bandied about so much without clarity that there's no singular "common parlance" definition. For example, a company that puts a rainbow on its logo during June could be rightly called "woke". However, some people link "wokeness" with Critical Theory. By that usage, putting up the rainbow decal doesn't necessarily make a company woke because they may or may not endorse CT.
That's what Sean DeMars was saying. Because the term is so amorphous and used so differently by so many people, it becomes difficult to pin it down to an official definition. Now, if we're talking about CT specifically, then that does make the definitional job easier.
You mention that that "there are many pastors who do fight this necessary battle in the pulpit and online." Do you not recognize that Sean is one of them? Are you unaware of the several video series he has critiquing CT in depth and warning that it is completely antithetical to the Gospel?
*A man is given 5 talents and earns 5 more*
Jesus: Well done, good and faithful servant.
Woke Christians: You didn’t really earn that since you started out with more. You are morally obligated to give your talents to the guy who started out with one.
Wish I give this more than a thumbs up. Brilliant
Jesus in the passage right after the one you referenced: “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me”
Jesus at the end of the passage: As you did to the least of these, *My disciples*, you did to Me.
The passage is not about using government force to help any random poor person. It is about voluntarily helping other *Christians*.
@@michaelhuguet5415 Excellent point. And to your point, when African American *disciples* say they still experience racism in America and in predominantly white churches (beyond one-off interactions, but also larger trends and pervasive attitudes), Matthew 25 constrains us to hear them out rather than label them as woke to avoid the penitence or change their rebuke might call for, per Matthew 25. The African American *disciple* seems to be Dr. McLaughlin’s primary concern in this debate, which means she is trying to follow Jesus’ commands for interacting with those experiencing affliction, not that she is woke and undermining Scripture. To be fair, maybe you weren’t claiming that about her with your comment. It seems like maybe you’re just frustrated with wider trends or government approaches?
That is correct. Also, woke types ignore that the Bible gives the accused the right to tell his side of the story (Proverbs 18:17) and the biblical standard is that evidence must confirmed by two or three impartial witnesses (Matthew 18:16 et. al.). We are forbidden from accepting an one’s story whole sale without following God’s standards of evidence.
You do not need to repent of sin that you already whole-heartedly repudiate and condemn.
The Southern Baptists, to my knowledge, have already written two separate statements of condemnation of their past as it regards racism.
There is no end to this demand.
Did they, who knew..I know of more than one Southern Baptist churches as of a few years ago in a city famous for the murder of black church goers that wont allow Black people to become members...They can visit and hang out, but not a member...
This was about as limp wristed as one could expect from TGC.
Hi friend, do you think that my initial argument was limp-wristed? Saying that wokeness is a threat to the gospel and that it's taking the church captive?
If you’re not a jerk then you’re limp wristed
@@jesusrocks256 ,Tbh pastor, I actually enjoyed your opening argument and I believe you hit a lot of the points well. I appreciate that you made the effort to explain “woke” ideology as a form of idolatrous synctretism that is infiltrating the Church and distorting the Gospel. I can only pray that more Christians would actually understand what “syncretism” even means and how truly dangerous it is to Christian unity.
My main critique is that it did not go far enough, and it was mostly directed at the discourse that took place after the opening statements. It appeared to me (and many others) that you were unwilling to label those holding/promulgating this false doctrine to be utterly outside the bounds of orthodoxy as though they should be considered co-laborers in Christ. You displayed such an open appreciation for the works of those who are operating outside the bounds of sound biblical teaching that it would be hard not to charge you with flattery… if not as an accessory. It was a half-measure when a stiff-arm was needed. It might have been a good swing if not for the poor follow-through. “Whoever rebukes a man will afterward find more favor than he who flatters with his tongue (Prov 28:23).”
@@Apeleutheros80 Hi friend, thank you for your feedback. Sincerely. (As an aside: Man, you have a way with words. The swing/follow through illustration is powerful.)
As far as your main critique, I half way agree with you. I do think I got a little too soft, particularly at the 25:10 mark. As for the disagreement: I'm not prepared to label everyone who is in any way influenced by wokeness "utterly outside the bounds of orthodoxy". There are some manifestations of Critical Theory that are heretical, and I've pointed them out time and time again. I've named names. I will again, if and when the need arises. As of right now, I'm not prepared to call Rebecca a wolf. I understand that you think I didn't go far enough, but friend, please know that it's because I care so much about the matters of "first importance" (1 For 15:3) that I'm unwilling to call Rebecca a heretic.
If I'm wrong, please pray that the Lord would give me eyes to see.
Your brother in Christ,
Sean
p.s. I have many heart issues to deal with, but flattery isn't one of them. ;)
@@jesusrocks256 I appreciate your kindness and I hope I didn’t come across as being too harsh in my initial statement. TGC has been letting a lot of us down with their approach to cultural issues for some time now, and sometimes my pessimism toward the organization gets the best of me. The emotional draw of the oppressed/oppressor dynamic found in conflict theory is something that is capable of converting the best intentions of well meaning people into something for the enemy to use against the unity of the Church. As you know, part of the DNA of its design is to be very subversive and very divisive. There are good brothers and sisters in Christ being taken captive by the philosophy, so your reluctance to carpet bomb the whole house of God is understandable. While I do think it necessary for the church to take a firmer stance against it, I can respect your gracious approach. You seem like a good dude and I assume you’re a caring pastor. God bless.
Is the point of this that a debate in a woke church is not a debate, but rather an opportunity for people to agree with each other about wrong ideas ? Is this some sort of 4D-chess game ?
Dear James, Sean Demars here. Thank you for taking the time to offer feedback on the debate. Question: Does it seem to you that Rebecca and I agree with each other? It seems to me like we are very much in disagreement on what wokeness is, where it comes from, and the threat it poses to the church. What would ACTUAL disagreement look like to you?
@@jesusrocks256 Sure, you disagree with her on her definition of woke, but you push for the same actions in church as does she. You say you lament together with your church ( I'm assuming for the past racial sins of forefathers given the context here). You recommend a book which is arguably woke. You fail to see Keller's compromise on same-sex attraction. She wants to make a separation between the gay-woke vs. racial-woke, but you can't address the absurdity of that separation because you are blind to the compromise of Keller and such. In contrast, you speak with far more clarity of conviction over those "to the right".
So, an actual disagreement would do things like, (1.) bring some "nuance" into the history, in fact churches did not align with MLK and his comrads for a variety of reasons many of which were far more political than racial (2.) you could push back about what exactly this "repentance" is for ? (3.) what about calling false teaching what it is ? Adding works to the Gospel ? Many have said a Gospel without social justice is not a full Gospel. That is a false teaching put forth by Dhati Lewis who was a leader for the SEND network of the SBC. This is a concrete example of how the woke church is not potentially leading to wrong theology, it IS wrong theology. I suspect you agree with much of what I said, but if TGC was serious about this debate they should have asked Jon Harris, or AD Robles, or Voddie Baucham, etc. someone who has studied and made a critical appraisal of critical theory.
Finally, and this has nothing to do with you obviously, the "moderator" added to her points in a number of places, but never so far as I recall, helped you add deeper clarity to your criticism. He puts forth the idea that the debate is just over a disagreement in terms. But, this is absurd. It's not ivory tower abstraction. There are real schools that are teaching white children they're oppressors just because they're white. That happened, and it is happening. Wringing our hands over the injustice that happened before we were born does nothing to address the actual problems which are currently being instantiated by antiracists.
The whole point of this debate for TGC is to set you up as a conservative so that when you deny the failing of SBC entities and TGC and Keller you have credibility. Your response to the question from the "moderator" around 48:30, that is the whole point of TGC posting this "good faith" debate.
Actual disagreement could look like telling this lady you think she’s oeddling dangerous things that ARE ALREADY causing a slippery slope, and damage to the church, give the reasons why, and ask her if you’re wrong. That would be a good start. You can do that civilly, in brotherly love, but maybe not winsomely
@@jesusrocks256 thank you standing on truth, brother. As a Black Christian, I am very disappointed with the general passion of the “woke” church when it comes to popularized issues; ie racial injustice, lgbtq agenda, but take what seems to be monumental effort to ignore the plight of the unborn.
We must remember that it was also unpopular for Christians stand against slavery at one point in time also.
Standing alongside the world is easy, it doesn’t require Christ. Standing when the world stands against you, is an act solely of Christ.
Be blessed, brother.
@@jamescook5617 thank you
13 Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”
14 Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” 15 Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”
16 And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. 17 He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’
18 “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. 19 And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’
20 “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’
21 “This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”
Luke 12:13-21
It would have been nice to actually see a debate here. Rebecca reduces "wokeness" to saying racism is bad. None of the Christian critics of woke church would disagree with that at all. This issue is about 1. Rewriting history, 2. Promoting racial essentialism, 3. Promoting unbiblical standards of justice and epistemology, etc. Why were none of these issues addressed, except in passing mention by Sean? Why is the entire conversation segment of this simply the uplifting of a very rosy image of "wokeness"?
Again, if all we're talking about here is that racism is bad and Christians should recognize that, nothing new or illuminating has even been said. But this isn't in any way the substance of what we're dealing with in actuality, but a totalizing ideology that is, at nearly every possible point, hostile to the biblical worldview.
I’d be curious to ask Rebecca about quoting Yuvall Noah Harari, 5 times in her book, The Secular Creed. Is it because he is gay or because he is demonic?
Someone got Dawkins-ed. Remember when Dawkins debated John Lennox and Lennox widep the floor with him? Since that time Dawkins only debates flyover country backwoods Baptist types. I have absolutely no respect for TGC or Dr. M. This is what propaganda looks like.
This was a debate? LOL.
Right?!?
Can someone (hopefully the moderator himself) explain why at the end when he said that the woke church being on a slippery slope is a logical fallacy? Why is this a logical fallacy? Why is it even a fallacy given the demise of woke denominations and churches, contrasted with the comparative health of their "non-woke counterparts". ? I do not know the narrator or participants name because introduction of people and place seemed to be rarely if at all mentioned. Otherwise I profited from this presentation. Thanks.
"slippery slope" is a logical fallacy. Though many people use it to indicate that something can lead to something else, in logic that's not a valid argument
@24:00 I was like, "Well, that argument for woke wasn't convincing. I feel like I don't even need to hear the argument against it." It was only then that I realized that whatever that first guy said wasn't an introduction to the debate, it was the actual negative position! Wow!
Negative? I would use the word "accurate" (position) because his arguments stood still till the end
@@arhabersham "Negative" as in "against the resolution."
@@dachickenman Oh I see! Thank you
Madam Professor. I won,t take responsibility for things, that happened before I was born, and I didn't parti
cipate in fighting the Nazis. You need to improve your arguments, in stead of setting up this ridiculous straw man.
I am sadly left broken hearted, supposed “Christians” even discussing this. The Bible clear states how we are to treat not just fellow Christian’s. Not that we shouldn’t care how a group is treated, but we are not called to fix these problems. We are called to preach the gospel, to make disciples and leave the changing of hearts to Christ, hearts are out of wheelhouse are humans. The problem is sin, it has always been sin, it will always be sin until Christ returns! Our job his to preach the gospel: how Christ died for us, rose again for the forgiveness of sin. Reconciliation comes from his death and resurrection! Not us! We just proclaim it
The gospel must be first and foremost, good call on that. Historically, preach the gospel ONLY was what many preachers said to MLK. He responds to that type of critique in his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” which provides good counterpoints to your post, as to what should be done in addition to the primary task of gospel preaching.
Problem is sin but problem is our reluctance/ indifference to certain sins.
This is the point I find is the crux of this debate--- generational sins are found in the OT not NT. Christ calls us individually to repent, not in groups. He says in Matthew 12:50: "For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." Those who do the will of the Father are my family. All races are susceptible to the guilt of sin.
It’s great to hear a debate from the Gospel Coalition that is constantly quoting Scripture….
Woah. Some evangelicals do have valid concerns about Keller being woke/tilting to the left. Just some of his tweets about abortion and his support of Francis Collins who funded research with aborted fetal parts. Also how he indirectly called out John MacArthur for keeping his church open during Covid was a red flag to me. I don’t think you should be so dismissive of those who have concerns about Christian leaders. I still read some of Keller’s books and devotionals and greatly enjoy them, but we are still allowed to critique the views of our leaders.
I don’t have any concerns regarding registered Democratic operative, Tim Kellar. He endorses and supports a godless, Christ-hating, bible -hating, and Christian- hating political ideology rooted in Marxism. He does so because he’s the wolf in sheep’s clothing Jesus warned of in Matt. 7:15-19. Jesus commands us to mark and avoid false teachers like Kellar which is exactly what I’ve done. Problem solved.
From John Gill's Exposition of the Bible (2 Corinthians 5:16): "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh..... Since the death and resurrection of Christ, which has broken down the middle wall of partition, and has took away all distinction of men, we know, we esteem, we value no man on account of his carnal descent, and fleshy privileges, as being of the Jewish nation, a descendant of Abraham, and circumcised as he was; or on account of their outward state and condition, as being rich and honorable among men, or on account of their natural parts and acquirements, their learning, wisdom, and eloquence; nor do we own any man to be a Christian, that lives after the flesh, to himself, and not to Christ; nor do we make account of the saints themselves as in this mortal state, but as they will be in the resurrection, in consequence of Christ's having died for them, and rose again."
Completely useless time spent
Wokeness is not a stepping stone to theological compromise, it IS theological compromise
none of these people quote scripture.
I have a great deal of respect for Rebecca on almost every issue. But this one... She defines wokeness in the most agreeable way. We can all admit to the horrible way black people were treated in the past. This is Including much of the "church". Nobody is arguing against this, or at least so few, why is she talking about it? It seems like a Motte and Bailey, to define "woke" as softly and universally agreeably as possible as historical wrongs, and then defend it. Wokeness is saying these same injustices are happening today, promotes the idea of white privilege and racial essentialism. She says nothing about the extreme excesses Sean brings up, and that is what is infiltrating the church. As for repenting, the New Testament says nothing about repenting for the sins of others. I do think lamenting is a far more appropriate word. Rebecca is far too intelligent to not know what these words mean. If we could all unite against the extremes of wokeness, then we could work on the actual injustices without lending credibility to ungodly and non-biblical Concepts like critical race Theory.
I’m way more comfortable taking common grace wisdom from an unbeliever than a Marxism compromised “Christian”...
The Bible says a whole lot about repenting for our communities, and I'm not sure where you get the idea that we should arbitrarily limit it to the New Testament, but here's an example. Acts 2:22 is a passage where Peter addresses a crowd of at least 3000 and says they put Jesus to death. Were all 3k at the cross? Surely not. Yet they have a collective sin that Peter can nevertheless address.
Sean, Ramon here, I am curious to know your thoughts of why TGC decided not to have a person of color who is also an Evangelical address the “WOKE” topic?
Also, on a separate note, as a Christian Psychologist, I find the narrative related to Freud often in church settings unsettling. Freud’s role on how we discuss the psychology of women is paramount to understand as evangelicals. Psychology, mental health all were influenced by church narratives, often in a negative way. Judith Herman, MD, is an expert in this field.
All in all, people like Hegel, Freud, and Karl Marx and their views must be evaluated with charity. Evangelicals minimize the importance of their contributions in society, perhaps to our demise.
Thank you for sharing your convictions with us, Sean.
@rdiaz0960 Do you mean have a persona of color take the position of pro-woke or a person of color take the position of anti-woke?
Take down this debate and try again. The pairing of these two individuals in debate is certainly interesting. It’s obvious they tried to set this up to profit one side more than the other. Gross.
Which side?
TGC, thank you for putting this beneficial video together. It helped me to hear the strengths and pitfalls of each side of the argument. I appreciate the graceful tone that the debate had as well.
Love a good debate where they have their finger on the scales
When does the debate begin? This is weaksauce.
Instead of spending so much of your life blaming others and crying about how others are "racist", how about addressing your own racism and lack of personal responsibility?
Wokeness is Critical Theory. We should call it by its proper name. It is Critical Theory
quite honestly, I have no interest in what these two have to say about what is imperative for the church of Christ while ignoring the scriptures, where God CLEARLY instructs the Church on how to conduct themselves and how to address the world and culture (2 Tim. 3:16).
I was excited about this series and this topic. Then the first presenter list 40 reasons why he is unqualified for this topic. I stopped watching. Discrediting yourself is a terrible way to start a speech/debate. Or if you really have no qualifications don’t say anything and don’t go. Arg… what a waste
You're probably right, John. It was intended to be a tongue in cheek attack on the credentialism fallacy often employed by the left, but it seems to have backfired on me. Thank you for your feedback.
@@jesusrocks256 I appreciate hearing from you. Knowing this I wish I would have picked up on more sarcasm. Thank you for your reply.
@@jonnichols4663 No problem, brother. May the Lord bless us and keep us both!
One of my primary critiques of Christianity as a non-Christian was the seemingly all-consuming hate-filled xenophobia that I witness amongst people who called themselves Christians. Now that I’m a Christian and reading the Gospel and asking the Lord to discern my heart and create a clean heart within me, I am astounded at the amount of hate and pride within this comment section. A brother and a sister in Christ are discussing an important issue facing the modern church with a charitable disposition towards each other, yet the majority of comments I see here are slinging mud at both because their particular narrow-minded hate-filled view isn’t being represented in the way they want. This is the reason culture is leaving the church behind and waging war against Christians, not because the enemy is forcing them to but because hateful Christians turn them away themselves. Christ spoke very clearly about so called followers of Christ who turned people away from Him so while I’m not surprised some xenophobic warhawks have been lying in wait to snipe from a safe position behind their phone keyboards, I am deeply saddened by the disdain shown for Christ’s central most important commandment for His followers: Love one another as I have loved you. Read the gospel again and please pray about whether you are acting in humility and charity before you type out that hate-filled comment.
Amazing how many people would rather see Voddie Baucham rather than Carl Ellis
Brandon Washington wrote a phenomenal book on race and the church "A Burning House" is a must read. Great debate!
these people aren`t chrsitans. they are not all leftist., but they are not at all that much christian.., there are over 2 billion christiains on earth., the u.s. christians, are the most sorry among them all
I think it wrong to use the political term “Woke” in the church context
Rebecca McLaughlin
So I think we need to get into a place where we are humbly and with love and our hearts preaching and teaching truth when it comes to race, and preaching and teaching truth when it comes to sexuality and gender, recognizing actually the ways in which we Christians have also sinned in our treatment of RACIST people outside the church and in our failure to love PRONE TO RACISM brothers and sisters within the church. I think we can and should do that, while also being very clear about what the Bible calls us to when it comes to RACISM. but spoiler alert, it doesn’t call us to hateful treatment. If anybody you know, Jesus calls us to love even our enemies. So I think love it having a humble, loving, repentant, personally repented approach to all of these things, while we make much of Jesus and little little of ourselves is going to be the best way to guard the church.
Problem here is "hateful treatment" changes meaning. And I don't really know if "hateful" can ever be a thing of opinion. Now oppressing, withholding and denying someone or peoples because of what they look like or where they come from is sinful discrimination. Physically assaulting someone is also sin. These things are often done because the person has hate in their heart. Anything that hurts someone's feelings can be described as "hateful treatment" calling someone a viper or hypocrite could be considered "hateful treatment". It's just a messy term that can be used to control people.
Whens the “is TGC apostate debate?” It’s not sojourn… yet but it’s headed down that road. They agree on so much already.
There is hope in the comment section
Exactly lol!
I can't find anywhere that Marx used the word woke. Can someone cite that?
Dumpster fire
Why did you not invite Voddie Bauchum?
The cringe is real
Agreed.
Thank you so much for having this amazing conversation!
I think Mr. DeMars did a good job of pointing out the toxicity of Wokeness but did not explain why it is toxic from a Biblical standpoint.
If this was supposed to be in “Good Faith” TGC is obviously faithless.
Other than being past tense of WAKE,
WTF do you mean by 'WOKE'?
I agree with the Lady on everything except the corporate confession. I think we should make a point to call it out together but just like we don't expect black Christians to repent I don't feel called to repent for our ancestors'sin. That said recognizing that we still have biases that are present in our life is important and we should repent of those. Also they said he doesn't want to use the word WOKE but then kept using it like a buzzword.
Galatians 1:8
Yeah, on careful and winsome reflection, brit lady is not a good faith actor. Sorry, not sorry
Really enjoyed this debate and benefitted from hearing two believers disagree in kindness.
Wish I had your unity cool aid
Why don’t they let Voddie and Eric Mason debate this??????
Why did they choose these people to do this?
Thanks for this grace-filled wonderful debate. However, CRT stands in direct opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ which breaks down every wall of division between ethnicities. I would propose that Col. 3:10-11; Gal 2:11-14; 3:27-28; Eph. 2:11-19, etc., indicate we are all one “ethnos” in Christ. I preach a gospel that unifies us across all racial lines, a gospel where Christ has “broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility” (Eph 2:14).
Galatians 3:27-28
(27) For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 2:11-14
(11) When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, because he stood to be condemned. (12) For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself, for fear of those in the circumcision group. (13) The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. (14) When I saw that they were not walking in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
Ephesians 2:11-19
(11) Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles in the flesh and called uncircumcised by the so-called circumcision (that done in the body by human hands)- (12) remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. (13) But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. (14) For He Himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has torn down the dividing wall of hostility (15) by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace (16) and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility. (17) He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. (18) For through Him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. (19) Therefore you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household,
The whole book of Galatians is about this very issue! adherence to the law makes one a Judaizer who preaches a different gospel (Gal. 2:16, 19, 21; 3:2-3, 10-11;13;27; 5:1;6;9;18). Any ideology that would pit ethnicities against one another or make for instance Jews adhere to the law again…is a different gospel. CRT and Wokeness added to the gospel make it a pseudo-gospel! trust in Christ alone! That is the consistent teaching of the NT; Christ alone NOT adherence to the law. And pitting races against each other is anti-gospel. The gospel has torn down the “dividing wall of hostility.” These ideologies erect walls of hostility between races and ethnicities. The gospel tears them down! Blessings in Christ!
Cringe. This wasn’t even a debate. He lost in his opening statements. How twisted.
Woke is about equity.
Equity is the Cain and Abel story.
Resentment leading to revenge .
American History IS indeed a history of empire building in which the foundational roots are of discrimination - discrimination against the Native Americans. If you fail to deny that then you're not the kind of Christian organization that I can respect. (PS: I'm a Chinese-Canadian)
You American Christians are too fragile. You fail to take responsibility for the empire your government has built with their Military Industrial Complex and what the Western World has wrought unto this world with Colonialism + Industrialization + Capitalism. You're all way too fragile to own up to the sins of your forefathers and so all you can do is stand behind a pulpit and speak platitudes of "Jesus died for us" and blah blah blah. All you can do is spit out cliche after cliche because you're all too scared to stand up to the establishment of the American Empire and are brainwashed by the Red Scare environment of America. You all sicken me - being "woke" however has a good and bad side to it. There's a good/right way to be "woke" but there's a bad/wrong way to be "woke"... I for one as a Christian consider myself "woke", but not in the Neo-Liberal sense, more so in the sense that this world is the way it is due to a globally-inequitable reality whereby the West is responsible for the true Axis of Evil:
1) Climate Change
2) Poverty
3) World Conflict
Nvm, I take back the "you all sicken me" comment - I like Rebecca a lot!
The other problem you American Christians have is you all have a sanitized understanding of history - have you heard of Operation Paperclip, Operation Highjump, and the whole Arms/Space Race ONLY happened 'cuz the US cared ONLY about competition. Oh and you all love to celebrate the Ally victory over the Nazis, but you rarely talk about the Pacific Theatre - you now support Japan who was once an aggressor and still is... you rarely acknowledge the evils the Japanese Empire conducted against their neighbours, you rarely condemn them, only now have a Military-Industrial Complex and you rarely condemn that... you American/Western Christians uphold the status quo more so than denounce it and try to fix the problems within the status quo.
Every nation on earth has (throughout various times) committed discrimination. It doesn't make their sole history and founding one of discrimination.
Some nations (like Canada and the US) have eliminated most of their discriminatory policies, others (like China, most of the Middle East and various other parts) are still actively engaged in discrimination as a matter of policy.
@@humz403 you’re wrong
I agree with everything Rebecca has stated here, while Sean raises some very good points. We need to define these terms before we can even have a proper discussion. Most of all, I appreciate the civility displayed here. It's refreshing.
All the comments are like “this isn’t a debate! They’re not fighting!” That’s the point! This is what Christian charity looks like! If you want a fight go back to Fox News!
A debate isn’t a fight although I am pleased that they were civil to one another. It’s when parties put forth an argument with points that support their position and then defend it. This didn’t happen it this video. They simply stated their opinions. This video is a perfect example of why opinion is the lowest form of knowledge.
WOW!
You certainly like hearing yourself talk using words that do not exist.
At one point of agreement (around 28:45) - that at a minimum we can lament, it is worth noting that no woke person will lament the destruction of the black family, the black poverty rate, or the black incarceration rate that all spiraled due to LBJ and the welfare state. Lament that you have tried to make Uncle Sam your husband/daddy, and turn to God as the source and authority.
If we want to lament all the way back to the transatlantic slave trade, let's lament the tribal leaders who enslaved their own and sold them to another tribe, who owned the majority of the slave ships.
I would be careful to say "NO woke person will lament..." I agree that the voices that are most prominent now are not at all lamenting the things you describe. But in our current heavily tribalized culture, it is not helpful to speak in the absolutes of everyone, no one, none, all, etc. - I would argue it is important to lean into recognizing the spectrum and degrees people have on ideological camps. We can alienate people who would otherwise agree with us on a point if we are too quick to be absolute in attributing negative qualities to another group. Just like many will push back when they hear someone saying "all white people are actively racist unless they're entirely anti-racist [in the ways they themselves define]" - there is no room to come together for mutual understanding or reconciliation when your ideology or group has been uniformly painted with a negative quality.
I apologize that this is long and likely seems pedantic over a small detail. It's because I agree that the recent cultural destruction is devastating, and I want to see that conversation grow as a healthy place for voices to be heard, so I would just advise care in how we approach it.
Great comment
@@bricelory9534 well met
@Guido De Based 1561 I agree, especially as demands for apologies seem to keep shifting and not pinned to anything solid beyond accusations. It is very hard to see what reconciliation can look like in that - and honestly, it may simply be impossible with those bad actors who are using these causes for political gain or self-proclaimed revolution. I don't think that is everyone who would describe themselves as "woke" though, and so I think there is space to understand what grievances people do have.
What I mean is, I remember in 2015 with the Ferguson shootings being mostly unwilling to listen to people saying there was a serious problem that they experience regularly - because in my immediate surroundings I didn't really see it, and I certainly didn't experience it (for numerous reasons), but over the years I've grown convicted that as Christians, we need to be open to *hearing* people in their pain and problems - are we as individuals and as a body willing to believe there is a problem we're not personally seeing? I don't think this means we have to agree on the proposed solution or the proposed reasons for the problem, but are we listening? I think this is the first step in what I think of with reconciliation, being willing to recognize that our perspective does have blind spots.
Now I think it's important that I am very clear, I don't consider myself "woke" at all, and I tend toward a more traditional view of political conservative (social conservative values, limited power) though I recognize that Biblically there is some call for social care that may lead to more central or traditionally liberal social values (such as stated goals of protecting weak and poor, though I recognize that for the powerful elite it may be dubious how much that actually has been their values). I say all this because I just want to be clear that I think seeking Biblical reconciliation isn't really an issue of wokeness.
But what I think reconciliation looks like is far more pro-active and focused on specific concerns rather than focusing on the vague ideas of "systemic" problems that in my experience tend to remain undefined. And then to hear what concerns people who are experiencing the problem are expressing (and I don't believe doing this by saying the other group needs to shut up or can't be part of the conversation/solution is the right answer - that is not reconciliation, which brings two estranged groups together). Repentance I think needs to be a ready option that Christians are looking at, because we recognize that we are all sinners in various ways. As such, we may not feel we need to repent, but it is something we consider. And I am honestly torn in the role of corporate confession/repentance, and also how to react when a group says "you must repent of XYZ" - part of me pushes back, but I am not sure that pushback is healthy. So, unfortunately, I don't have much to offer about repenting of previous generations' sins, but I know I am also really very ready to say "I am so sorry that XYZ hurt you. That was not God's way" to someone who expresses how past sins have hurt their lives.
It's important, I think, also to recognize that reconciliation requires both parties to engage in it. We cannot force it on someone who doesn't want it. So, I think these days, there will be many times we can only do the part we are called to: offer repentance where we see we were in the wrong, and forgiveness for those who wrong us. But it may not lead to healing between the two estranged groups. In terms of this conversation, that may mean large groups that identify themselves as hurt by the church in some way may never look to re-gain trust with the church, but it still is our responsibility to do our part in the process.
So, if, for example, members of the black community say they live in fear of the police, I need to not simply write off that serious issue but to take their complaint seriously. I don't necessarily need to agree with what they believe is the root cause of the issue, nor the best solution, but I do need to take it seriously. Unfortunately, many complaints I have heard personally, is that the church (as they see it) don't seem to be taking it seriously. And that is something we need to address for the sake of reconciliation, and especially for the sake of Christ and his glory among the nation.
This is an awful take. You pretty much just blamed the Dems and blacks. You’re the problem.
While I enjoyed this conversation and the civility of it, I do think it would have been beneficial to have a black individual included-since black individuals were mentioned so much. While I admire these two for speaking up for black Christians and other people of color, it would have been helpful to have someone who has LIVED the things they were speaking about (segregation, racism, civil rights movement, etc.) there to share their personal experiences and thoughts.
But, thankful for this conversation being had ☺️
Yea, get Voddie Baucham up there. That would be nice to see someone who actually disagrees take place in this "debate"
Which one was arguing against CRT?
This was hardly a debate. DeMars' assertions were weak at best and he literally undermined his own credibility from the start, which is a shame because McLaughlin is peddling lies straight from the pit of hell that must be met with equal measure a la Martin Luther. Sorry not sorry....
Next time invite Owen Strachan please
Agreed.
Why does no one remember when being woke was on par with being a conspiracy theorist? Was EVERYONE born after the 90's?
That was a great debate. I truly appreciate the civil tone and overall desire to communicate with each other. Thank you, Sean and Rebecca.
This comment section about to get froggy.
Wokeness and Christianity are incompatible!
Sean DeMars did a great job
Thank you for having this discussion
These debates are certainly creating debates if the comments section is anything to go by.
Woke or not, it's still pathetic religious mythology.
Good discussion, horrible set. It’s dark and dreary.
Well appreciated, Thank You!
meh
This had my dying laughing what a joke.... I've never heard anyone start a debate by saying how uneducated they are ROFL .... YOU guys got some really good experts lol. You got the liberal expert you wanted to push your narrative.... thank God that for now TGC has been revealed as a wolf in wolves clothing . I needed a laugh today praise God.
Thank you so much for this discussion!
This wasn’t a debate. This is controlled opposition. What a terrible video.
Eric Mason would take this guys lunch money 💰💰😜😜
😂yes!
Do you think an African American Christian should have been a part of the debate?
I was wondering that as I watched
Absolutely but one who is able to challenge Mason and Tisby.
Who is an African American theologian who you think strikes the right cord on these issues?
I don't think any black preacher has been better on covering social justice and woke trends than Voddie Baucham.
I need to give him a look, thanks for the recommendation
Yeshua Hamashiach was a black man
They both make excellent points. We certainly have much to think about.