I tried to watch this debate and Jon is very gracious and patient to sit through this slam poetry session. Marxism and cultural Marxism in the church is an affront to the Scriptures, the Lord, and his people.. When it comes to the subject matter the pastor's presentation would be mincemeat for Eric Mason. He fits into the narrative Mason speaks about. You need a man of God who could strike back at Mason blow for blow and not be shouted down.
Marxism in the church is apostasy. Wokeness is rooted in CRT which is rooted in Critical Theory which is rooted in neo-Marxism which is rooted in Marxism. Marxism hates Christianity.
@@pvbaelen People refuse to see the clear and obvious links from Marx and say it's just history. Many of the same guys who feel everything is racist can't apply that standard to the abortion genocide.
This pastor, Sean Demars, sounds EXACTLY like my former pastor. "What? Me Woke? Nooooo." He's taken so many tips from the Tim Keller playbook: just enough likeability, just enough "humility", just enough "nuanced words", just enough truth offered up to make the average Christian think they're OK and can't do anything wrong. It's like "doctrinal quicksand" that you can't get out of. This is why doctrinal watchdogs (like Jon, AD, Right Response Ministries, Fighting for the Faith, James White, etc.) are so incredibly important!
Am I missing something? TGC had to search for the most unqualified person to debate this subject and then he thoroughly outs this in his opening statement? It seems like he wanted the audience to know, this is a set-up. After the opening, I already agree that no matter the results, this debate was a sham. - Why do pastors have to "scold" those who uphold the Scriptures and God's law? So weird. The revolting behavior from the left ("Christians") overwhelm the conversation.
They picked him completely on purpose because not only is he a white man, he's also a pastor in the deep South in Alabama, so he's extra racist and complicit in slavery and yada yada yada. Take your pick of toppings from the CRT buffet. He's also there to be dominated by a supposedly superior woman to play into the egalitarian push that is afoot currently. They're pushing the envelope and moving the Overton window incessantly. Every part of this is to frame the one-sided conversation to their skewed view and fully present their activist playbook of CRT narratives shrouded in Keller level nuance.
Being very honest, this is where I am at at this point. This wokeness stuff got old. For these guys to be debating this is the stuff of DUMDUMS. They don't want to debate it, they want to promote. This was obviously a setup job.There should be no discussion anymore, only shaming and disassociation. The only place where I hear about TGC nowadays are on channel like this, and I appreciate Jon a lot. But I lost all my patience with this subject, good on you for having the patience.
@@jyerkes94 but he’s a part of JD Greear’s church and supported resolution 9 in the SBC. He would only be slightly better than Demars but would mislead people into thinking this is a good faith “in-house” debate on secondary issues.
@@jordansmith7895 I know. Its an interesting thing. Since it is a TGC thing they are going to have one of their guys or gals do it. An outsider would never be able to do it.
I'll probably get around to watching your video, but I didn't watch the debate because of the opening statement. Unless he had unusually good instincts, it seemed like TGC was setting up a straw man.
Exactly, this is a setup in order to preach a sermon. It's a disgrace. The "guy on our side" seems genuine and this make me even angrier at the ordeal. They purposely vetted this guy in order to destroy him, but he actually revealed their entire scheme in the beginning LOL "[I'm just a random guy thats a pastor]" You can't make this stuff up. It's like God revealed their stupid schemes through a weak man. They picked someone to beat up and the guy actually destroys them in the opening statement. It reveals the PURPOSEFUL oversight on the part of whoever set this thing up.
Sad, but not surprising about Pastor Sean. Mybfirst exposure to him was American Gospel. Then he and another AG guy started a podcast and they dropped a bunch of CRT analysis and discussion. Here is the thing. He is not inarticulate. He is not unknowleadgeable. He has just landed on this is not the biggest threat to the church. He even says that conservative syncratism and response to wokeness is just as dangerous. Most of their podcast was an analysis of CRT, then there was months of a break. And BOOM, they drop a podcast on how "our side" gets it wrong. I like how he acts as thought because his church is small, that means he can't be woke. How weird. He clearly has been given a platform. You are spot on, Jon. Even the format has nothing to do with debate. Not seeking truth. Just saying sweet nothings to each other. Here is the sad things, conservatives will say how we are friends and on the same side and theybwill trash other conservatives to get those woke cookies (as John Cooper says) and the favor will never be returned.
I wanted Pastor Sean to point out the seeming inevitability of "wokeism" leading into liberation theology, as inevitably a woke preacher will tend to preach about the state of the community (rather than the church) and the salvation and sonship of the world (rather than the elect). Much left here to be desired.
I haven't watched or listened to the full debate, but what always stands out to me is how little scripture is actually used to justify these positions. Any time the woke crowd does refer to scripture, it points to Old Testament prophecy concerning Israel, or even the Day of the Lord (which has yet to occur, and is going to be a severe wake up call for the world about what judgment really looks like). If the emphasis of one's gospel message is on the sin of the man and not the finished work of Christ, it is anything BUT "good news".
This whole teaching of blaming someone else for another person’s sin is just another false teaching and a satanic attack against the truth of scripture, giving people an excuse for their sinfulness instead of their own selfish dead nature and blinding them even further of their need for salvation. The prophet of God said in Ezekiel 18:20, “ The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” There is only one person who can atone for the sins of another, who was punished in the sinners place, and that is the perfect sinless Lamb of God, the Lord Jesus Christ who takes away the sin of the world. Thanks again John for another timely message. God bless ❤️
Sean Demars was an odd pick for sure. His opening statements seemed to disqualify himself, I thought an opening statement was there to quantify why you've been chosen to engage in debate. I know him from American Gospel and he was clear and concise there, spoke truthfully. He was believable. Judging from that he's the kind of person I would want to say "hey Sean, these guys aren't your friends."
This is so disappointing and to be honest I was a little shocked to hear Demars’ name because he and Russell Berger definitely were the ones who educated me on CRT, its tenets, its history, and how it is inherently a threat to the gospel on their own podcast (that he even references)! And they went pretty deep into what it meant because they specifically didn’t want to misrepresent the viewpoint. So hearing this out of his mouth and also hearing him basically say he doesn’t know anything about it was very disappointing and I’m confused as to why a year later he is now fighting against the same group that he took part in educating and equipping against CRT.
Your analysis is ok, but we all need to hear from the "Smooth AD" for this one. Such serious academic discourse requires the mellow tones and well-aged sarcasm which only the one and only Smooth AD can proffer.
Sean: "Sometimes I talk with people to the left of me and I have to say. "Eh...I wouldn't say that. That isn't very helpful."" Also Sean: "Then I talk with people to the right of me and they are just entirely ignorant of so many different things and they are cold and calloused..."
Jon, we visited Stone Town, Zanzibar last year. This island off the coast of Tanzania is where the slave trade started. Blacks imprisoned and sold blacks. Do we ever hear the woke folks talk about this history? The museum in Stone Town is sobering!
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.
32:55 The pastor said he is not part of Big Eva since he has a small church then goes on to say how he is mentored by and enjoys fellowship with Big Eva. No wonder his parishioners say he is Big Eva...
These wokesters seem to think and speak of church history the same way that Howard Zinn thinks and speaks of American history. We should always be self-reflective and open to growth as the church, but when Christians begin to focus only on where "it's gone wrong" rather than how our Savior is using His church to bless the world with the gospel and be salt and light, then a soul crushing malaise will settle in. The bride has blemishes until Christ's return, but we are STILL HIS BRIDE!
The wokesters approach church history the way Howard Zinn approaches American history because they're operating from the same worldview paradigm - Marxism. CRT is just Marx's oppressor vs. oppressed dialectic with race substituted in place of wealth/class.
If you’re comparing them to Howard Zinn because they’re supposedly being revisionist, then why would they bother mentioning things like the 1619 Project? Wouldn’t that undermine their own revisionism to point out other things that are blatantly revisionist? Also Sean seems pretty clear to me that he’s not focusing on just what’s wrong. I would recommend listening to his actual point rather than responding to a parroted caricature
@@nikhilrao7174 My only point was a general one. It may not necessarily respond 1 to 1 with what anyone here was saying. I just think that some Christians today seem to always focus on how terrible the church has screwed up, and I liken that perspective to how Zinn seems to focus only on how awful America has screwed up. All I'm suggesting is that such a negative attitude towards the church is bound to have some negative consequences. Not sure how my opinion is a parroted caricature, but thanks for the kind response.
@@Alan112573 I apologize I was unnecessarily harsh and ask for forgiveness. I personally don’t see either side being overly pessimistic about the past but I understand others see it differently.
@conversationsthatmatter Sean DeMars is one of the preachers opposing prosperity from The American Gospel doc. Good to know he’s so involved with TGC. :/
One side note, not about the debate but an assertion Jon made about why people would have gone to a public lynchinig. The idea that people gathered to watch a lynching...not a public execution, but a LYNCHING...was to teach their kids what not to do or as some object lesson in proper behavior is ridiculous. A lynching is an extrajudicial murder, generally carried out by a mob, and it is done whether the person lynched is guilty of anything or not. Maybe a lesson could be taught by taking someone to a public execution, where the person had been tried, found guilty, and sentenced lawfully...but what lesson was goig to be taught at a lynchng? "Hey, don't grow up to be a black person accused of some offense or this might happen to you?"
The brother is the same pastor featuring in the first movie of 'American Gospel', he is pastor/friend of the Bergers as well, and Rusell Berger co-host with Sean DeMars a podcast 'Defend & Confirm' Podcast. Maybe you can interview him? In good faith(ua-cam.com/users/DefendandConfirmPodcast)
I’d recommend the defend and confirm podcasts on CRT. Sean gives the topic several hours. A one hour debate is equivalent to a tweet, impossible to completely explain anything complex.
he is on one of the original AG TV shows. American Gospel or something. I had respect for him after watching that. He really seemed to teach the real Gospel. Now he has fallen into some of these traps of the woke
Is Sean really this unaware of the problems with CRT and wokeness infiltrating the church? Is that possible? I’ve always been a bit squeemish about Rebecca. She wrote a book that used standpoint epistemology so she’s definitely a crt believer.
Which book? I read one of hers and it was ok. It soft peddled some orthodox points when she could've been more straightforward, but I didn't notice anything super off at the time.
"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." -John Gill's Exposition of the Bible (2 Corinthians 5:16)
So I just watched most of the debate. Final conclusion. Rebecca is a true believer (in the need to be woke) and Sean is not a true believer in his warning against wokeness. Which is why he is harsher on conservatives than the woke. If wokeness was the threat he very clearly and correctly defined in the beginning, he would have no qualms in saying we should not participate in repentance and lamentation services that are endless and enslave us to guilt. Instead he says it makes him "uncomfortable" and Rebecca says, "God help us if we are not woke." Is it any wonder people feel compelled to enslave themselves to wokeness?
I sometimes don't make comments because I have so much to say and wind up saying nothing, so I'll say a little rather than nothing. That "debate" seemed as phony as a three-dollar bill. It seemed to be an implementation of the hegelian dialectic. It reminded me of the interview between Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman on one-issue voting, which also seems to be as phony as a three-dollar bill and an example of the hegelian dialectic being implemented. Okay, technically I don't know that this is the case for a fact, but I can say that if one were going to stage a debate and Implement the hegelian dialectic, this is how you would do it. I do think that being familiar not just with the facts but also with the methodology of marxists can maybe sometimes be helpful. Regardless, the parts of the "debate" that I saw in the video just seemed to advance the leftist cause, regardless of motive.
I didn't see the original debate, but.. If this pastor has no credentials (except pastor), then I would expect to hear a sermon from him based on a sound biblical case. This guy- not by his lack of formal education- but from his extra-biblical education (he mentioned books he's read) that he doesn't even admit he's received makes for a shameful display and a weak case. We are all educated somewhere and if scripture is poorly discerned and exegeted, you get a rhetorical [mostly emotional or worldly] argument that is not coherent and can even become heretical. As to the Cambridge lady, she may need to get her money back- all that education and still a poorly packaged rhetorical history lesson. Here is my non-humanities-educated response: I do not claim part of the tribe of left leaning evangelicals, so self described; nor have I ever registered with the party of Jim Crowe 1.0/lynching (since left-leaning politics seems to play in heavy to what some people know, that isn't so).
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.
That Pastor’s ministry is wrecked. He exposed himself in a bad way, essentially unable to defend the eternal truths of the faith once delivered to the saints. Jon’s criticism here will eventually make it’s way to members of whatever church the debater “pastors.” Also, for those who think seminary should not be a requirement in order to be a teaching elder, this was a good anecdotal example why it should. Jesus taught his disciples for 3 years, pastors could go to seminary for a M Div (takes 3 years full time).
Most pastors went to seminary, therefore most woke pastors came out of seminary. Does this mean not going to seminary is a solution? What denominations typically don’t require seminary training? Everyone within Christianity Liberty is free to make decisions to a point. Myself, I can’t imagine submitting myself to a Pastor who hasn’t had to study the Bible, prove he has, can actually write theology, learn Greek / Hebrew.
They shouldn't go out to seminary, they should be raised up and trained by their elders. Jesus' disciples didn't go to seminary, they spent 3 years with Jesus. Likewise Pastors should be trained by elders, and then either be sent out or take over in their church.
I don’t think this was ever intended to be a real debate. Just another chance to take a sledgehammer to conservative believers while using a feather on progressive “Christians”. TGC has become experts at this. They love the applause of the world.
Pastor sounds just like chandler defending mason during that 1 group discussion. The only reason this is hard is bcuz they want to please man & God consistently which is impossible!
It’s interesting… I can’t find a biblical teaching that teaches that I have to repent of my grandfather’s or my dads sin. Wonder where she sees that in scripture.
@@EDGEMATAINMENT pretty sure God is saying they should repent of their new sin that they are doing plus the sins that their fathers use to that they are also doing. (I.e. if a dad sinned by being a theft and God telling his son to repent of his sin of being a murder but also repent of the sin of theft that his father use to commit but that the son has now done also)
@@EDGEMATAINMENT I’m just not sure that’s a theological concept/idea that I would want to teach or be a proponent for. When I pray asking God to forgive and that I repent it’s for my own personal sin and no one else’s. I don’t think when we stand before God that He is going to ask us why we didn’t repent and ask forgiveness for sins our fathers committed.
@@EDGEMATAINMENT thank you for pointing out that verse in Leviticus. I think ultimately we are going to agree to disagree on this point. I end with this. There is only one person in history that had to pay the price for someone else’s sin, and that’s Jesus. He did that so we wouldn’t have to pay the price for our sin or anyone else’s.
@@EDGEMATAINMENT I don’t disagree with that. Yes we all suffer from the sins of our fathers and grandfathers. I mean we all suffer from the sin of Adam. I don’t disagree with that at all. But the Bible doesn’t teach that I need to repent of the sins of my grandfather and father. Yes I might suffer from it but I don’t need to repent from it. Repent and suffer are 2 different things
Here's a comment I just left in response to the anti-woke pastor questioning my dismissive initial comment: 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.
I believe with all my heart that salvation for individuals is a sovereign work of God and if you claim to be saved and support this liberation theology you definitely have that right but I would rather flush money down the toilet than give to any person or ministry that preaches liberation theology and I’m so thankful to God that my wife who isn’t from this country feels the same way.
I watched this and He did the subject great! With all her learning, she totally showed her Marxist logic trumping clear Scripture teaching. A Bible Pastor is able to defeat this obvious error of Wokeness! Also, the woman clearly illustrated why woman are not to speak authoritatively in the Church. Her arguments were based in emotion and not the truth of the Scripture.
I just can’t get past the introduction of Sean DeMars. He tries to be as self-deprecating as he possibly can, as to hopefully endear himself to the listener; however, it was misleading and untruthful. Paraphrasing- I don’t have a college degree. I don’t have a seminary degree. I don’t have a bible college degree. I don’t even have a high school diploma. - While those things may be true; he was in the military; therefore, he most likely has a GED. A GED is just as good as a high school diploma and is looked at in the same way. Misleading. Paraphrasing- I am not in any twitter beefs or Facebook spats, because I am not on twitter or Facebook. - He is on Facebook. He has a family account, and he makes posts to it regularly and will sign his name at the end of many posts to ensure everyone knows the post was from him. And yes, he is not above getting into a spat on social media. Untruthful A couple of days ago he posted this on his Facebook, “Ok, friends, some time has passed since my Good Faith Debate was released on The Gospel Coalition. Now that most of the initial reactionary takes have died down, let's talk. The most severe criticism I've received from this video has been from my fellow Christian conservatives saying that I was soft in my treatment of woke theology. If you agree with that critique (assuming you've actually watched the debate), would you mind sharing your perspective with me here? In what way was I "soft"? What, in your mind, would it look like for me to take a harder line against wokeness? The more concrete and specific you can be, the better! Grace and Peace, Sean” What followed was his friends and followers saying what a wonderful job he did and that those who have criticized it were either mad because they were not asked to debate the issue or that those who have critiqued the debate did not say they had issue with the content; only that is didn’t go hard enough or wasn’t mean enough. Paraphrasing- I am not an expert in the field of Critical Theory or any expert at all. I have no idea why I’m here and I have not researched this subject extensively.- He may not be leading expert of CRT; however, he does have a podcast that has done many episodes (10+) on CRT and even one with the title “Asking Jonathan Leeman if 9 Marks is Marxist” (I just find that humorous, considering he was discipled by Mark Dever and Russell has had his own relationship with Dever). The podcast is also featured on American Gospel TV- a streaming platform. There is a foundation as to why he was asked to give this “debate”; he has more than one platform that he has used to speak on this issue. And, him saying that he is not an expert on anything (paraphrasing) is misleading (in my opinion); he has been very outspoken about the prosperity gospel. He may have not gone to school for 17 years studying about this one subject, but he was featured on American Gospel, travels around the country speaking at different churches, has had a book published, has had articles published by Gospel Coalition and 9 Marks, and has been a guest on podcasts talking about this issue. Misleading He is not just some preacher from the backwaters of some podunk town in Alabama; there was a reason he was asked to participate in this episode...not the least of which, just being a mouthpiece for the Gospel Coalition and 9 Marks; all while doing his best not to “bite the hand the hand that feeds him”.
That's supposed to be a debate? I couldn't tell, but, like you said, that's to be expected. So weak. Hard to tell if the host or the lady is representing wokeness, they sound about the same.
Sean Demars opening statement is all a master excuse to capitulate to his opponents. I think he knows more than he admits. It appears that he doesn’t like controversy.
This is a dishonest video and take. The critiques by Harris are grasping wildly at straws. He doesn't know the agreement made for the debate. He doesn't know what was limited or allowed or not to talk about. You weren't there. Sean was probably picked precisely for the reasons he was there....he's a Frontline pastor and not an ivory tower type. The distinction is great. Do you actually spend most of your time flaming TGC in certain things that you do mean to be addressed, while you were not there to know what Cooter couldn’t be addressed for this video? What an arrogant take john
“I have no idea why I’m here and I have not researched this subject extensively”
Brother, with all due respect, that’s precisely why you’re there.
Exactly.🤦🏻♀️😟
I would have paid good money to see Voddie vs Rebecca! :D
I'd pay good money to see Jon Harris debate anybody. But I'm doubtful that will ever happen.
@@TheDangerous123dan They know Jon would win.
Yes yes yes!
@@earlofbroadst Action, Earl, speaks louder than words.
That's not a real debate, it's a sham!
I’m lamenting over this debate.
🤣
I tried to watch this debate and Jon is very gracious and patient to sit through this slam poetry session. Marxism and cultural Marxism in the church is an affront to the Scriptures, the Lord, and his people..
When it comes to the subject matter the pastor's presentation would be mincemeat for Eric Mason. He fits into the narrative Mason speaks about. You need a man of God who could strike back at Mason blow for blow and not be shouted down.
Marxism in the church is apostasy. Wokeness is rooted in CRT which is rooted in Critical Theory which is rooted in neo-Marxism which is rooted in Marxism. Marxism hates Christianity.
@@pvbaelen People refuse to see the clear and obvious links from Marx and say it's just history. Many of the same guys who feel everything is racist can't apply that standard to the abortion genocide.
This pastor, Sean Demars, sounds EXACTLY like my former pastor. "What? Me Woke? Nooooo." He's taken so many tips from the Tim Keller playbook: just enough likeability, just enough "humility", just enough "nuanced words", just enough truth offered up to make the average Christian think they're OK and can't do anything wrong. It's like "doctrinal quicksand" that you can't get out of. This is why doctrinal watchdogs (like Jon, AD, Right Response Ministries, Fighting for the Faith, James White, etc.) are so incredibly important!
Am I missing something? TGC had to search for the most unqualified person to debate this subject and then he thoroughly outs this in his opening statement? It seems like he wanted the audience to know, this is a set-up. After the opening, I already agree that no matter the results, this debate was a sham.
- Why do pastors have to "scold" those who uphold the Scriptures and God's law? So weird. The revolting behavior from the left ("Christians") overwhelm the conversation.
They picked him completely on purpose because not only is he a white man, he's also a pastor in the deep South in Alabama, so he's extra racist and complicit in slavery and yada yada yada. Take your pick of toppings from the CRT buffet. He's also there to be dominated by a supposedly superior woman to play into the egalitarian push that is afoot currently. They're pushing the envelope and moving the Overton window incessantly. Every part of this is to frame the one-sided conversation to their skewed view and fully present their activist playbook of CRT narratives shrouded in Keller level nuance.
Being very honest, this is where I am at at this point. This wokeness stuff got old. For these guys to be debating this is the stuff of DUMDUMS. They don't want to debate it, they want to promote. This was obviously a setup job.There should be no discussion anymore, only shaming and disassociation. The only place where I hear about TGC nowadays are on channel like this, and I appreciate Jon a lot. But I lost all my patience with this subject, good on you for having the patience.
I started watching it yesterday, but I was like why on earth did not bring on someone who knew more about wokeness against it…
Neil Shenvi, Owen Strachan, Voddie Baucham, Jon Harris, Joel Webbon, Darrell Harrison, Virgil Walker, … so many could have done better.
@@Pete_B_773 at least he’s competent and has called people out.
Because that would defeat the purpose of these "debates"
@@jyerkes94 but he’s a part of JD Greear’s church and supported resolution 9 in the SBC. He would only be slightly better than Demars but would mislead people into thinking this is a good faith “in-house” debate on secondary issues.
@@jordansmith7895 I know. Its an interesting thing. Since it is a TGC thing they are going to have one of their guys or gals do it. An outsider would never be able to do it.
I'll probably get around to watching your video, but I didn't watch the debate because of the opening statement. Unless he had unusually good instincts, it seemed like TGC was setting up a straw man.
Exactly, this is a setup in order to preach a sermon.
It's a disgrace.
The "guy on our side" seems genuine and this make me even angrier at the ordeal.
They purposely vetted this guy in order to destroy him, but he actually revealed their entire scheme in the beginning LOL
"[I'm just a random guy thats a pastor]"
You can't make this stuff up. It's like God revealed their stupid schemes through a weak man.
They picked someone to beat up and the guy actually destroys them in the opening statement.
It reveals the PURPOSEFUL oversight on the part of whoever set this thing up.
Exactly!
Even common sense says that you don't repent of something you didn't do. In legal terms, isn't that called a forced confession?
Sad, but not surprising about Pastor Sean. Mybfirst exposure to him was American Gospel. Then he and another AG guy started a podcast and they dropped a bunch of CRT analysis and discussion. Here is the thing. He is not inarticulate. He is not unknowleadgeable. He has just landed on this is not the biggest threat to the church. He even says that conservative syncratism and response to wokeness is just as dangerous. Most of their podcast was an analysis of CRT, then there was months of a break. And BOOM, they drop a podcast on how "our side" gets it wrong. I like how he acts as thought because his church is small, that means he can't be woke. How weird. He clearly has been given a platform. You are spot on, Jon. Even the format has nothing to do with debate. Not seeking truth. Just saying sweet nothings to each other. Here is the sad things, conservatives will say how we are friends and on the same side and theybwill trash other conservatives to get those woke cookies (as John Cooper says) and the favor will never be returned.
I wanted Pastor Sean to point out the seeming inevitability of "wokeism" leading into liberation theology, as inevitably a woke preacher will tend to preach about the state of the community (rather than the church) and the salvation and sonship of the world (rather than the elect). Much left here to be desired.
Why didn't TGC get Virgil Walker or Darrell Harrison to debate Rebecca? I couldn't get past Sean's opening statement. He shot himself in the foot.
I haven't watched or listened to the full debate, but what always stands out to me is how little scripture is actually used to justify these positions. Any time the woke crowd does refer to scripture, it points to Old Testament prophecy concerning Israel, or even the Day of the Lord (which has yet to occur, and is going to be a severe wake up call for the world about what judgment really looks like). If the emphasis of one's gospel message is on the sin of the man and not the finished work of Christ, it is anything BUT "good news".
"Trust me, I know these people. There's nothing wrong here." That's also Michael Brown's defense of Sid Roth, Benny Hinn and the like.
This whole teaching of blaming someone else for another person’s sin is just another false teaching and a satanic attack against the truth of scripture, giving people an excuse for their sinfulness instead of their own selfish dead nature and blinding them even further of their need for salvation. The prophet of God said in Ezekiel 18:20, “ The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” There is only one person who can atone for the sins of another, who was punished in the sinners place, and that is the perfect sinless Lamb of God, the Lord Jesus Christ who takes away the sin of the world. Thanks again John for another timely message. God bless ❤️
Sean Demars was an odd pick for sure. His opening statements seemed to disqualify himself, I thought an opening statement was there to quantify why you've been chosen to engage in debate. I know him from American Gospel and he was clear and concise there, spoke truthfully. He was believable. Judging from that he's the kind of person I would want to say "hey Sean, these guys aren't your friends."
I think I've seen enough from TGC and SBC to know they're not repentant but intend to keep marching in the path they're on.
This is so disappointing and to be honest I was a little shocked to hear Demars’ name because he and Russell Berger definitely were the ones who educated me on CRT, its tenets, its history, and how it is inherently a threat to the gospel on their own podcast (that he even references)! And they went pretty deep into what it meant because they specifically didn’t want to misrepresent the viewpoint. So hearing this out of his mouth and also hearing him basically say he doesn’t know anything about it was very disappointing and I’m confused as to why a year later he is now fighting against the same group that he took part in educating and equipping against CRT.
My thoughts too. And to hear that he’s been called out woke by people in his own church and he brushes it off….that’s alarming.
Your analysis is ok, but we all need to hear from the "Smooth AD" for this one. Such serious academic discourse requires the mellow tones and well-aged sarcasm which only the one and only Smooth AD can proffer.
I find it interesting that this discussion is being held in the dark. This discussion did not produce much light.
Good observation!
Sean:
"Sometimes I talk with people to the left of me and I have to say. "Eh...I wouldn't say that. That isn't very helpful.""
Also Sean:
"Then I talk with people to the right of me and they are just entirely ignorant of so many different things and they are cold and calloused..."
The ol’ “Punch Right, Kiss Left” trick.
Its a little too obvious now isn't it? It's within many sermons as well.
Jon, we visited Stone Town, Zanzibar last year. This island off the coast of Tanzania is where the slave trade started. Blacks imprisoned and sold blacks. Do we ever hear the woke folks talk about this history?
The museum in Stone Town is sobering!
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.
There are quite a few compromises in the PCA, but other reformed congregations have been more faithful to Scripture.
Anything coming on Ligon Duncan and his upcoming appearance at a Grace Community Church conference? Are we missing something here?
Just sitting here waiting for Sean to enter the comment section 🤣
100%
A debate like Republican's/Democrats debating a spending bill full of pork.
I heard about this series last week and was waiting to see what Sean would say. Thanks for going over this "debate".
Thankyou again John safe travels
32:55 The pastor said he is not part of Big Eva since he has a small church then goes on to say how he is mentored by and enjoys fellowship with Big Eva. No wonder his parishioners say he is Big Eva...
Great analysis Jon. 👍
These wokesters seem to think and speak of church history the same way that Howard Zinn thinks and speaks of American history. We should always be self-reflective and open to growth as the church, but when Christians begin to focus only on where "it's gone wrong" rather than how our Savior is using His church to bless the world with the gospel and be salt and light, then a soul crushing malaise will settle in. The bride has blemishes until Christ's return, but we are STILL HIS BRIDE!
The wokesters approach church history the way Howard Zinn approaches American history because they're operating from the same worldview paradigm - Marxism. CRT is just Marx's oppressor vs. oppressed dialectic with race substituted in place of wealth/class.
@@earlofbroadst Yup!!
If you’re comparing them to Howard Zinn because they’re supposedly being revisionist, then why would they bother mentioning things like the 1619 Project? Wouldn’t that undermine their own revisionism to point out other things that are blatantly revisionist? Also Sean seems pretty clear to me that he’s not focusing on just what’s wrong. I would recommend listening to his actual point rather than responding to a parroted caricature
@@nikhilrao7174 My only point was a general one. It may not necessarily respond 1 to 1 with what anyone here was saying. I just think that some Christians today seem to always focus on how terrible the church has screwed up, and I liken that perspective to how Zinn seems to focus only on how awful America has screwed up. All I'm suggesting is that such a negative attitude towards the church is bound to have some negative consequences. Not sure how my opinion is a parroted caricature, but thanks for the kind response.
@@Alan112573 I apologize I was unnecessarily harsh and ask for forgiveness. I personally don’t see either side being overly pessimistic about the past but I understand others see it differently.
I'm noticing too that this is a great "look" for TGC...a woman and a man "of color". Such representation!
@conversationsthatmatter Sean DeMars is one of the preachers opposing prosperity from The American Gospel doc. Good to know he’s so involved with TGC. :/
You can't even get the book for less $200 dollars. Hopefully, I can find a copy in a random thrift store.
Does anyone have a genuine review of Rebecca's book Secular Creed?
I loved Sean Demars on American Gospel but he lost my support when he said it’s okay to vote democrat while platforming and promoting Jonathan Leeman.
One side note, not about the debate but an assertion Jon made about why people would have gone to a public lynchinig. The idea that people gathered to watch a lynching...not a public execution, but a LYNCHING...was to teach their kids what not to do or as some object lesson in proper behavior is ridiculous. A lynching is an extrajudicial murder, generally carried out by a mob, and it is done whether the person lynched is guilty of anything or not. Maybe a lesson could be taught by taking someone to a public execution, where the person had been tried, found guilty, and sentenced lawfully...but what lesson was goig to be taught at a lynchng? "Hey, don't grow up to be a black person accused of some offense or this might happen to you?"
The brother is the same pastor featuring in the first movie of 'American Gospel', he is pastor/friend of the Bergers as well, and Rusell Berger co-host with Sean DeMars a podcast 'Defend & Confirm' Podcast. Maybe you can interview him? In good faith(ua-cam.com/users/DefendandConfirmPodcast)
I’d recommend the defend and confirm podcasts on CRT. Sean gives the topic several hours. A one hour debate is equivalent to a tweet, impossible to completely explain anything complex.
he is on one of the original AG TV shows. American Gospel or something. I had respect for him after watching that. He really seemed to teach the real Gospel. Now he has fallen into some of these traps of the woke
Is Sean really this unaware of the problems with CRT and wokeness infiltrating the church? Is that possible? I’ve always been a bit squeemish about Rebecca. She wrote a book that used standpoint epistemology so she’s definitely a crt believer.
Which book? I read one of hers and it was ok. It soft peddled some orthodox points when she could've been more straightforward, but I didn't notice anything super off at the time.
@@jamersbazuka8055 Confronting Christianity
@@conservativemama3437 hmm, maybe I'll have to reread. Any chapter(s) in particular?
@@jamersbazuka8055I threw it away 😂 so I can’t look it up but check it out and see if you see it too.
TGC, burn it to the ground! (metaphorically of course) ;-)
"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." -John Gill's Exposition of the Bible (2 Corinthians 5:16)
If they really want to debate I'm sure James White would be glad to really debate them😁
So I just watched most of the debate. Final conclusion. Rebecca is a true believer (in the need to be woke) and Sean is not a true believer in his warning against wokeness. Which is why he is harsher on conservatives than the woke. If wokeness was the threat he very clearly and correctly defined in the beginning, he would have no qualms in saying we should not participate in repentance and lamentation services that are endless and enslave us to guilt. Instead he says it makes him "uncomfortable" and Rebecca says, "God help us if we are not woke." Is it any wonder people feel compelled to enslave themselves to wokeness?
I feel like Dr. Strachan or Baucham would have been the obvious choice for merited debate given their previous affiliation with TGC. Right?
Very odd choice of speakers for sure-or completely planned.
I sometimes don't make comments because I have so much to say and wind up saying nothing, so I'll say a little rather than nothing. That "debate" seemed as phony as a three-dollar bill. It seemed to be an implementation of the hegelian dialectic. It reminded me of the interview between Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman on one-issue voting, which also seems to be as phony as a three-dollar bill and an example of the hegelian dialectic being implemented. Okay, technically I don't know that this is the case for a fact, but I can say that if one were going to stage a debate and Implement the hegelian dialectic, this is how you would do it. I do think that being familiar not just with the facts but also with the methodology of marxists can maybe sometimes be helpful. Regardless, the parts of the "debate" that I saw in the video just seemed to advance the leftist cause, regardless of motive.
I didn't see the original debate, but.. If this pastor has no credentials (except pastor), then I would expect to hear a sermon from him based on a sound biblical case. This guy- not by his lack of formal education- but from his extra-biblical education (he mentioned books he's read) that he doesn't even admit he's received makes for a shameful display and a weak case. We are all educated somewhere and if scripture is poorly discerned and exegeted, you get a rhetorical [mostly emotional or worldly] argument that is not coherent and can even become heretical. As to the Cambridge lady, she may need to get her money back- all that education and still a poorly packaged rhetorical history lesson. Here is my non-humanities-educated response: I do not claim part of the tribe of left leaning evangelicals, so self described; nor have I ever registered with the party of Jim Crowe 1.0/lynching (since left-leaning politics seems to play in heavy to what some people know, that isn't so).
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.
That Pastor’s ministry is wrecked. He exposed himself in a bad way, essentially unable to defend the eternal truths of the faith once delivered to the saints. Jon’s criticism here will eventually make it’s way to members of whatever church the debater “pastors.”
Also, for those who think seminary should not be a requirement in order to be a teaching elder, this was a good anecdotal example why it should. Jesus taught his disciples for 3 years, pastors could go to seminary for a M Div (takes 3 years full time).
Unless they go to an SBC or PCA seminary and become woke getting the degree.
Most woke pastors came out of the seminaries.
Most pastors went to seminary, therefore most woke pastors came out of seminary. Does this mean not going to seminary is a solution? What denominations typically don’t require seminary training?
Everyone within Christianity Liberty is free to make decisions to a point. Myself, I can’t imagine submitting myself to a Pastor who hasn’t had to study the Bible, prove he has, can actually write theology, learn Greek / Hebrew.
They shouldn't go out to seminary, they should be raised up and trained by their elders. Jesus' disciples didn't go to seminary, they spent 3 years with Jesus. Likewise Pastors should be trained by elders, and then either be sent out or take over in their church.
@@sergious_null What church denomination do you attend?
Dumpster fire non debate.
I don’t think this was ever intended to be a real debate. Just another chance to take a sledgehammer to conservative believers while using a feather on progressive “Christians”. TGC has become experts at this. They love the applause of the world.
Jon a pastor who is soft like this is gonna be lunch for Eric Mason who would probably take his lunch money.
He was on American Gospel
Isn’t that the dude from the American Gospel movie?
It is, and I'm very disappointed in him. AGTV needs to talk with him about what happened in this debate.
The cringe factor is real on this one ☝
Is this Steven Furticks brother ?
Pastor sounds just like chandler defending mason during that 1 group discussion. The only reason this is hard is bcuz they want to please man & God consistently which is impossible!
Worst opening statement ever. "I have no credentials.'
Present political agendas often distort the past.
Wow, this was painful, but very useful.
Well her instincts about wokeness necessarily including slander are apparently spot on
It’s interesting… I can’t find a biblical teaching that teaches that I have to repent of my grandfather’s or my dads sin. Wonder where she sees that in scripture.
@@EDGEMATAINMENT pretty sure God is saying they should repent of their new sin that they are doing plus the sins that their fathers use to that they are also doing. (I.e. if a dad sinned by being a theft and God telling his son to repent of his sin of being a murder but also repent of the sin of theft that his father use to commit but that the son has now done also)
@@EDGEMATAINMENT I’m just not sure that’s a theological concept/idea that I would want to teach or be a proponent for. When I pray asking God to forgive and that I repent it’s for my own personal sin and no one else’s. I don’t think when we stand before God that He is going to ask us why we didn’t repent and ask forgiveness for sins our fathers committed.
@@EDGEMATAINMENT thank you for pointing out that verse in Leviticus. I think ultimately we are going to agree to disagree on this point. I end with this. There is only one person in history that had to pay the price for someone else’s sin, and that’s Jesus. He did that so we wouldn’t have to pay the price for our sin or anyone else’s.
@@EDGEMATAINMENT I don’t disagree with that. Yes we all suffer from the sins of our fathers and grandfathers. I mean we all suffer from the sin of Adam. I don’t disagree with that at all. But the Bible doesn’t teach that I need to repent of the sins of my grandfather and father. Yes I might suffer from it but I don’t need to repent from it. Repent and suffer are 2 different things
This should be good
Watchdog is watching this, trying anyway, this woman is insufferable
I gave up at 4 minutes. I agree with him - If he knows nothing about the subject, WHY IS HE THERE?!
Incidentally, the comments on the TGC video are already heavily in favor of apt ridicule.
Here's a comment I just left in response to the anti-woke pastor questioning my dismissive initial comment:
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.
Not weird, strategic.
This is really a good analysis. What a fail by TGC.
AD is the Yoda of Big Eva predictions.
I believe with all my heart that salvation for individuals is a sovereign work of God and if you claim to be saved and support this liberation theology you definitely have that right but I would rather flush money down the toilet than give to any person or ministry that preaches liberation theology and I’m so thankful to God that my wife who isn’t from this country feels the same way.
This was totally expected from the clown show known as TGC.
I lement for the current state of TGC
What is with the lighting on this??? So weird
This was not a debate it was a farce.
I watched this and He did the subject great! With all her learning, she totally showed her Marxist logic trumping clear Scripture teaching. A Bible Pastor is able to defeat this obvious error of Wokeness! Also, the woman clearly illustrated why woman are not to speak authoritatively in the Church. Her arguments were based in emotion and not the truth of the Scripture.
This isn't a debate, is just a bunch of academic mumbo jumbo that sows confusion.
My goodness they are both promoting the same thing.
The whole set up was an insult and waste of time. Unserious and flippant.
I just can’t get past the introduction of Sean DeMars. He tries to be as self-deprecating as he possibly can, as to hopefully endear himself to the listener; however, it was misleading and untruthful.
Paraphrasing- I don’t have a college degree. I don’t have a seminary degree. I don’t have a bible college degree. I don’t even have a high school diploma. - While those things may be true; he was in the military; therefore, he most likely has a GED. A GED is just as good as a high school diploma and is looked at in the same way.
Misleading.
Paraphrasing- I am not in any twitter beefs or Facebook spats, because I am not on twitter or Facebook. - He is on Facebook. He has a family account, and he makes posts to it regularly and will sign his name at the end of many posts to ensure everyone knows the post was from him. And yes, he is not above getting into a spat on social media.
Untruthful
A couple of days ago he posted this on his Facebook, “Ok, friends, some time has passed since my Good Faith Debate was released on The Gospel Coalition. Now that most of the initial reactionary takes have died down, let's talk. The most severe criticism I've received from this video has been from my fellow Christian conservatives saying that I was soft in my treatment of woke theology. If you agree with that critique (assuming you've actually watched the debate), would you mind sharing your perspective with me here? In what way was I "soft"? What, in your mind, would it look like for me to take a harder line against wokeness? The more concrete and specific you can be, the better!
Grace and Peace, Sean”
What followed was his friends and followers saying what a wonderful job he did and that those who have criticized it were either mad because they were not asked to debate the issue or that those who have critiqued the debate did not say they had issue with the content; only that is didn’t go hard enough or wasn’t mean enough.
Paraphrasing- I am not an expert in the field of Critical Theory or any expert at all. I have no idea why I’m here and I have not researched this subject extensively.- He may not be leading expert of CRT; however, he does have a podcast that has done many episodes (10+) on CRT and even one with the title “Asking Jonathan Leeman if 9 Marks is Marxist” (I just find that humorous, considering he was discipled by Mark Dever and Russell has had his own relationship with Dever). The podcast is also featured on American Gospel TV- a streaming platform. There is a foundation as to why he was asked to give this “debate”; he has more than one platform that he has used to speak on this issue. And, him saying that he is not an expert on anything (paraphrasing) is misleading (in my opinion); he has been very outspoken about the prosperity gospel. He may have not gone to school for 17 years studying about this one subject, but he was featured on American Gospel, travels around the country speaking at different churches, has had a book published, has had articles published by Gospel Coalition and 9 Marks, and has been a guest on podcasts talking about this issue.
Misleading
He is not just some preacher from the backwaters of some podunk town in Alabama; there was a reason he was asked to participate in this episode...not the least of which, just being a mouthpiece for the Gospel Coalition and 9 Marks; all while doing his best not to “bite the hand the hand that feeds him”.
This guy is the Ana Navarro of TGC.
Controlled opposition
That's supposed to be a debate? I couldn't tell, but, like you said, that's to be expected. So weak.
Hard to tell if the host or the lady is representing wokeness, they sound about the same.
Sean Demars opening statement is all a master excuse to capitulate to his opponents. I think he knows more than he admits. It appears that he doesn’t like controversy.
Jon, do you lament abortion in our country?
This is a dishonest video and take. The critiques by Harris are grasping wildly at straws. He doesn't know the agreement made for the debate. He doesn't know what was limited or allowed or not to talk about. You weren't there.
Sean was probably picked precisely for the reasons he was there....he's a Frontline pastor and not an ivory tower type. The distinction is great.
Do you actually spend most of your time flaming TGC in certain things that you do mean to be addressed, while you were not there to know what Cooter couldn’t be addressed for this video? What an arrogant take john
Lament is just a glorified blame game and is just an excuse for not repenting of our own personal sin against God.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Scolding is your life plan bruh
In the debate, Sean Demars says, "Tim Keller is not woke, so let's not be ridiculous." 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣