The American Churchman: Guilt by Association

Conversations That Matter

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:23

Welcome to the American Churchmen Podcast, where we encourage men to take responsibility in their home, to love

00:29

God, to love others, and most of all, to love the people, the family, the local region, the local church that God has put into your life.

00:38

I'm your host John Harris, and my co -host is always Matthew Pearson. How you doing, Matthew? I'm good,

00:44

John. How are you doing today? Good. I actually went for a little walk with my family in the mountains today, and then we went out to lunch and kind of had our date, so to speak.

00:55

I've tried to do a weekly date with my wife, and now that we have a little baby, it means she comes along, which means the dates are earlier.

01:03

But I don't need to do, you know, I don't need to sing Alan Jackson's summertime blues.

01:08

I don't have any summertime blues. I'm actually doing pretty good. It's a beautiful summer out there. What about you?

01:14

What are you up to? I'm just working a lot this summer, just trying to save up some money, get going, just get grinding.

01:23

That's what I've been doing. Got lots of stuff to deal with, though. Lots of trips back and forth from Tampa, getting my passport last week.

01:30

I got my driver's license renewed, and all this stuff. I'm just like, dang it. I'm trying to save money, and now I'm spending all this money on all this stuff.

01:36

But you know, that's the way of life. That's how it goes. Every married guy says, yeah, that's the rest of your life.

01:42

You just spend money. That's part of it. Yeah, I remember that, too, because I think for our honeymoon, we had to make sure that...

01:50

No, I guess it wasn't our honeymoon. We actually stayed in the United States. It was for a trip we took right after we got married.

01:56

We went to Turkey. I remember the passport thing is actually such a hassle. I know, yeah.

02:01

It takes like two months, I think, to get your passport. Doge needs to figure this out. I don't understand.

02:06

So true, yeah. When I was in Hawaii, though, for a honeymoon, I remember I walked up to this...

02:12

it was a juice vendor or whatever, fruit juice, and I was like, oh wow, these are so good, these flavors.

02:20

I mean, I wish we had stuff like this in America. And he looked at me and goes, we're in America. I was like, oh right,

02:28

Hawaii. Right, right, of course, yes. Yeah, America. America, that's right.

02:34

But anyway, we're not gonna do an Attribute of God today like we usually do, because we want it to be good, and Matthew has an idea for next week, so we're just gonna jump into the article.

02:45

But if you're streaming and you have any questions or comments, please put those in the info, not the...

02:53

I always say info, the comment section, and we'll be sure to see those. And I also do want to mention, especially since I just got out of a board meeting for TruthScript, we are sponsored by TruthScript.

03:04

It is a 501c3. If you want to donate to TruthScript, that definitely helps us expand our mission.

03:10

You can go to truthscript .com and scroll down to the bottom. There's a little donate tab there, and I think it's all

03:17

I wanted to say about that. Also, if you want to publish with TruthScript, check it out. There's a publish tab. All right, well, let's get into the topic at hand today, which is guilt by association.

03:29

And this is a topic that comes up quite a bit. I think it's...

03:35

I think I just wrote this along with Pastor Richard Henry, because we just felt that, at least for me,

03:45

I wrote it and then I actually sent it to him, and he put some revisions and sent it to me, and that's how it works. But I initially started it in the airport.

03:53

I was coming back from Florida. I was actually in Orlando two weeks ago, and I'm waiting for my flight.

04:00

And it just was on my mind, because I don't even remember the exact situation, but there was a guilt by association thing happening.

04:06

And this happens ever so often. People even will come to me and say,

04:12

John, I can't believe you were at this conference, or you were on this podcast, or you had this person on your podcast, or this person said something nice about you, and that person's not good.

04:24

So how could you explain this to me, right? I have to justify myself. So I just think that we need to think through this in a common sense, and obviously a biblical fashion, and that's why

04:38

I wrote this. It's not extensive, but I definitely lay down a few of the principles that I've worked from.

04:46

And I guess to just contextualize this further before we get into it, most of you know me as like the social justice guy.

04:53

Not because I'm for social justice, but because I go after it. And part of that has been noticing who platforms who.

05:03

So, you know, Russell Moore and David French and Curtis Ching, they all have their after -party curriculum, right?

05:10

Like it's not a coincidence that those three came together to do this. And if you see

05:16

Russell Moore with someone who's a pro -abortion, progressive liberal on a news show, does that mean that Russell Moore endorses every view that person has?

05:27

Not necessarily. Does it mean that person endorses every view Russell Moore has? Not necessarily. But I have pointed out in the past, these people are working towards something.

05:36

They're in cahoots together. There is a partnership there. And for a

05:41

Christian, that's kind of an odd partnership to have with like a God -hating, sometimes very kind of pagan or secular person.

05:50

Like what common ground does a Christian have with that person? So I'll ask these questions, and I'll sometimes make these connections.

05:58

And so I think it's important for me especially to let you know how I think about guilt by association, when it's valid and when it's not.

06:06

And I guess maybe I'll just ask this too, throw this out there before we read the article, but I know you haven't had as big of a platform for as long as the time,

06:16

Matthew, but have you ever had those kinds of accusations come your way that you're,

06:21

I don't know, friendly with someone online you shouldn't be, and it's questioning your reputation over it?

06:28

No, yeah, absolutely. There was an incident actually a few years ago where, I won't name the actors that play, except for one of them.

06:37

I'll name one of them because I know he won't care. But I was like on a little trip, you know, Christian Mario on Twitter, him and I are like best buds in real life.

06:45

And we were on a trip with a few other friends, and there was a certain another

06:50

Twitter personality who we visited. And you know, he's fairly well known, like, you know, he's like in a bit of the

06:57

Catholic side. And he had said something on Twitter, like in a thread, that like could be viewed as anti -semitic, and out of note, but we had just visited him, and we had just posted about it.

07:08

And then he had posted that thing, and then out of nowhere, like, he like had said that, and then so people were like, y 'all gotta come get your boy, blah blah blah.

07:16

And then like, you know, Christian, my buddy, David, his real name's David, he's already self -doc, so he doesn't care if I say his name

07:23

David. David like started being like, well, what he said in this part wasn't like totally off base.

07:28

And then people started tagging me, it's like, hey, why is David saying this? Do you agree with him on this? And I'm just like, oh my gosh,

07:34

I haven't studied this particular thing or whatever. And I'm not gonna like, so I just let it die. To be honest, a lot of it was happening while I was driving us all back to Florida.

07:43

So like, I kind of was off the hook because people have the memory of Goldfish on Twitter. So I didn't really have to say anything and I couldn't because I was driving the whole time.

07:51

But yeah, that's happened to me before where, you know, someone says something and then I somehow get roped into it.

07:57

Usually what I do is I'm like, this is stupid. I'm just not gonna say anything because it's oftentimes like, yeah, it's just silly.

08:04

But no, all that to say, yes, I have been roped in things like that before. And the left obviously applies this tactic to the right politically.

08:12

They don't apply it to themselves generally, but they do apply it to the right very stringently. And I remember

08:18

I had Ryan Turnipseed on and he was undergoing their excommunication process essentially at his church.

08:27

And it was, it seemed like it was mostly predicated on the fact that he had shared some tweets or reposted some tweets from years before of some guys on ex that, you know, they've said things that are kind of outrageous and so forth.

08:44

And he doesn't, you know, he didn't agree with those things, but that was, he had to deal with it in a meeting.

08:51

Right. And it became like this big thing. And I just remember thinking like how crazy

08:56

I'm like, I looked at even what he was reposting. I'm like, what you reposted doesn't seem that but it's like, oh, but these people have said other things.

09:03

So like, this is something we do have to navigate because it does come up and there is like I said,

09:08

I think there is a legitimate guilt by association. There's also, though, this crazy kind of sort of,

09:18

I don't know how even to describe it, very sensitive and kind of specific, like any tangential connection you have to someone.

09:29

Like I think before the internet this was easier. Now that we have the internet, it's like you can like something on social media and someone catches that you liked it.

09:36

And now you have to explain yourself and maybe your motive for liking it, or maybe you accidentally click like, or maybe like who knows what was going on there, but immediately people jump to conclusions.

09:48

So anyway, that's why it's important because of the world we live in and because people really are sometimes unfairly losing their, getting canceled.

09:59

We saw that in 2020 because of this kind of thing. And then other times I think people probably should be held to account and they're not.

10:06

Like it's downplayed, like, oh, that's just guilt by association. But it's like, yeah, but actually this person is in league in a bad way with this other person.

10:13

So like what partnership I guess is a compromising partnership?

10:19

That's really the question of the whole guilt by association topic. So I'll just read through some of this and we can stop as we go.

10:26

And if there's comments along the way, we will get to those or questions. For the past few years, scandals have plagued the

10:35

American Church, from well -known pastors plagiarizing, committing adultery, or using anonymous accounts to slander friends.

10:40

There has been no shortage of improprieties. Then there's the blame game. If one pastor is guilty of a particular sin, does that mean his friends are as well?

10:51

Guilt by association is a real thing, but some distinctions should be made.

10:57

The guilt, the charge of guilt by association falls into two categories, one legitimate and one not. So here's legitimate guilt by association, and I'll stop after I read these verses.

11:07

Our choice of companions reflects our character. Scripture affirms this in various passages. Proverbs 1320 says,

11:13

He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm.

11:19

And 1 Corinthians 1533 says, Do not be deceived. Bad company corrupts good morals.

11:25

In social justice debates, for example, Christians who continue to platform Russell Moore, despite evidence of his problematic actions, reveal a lack of discernment.

11:33

Their association suggests tolerance of his errors. And just to be clear, that part about Russell Moore was not in 1

11:40

Corinthians 15, so it was formatted a little weird on the website. So yeah, 1

11:46

Corinthians 1533 just says, Do not be deceived. Bad company corrupts good morals. So the point being that, obviously, you can be associated with someone in a compromising fashion.

11:57

You can be, we could also say, there's so many other passages, right? You could be unequally yoked to someone, meaning you're both going in a particular direction, and it's not a good direction, and so the relationship itself is compromising, right?

12:12

And maybe that would fit what I just said about Russell Moore and David French and Curtis Chang. Like they're they're going in a certain direction, and their association with one another is for a bad purpose, right?

12:23

When mobsters get together and plan their crimes, that's a bad association. You're intending to do evil, and you have someone who's in cooperation with you to carry out a bad plan, something that that is immoral or in error.

12:39

Sometimes false teaching can go with this. And so that's the first,

12:45

I guess, kind of compromising relationship, I would say. I think Proverbs 1320, though, also broadens this a bit.

12:53

You can be just a companion with fools. In other words, like you can be too associated with someone who's unwise.

13:02

In business relationships, I've seen this often, where you think you can trust someone or depend on them to uphold their end of the deal or their contract.

13:11

This happens in ministry, too. You hire someone as an associate pastor or a senior, whatever, and you think you're getting one thing, and then you realize that's not actually what's happening.

13:21

That this person is foolish, and you've now unfortunately stuck your neck out and become, to use biblical language, surety for a stranger.

13:32

You have put yourself on the line, your finances, your reputation, all of these things, and now it's gonna come back to bite you because this person has used your good name, your platform, your resources to then go and do on their own bad things.

13:51

I think that's why in Proverbs 1320, it says, the companion of fools will suffer harm. If you spend enough time around foolish people, eventually they're going to do something foolish, and you're gonna be caught in that net.

14:02

This is more of a prudence thing or a wisdom thing. You just don't want to be at least close friends.

14:11

You might not even want to be friends with someone who's foolish. You could be there as someone who helps them out of the pit they're in and gives them advice and stuff, but you don't want to get into a situation where you're letting their foolishness rub off on you, or that's the person that you are choosing to spend your time with over other people who are wise.

14:35

Before we go on, though, we'll probably get into this a little more, but any thoughts on that, Matthew, on just a legitimate guilt by association?

14:44

Yeah. I think that in regard to guilt by association, what it comes down to is I'd probably say the degree to which you're connected to somebody.

14:53

I don't think that necessarily being mutuals online, let's say, is enough to establish a clear guilt by association.

15:01

I don't even think being generally somewhat publicly friendly is enough. I think what really matters is the extent of cooperation that you have with another person is the means by which you establish any sort of guilt by association.

15:18

That's what I would say. There's also different standards you hold for different sort of relationships. For example, politically, you may have some sort of relationship with somebody, but you would never fellowship with them on the basis of religion, or religiously, vice versa.

15:34

There may be somebody who you are really theologically aligned with and you enjoy talking theology with, but you may have different political priorities.

15:43

One of you may be more, say, you're a bit more dissident rightist, while he's a bit more like an early 2000s -type

15:51

Republican or something like that. You can acknowledge, okay, we still agree on this part.

15:56

We'll talk about this. We can disagree heavily on this. Even, like I said, some people you may partner with politically that you wouldn't partner with religiously.

16:05

Someone who's a bit more right -wing, but may lean a bit more paganistic or something like that.

16:12

You'll be able to vigorously debate religion and all that while still having a common political goal.

16:17

I think that there are different standards and weights and measures that you have to apply for establishing certain relationships and trying to ask, is this enough to establish that somebody is in a really bad spot?

16:30

For example, if you partner with somebody or make an association with them on the basis of shared religious affinity, yet their religious values are contrary to what's revealed by a scripture.

16:44

If you partner with somebody like, yeah, they're my brother or sister in Christ, and this is why I stand with them, and they're preaching the permissiveness of homosexuality or female preachers or stuff like that, that's where you can go, okay, pause here, pause here.

17:01

I hope that makes sense. Does what I'm getting at there make sense? Yeah, it does.

17:06

I think there's a proximity. Sometimes the inner circle of your proximity should be more guarded than the outer circles.

17:18

If you just happen to be at a conference, you've seen those conferences where there's 50 people, all their heads are on a poster.

17:25

You probably don't know most of the people that you're supposedly speaking with, but you've been asked to go, let's say,

17:33

Turning Point USA or something, and you're at a pastors' conference, and oh, James Lindsay, the atheist guy, is speaking with you.

17:41

Does that mean you're responsible now, like you're approving of atheism? That's obviously not the correct way to look at that, but then let's say you partner with James Lindsay, and you platformed him in Christian circles and tried to get him popular with Christians.

18:01

That would, in my mind, be more of a foolish thing to do, because now you're taking an atheist, you're taking someone who is against everything that Christians stand for, essentially, just to bow.

18:13

Because you might have some agreements on certain things against, I don't know, there's certain points of agreement you have, you're going to make him the expert.

18:22

Obviously, I'm picking that example because that really did happen. I think that that becomes more of a problem.

18:31

You're making that person an authority within your intimate circle.

18:40

I don't know. You're exposing them to the sheep, the church, and saying, hey, this guy is a good guy to listen to, without qualifying it, essentially.

18:55

That could be a big problem. Again, there's even a million things with that. I'm thinking about, what if it was a pro -life rally?

19:02

What if it was on this one issue? We're against DEI. Could you have James Lindsay? We'll get into this in a minute, but there's a difference between co -belligerency and then a close partnership with someone.

19:16

For a close partnership, you do have to have more in common. You do have to, I think, at least have your convictions straight between the two of you.

19:25

Could you do a business with a Mormon? Yeah, I guess you could. Would you then have that Mormon come and fill the pulpit at your church?

19:33

No. We can certainly see that these are different kinds of relationships.

19:41

That's kind of the point. There is a legitimate guilt by association. If you're constantly hanging out, giving your endorsements to people who do not share your fundamental beliefs, you're letting them into your audience, to this group that you are in charge of, or you have a greater responsibility.

20:07

They trust you, so you're trying to help them, expose them to viable, good content.

20:14

You bring in a wolf, or you bring in someone who's a fool. That's a legitimate guilt by association problem because you are the one that's letting everyone know, hey, this person is totally safe.

20:26

But there is also, like we said, there's an illegitimate guilt by association. I'll keep reading here.

20:32

It is wrong to assume that sharing a platform or working with someone implies full endorsement of their beliefs or actions.

20:38

Sadly, this is all too common. Simply put, not everyone can know everything all the time about those they platform or partner with in ministry and mission.

20:46

Just because someone shares a stage, hosts a podcast, or even reposts on social media posts does not mean that person is aware of or guilty of the sins of another person.

20:55

Sometimes awareness still does not make the charge legitimate. So Jesus dying with sinners, we have

21:03

Mark chapter 2 verses 16 through 17. Why is he eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners, right? That's what the

21:08

Pharisees said about Jesus. Joseph also worked under Pharaoh without embracing

21:15

Egypt's pagan practices, so it is the nature of the relationship that determines whether an association compromises integrity.

21:21

And if I could just repeat that one more time, it is the nature of the relationship, okay? So a work relationship where, oh, your boss is another religion, does that mean that you believe that religion?

21:34

No, of course it does not. Now, if you start going and promoting that person and saying, hey, their religious beliefs are safe, that's a different kind of relationship.

21:44

So let's pause there. Let's see if there's comments, and then we'll continue the article here.

21:50

It looks like Cosmic Treason has a lot of comments, man. I don't know if I have time to get... Let's go to the last one he has. I don't go around quoting

21:56

Oscar Wilde's criticisms of women, he says, understanding that the man was a homosexual and misogynistic and regarded marriage with disdain.

22:04

Oh, okay. So this is in a longer thread here, but he's saying that there are people who can get...

22:11

No, you're fine, Cosmic Treason. Thank you for all the comments. I'm sure it's driving the algorithm. He's saying, sorry, he's not trying to dominate.

22:17

But the point he's making is that you could have a commonality. For example,

22:23

Andrew Tate believes that men and women are different. So we have something in common with Andrew Tate as Christians, even though Andrew Tate is probably not the person we want to make our poster child for that particular idea.

22:37

If we start promoting Andrew Tate of like, oh, this guy is the one you should listen to on this topic, they're going to get into bad territory.

22:45

But obviously, we do have a point of agreement that men are different than women. So I think you're making a great point there,

22:52

Cosmic Treason. Anything to add here, Matthew, before I keep going? No, I think we're good.

22:59

And I think that what we were kind of just touching on there about the nature of association, that kind of relates to the point that I was trying to make is to what level and to what degree you're associated with someone and also towards what end?

23:11

Because part of the purpose of an association is a shared telos, a shared end. What is the end and purpose behind associating with this person?

23:19

And is it enough to raise concern if the person is a controversial enough figure? Yeah. And it does say something when you will share a stage or have someone on your podcast who's of a particular, let's say, they have a particular worldview or set of ideas, they believe, whatever, and then you won't have someone else.

23:39

For example, I got flack for this, and it was on the dividing line, so I might as well just say it.

23:46

But I had questioned the prudence of platforming,

23:52

I'll just say his name, because James White already platformed him, but this guy, Corey Mauler, who I know some of the guys listening, and I know,

23:59

Matt, you know who this is. But anyway, I questioned that online. And the comparison

24:04

I made was if guys like James White and Samuel Say and who was the other guy,

24:10

Chris Rosenborough, I think, they all had these, quote, unquote, debates, but none of them seemed interested in having one with Stephen Wolf.

24:18

This was sort of my frustration. Stephen had been called either a fascist or racist by all those guys, but there's not an interest, it seems like, in platforming a

24:31

Stephen Wolf, but there is with Corey. And I think in my mind, I can understand why that might be. I kind of get why that could be an advantageous thing.

24:42

But my point was, it is probably prudent to watch who someone will platform and who they won't or who they'll interact with and who they won't.

24:53

Sometimes who they won't or who they refuse to interact with can also say something about where their partnerships are or who's beyond the pale to them and those kinds of things.

25:07

And I know this is getting kind of dramatic. Maybe this makes some people uncomfortable, but that is the world of social media.

25:13

That is the world of X, especially. It is a lot of we're on a team together for this goal or for this thing, and it changes by the week.

25:24

The next week, you could be on Team Blue and you thought you were on Team Red, and there's people now who are saying, oh, you're not with us anymore.

25:32

This is a constant thing. It's way too dramatic, to be quite honest. And I'm hoping that maybe some of what we say in this podcast will cause people to think and maybe not have those reactions as much.

25:45

But anyway, back to the main point that I'm trying to make. I do think, though, if you're unwilling to partner with someone or you're unwilling to platform someone or have a conversation with someone, but you are willing to do it with someone else, let's say, who you also disagree with, let's say, then

26:04

I do think it does say something about you. Obviously, there's a motive there. It could be something like platform.

26:12

I've noticed with my platform, because I have a certain size, if someone has a significantly smaller platform,

26:20

I might not be as likely to have a conversation with them. Not because I'm against them, but because I know that they need the airtime.

26:30

For them, this is their big break. This is their opportunity to get in front of an audience that's bigger.

26:37

And if I don't like their ideas or if I don't care for what they're saying,

26:42

I'm probably not going to be as likely to platform them. I'm going to look for someone who I'm not going to elevate.

26:49

These are just prudence things that I've learned over years with podcasting. But these things are kind of complicated.

26:57

You have to put yourself in the position of people who are inviting people on their podcast and going to conferences and doing all these things.

27:06

It is a complicated world. There are a lot of different motivations at play. You can't always figure it out just by a snap judgment.

27:19

That opened it up. Now, people are really commenting because I got into some details here by mentioning

27:25

James White. You name drop Mahler and you open the flood gates. I want to say, actually,

27:31

John, I disagree. I'm glad him and James White debated. That was a lot of fun to watch, in my opinion.

27:38

I didn't. I didn't watch it. I saw like two clips. You need to have a watch party. A bunch of people come over and put some popcorn on.

27:47

Okay. I'm not kidding. I'm not going to name drop anyone just in case to get them in trouble. I was in a group chat of a bunch of guys in my area and they're like, does anybody want to have a watch party for them?

27:59

I couldn't make it because I was working, but I would have loved to do that.

28:07

What's the word? Sensational is not the word, but that's the one that's coming to my head.

28:12

It's a rare team up. I don't have a problem with James White doing that.

28:19

My question was, if he's the threat, he has a bigger platform.

28:26

He's also called a racist. Why is that not a conversation that's going to happen?

28:32

I'd love to see that conversation happen, but it seems like there was more interest in having Mahler and making him the kind of alternative and the threat, the enemy, whatever.

28:44

Again, I guess I just bring that up. I probably shouldn't have brought it up, but now that I have, I have. I guess

28:50

I just bring it up to say, when you're looking at these online things, there's a whole lot of motives and there's a whole lot of reasons people do what they do.

29:01

I think that James White got flack from both ends for this. I guess

29:08

I was part of the flack on one end a little bit. I was just questioning, why him and not him? I don't know.

29:16

It wasn't wrong. There's nothing wrong about it. I don't think James White, he wasn't in sin.

29:22

There's people who want to make him out to be such a terrible person for just giving this guy a platform.

29:31

I think that's ridiculous, to be quite honest with you. I do want to see more serious conversations about those issues.

29:37

I'd love to see Stephen Wolfe, part of that stuff. There's a few comments coming in.

29:43

Let's read those and then we'll keep going here. Eschatology Matters offered to host James and Stephen and James said he would.

29:49

Stephen is cagey and you're blind to it, John. Okay. He called you out, man.

29:54

Kim Traveler called me out. I'm not blind to Stephen's comments.

30:00

He can instigate with James White. There's no doubt about that. For anyone on X, you can see that.

30:08

I think James gave his stipulations. He said what would have to happen in order for him to do that.

30:15

AD actually did a decent video on this. James' standards for doing a discussion with Mahler are completely different than Wolfe.

30:26

That's what I was questioning, too. What's wrong with having a conversation with Wolfe?

30:32

I'll have a conversation. I don't care. Cosmic Treason, I see your position, John. Wolfe is more serious or sincere than Mahler, but Wolfe doesn't seem interested in debating his positions over scripture or church history.

30:43

That's exactly what he said he would debate, so I don't know where you're getting that. Yeah, I'm not entirely sure. The way that he wrote his book, there wasn't tons of exegesis of scripture necessarily.

30:54

Scripture is only quoted twice, but he had established in the beginning that it assumes a Reformed tradition. Then the common explanation that he gives is if you're writing a book on the

31:02

Trinitarian implications for politics or whatever, what the

31:07

Trinity implies for how to do politics, you don't need to spend the first part of the book establishing the

31:13

Trinity from scripture, going through church history, the various Trinitarian heresies, the controversies, what was at play at that, the geopolitical situations around it.

31:21

You can instead just assume Trinitarianism in order to go forth talking about the Trinitarian implication of politics.

31:28

Likewise, Stephen, in writing the book Case for Christian Nationalism, assumes a Reformed tradition by which he establishes the foundation and stuff like that.

31:35

It's a pretty generic political theological method. You could have a more biblical theology way of doing

31:44

Christian nationalism or something like that, but his approach was very systematic and it assumed that. Stephen very often appeals to church history when discussing these things.

31:54

He has exegeted scripture before as well for many of his arguments. I don't remember which article was on American Reformer, but he had one where he explicitly made syllogisms on the basis of scripture and put it forward.

32:09

Stephen isn't a theologian by training, but he's more than willing to engage on those levels.

32:16

I don't know. I think it's interesting, but I too would love to see that conversation. I, for one, like to watch how

32:23

Stephen interacts with Mr. White on Twitter. It's kind of fun. I think it would be.

32:29

Eureka Hope says, I don't think White and Wolf are worlds apart. Mahler is clearly dangerous. According to James White, though, they are.

32:37

Remember that tweet Stephen made about the Lone Bull work? James White was all over that.

32:43

It was racist and blah, blah, blah, all of that. All right.

32:49

John Carter, it's very simple. Mahler is easier to tie to the character which

32:54

James White and Wilson wish to project onto all who reject their liberalism, whereas Wolf is harder to misrepresent. Took the words out of my mouth.

33:01

That's kind of the. Yeah, I think that's just because the way in which Mahler posts as well, like I think that his approach is going to be a bit different than Stephen's, whereas Stephen is like, you know,

33:11

Stephen cares about ethnicity and things like that. But his thing is like his understanding of ethnicity and people in place and heritage is much more phenomenological.

33:20

It's an experience thing where you share like common memories and life together, whereas Mahler's is going to be a bit more racialist.

33:27

But let's just say hypothetically that like, you know, they both have like very similar views on that. Regardless, yeah,

33:34

Mahler just, you know, the way that he engages Twitter is he posts a lot of rage bait and it's very effective because, you know, it gets people talking about him and it goes after James White's radar.

33:43

So, you know, his end, like what he is trying to accomplish, he does a very good job at doing it because he, you know,

33:50

Mahler knows what he's doing and, you know, when he goes on these shows and all, he's able to very clearly put forth what he really means by this, what he really meant to say.

33:59

So, yeah, but it makes sense, though, because people like James White will latch on to that much better. But like I said, this is actually very genius on Mahler's end because what it ends up doing is while Stephen Wolf still has not gotten a platform to debate

34:12

White, Corey Mahler now has the entire audience of, you know, the dividing line.

34:19

So it makes a lot of sense. And, you know, their episode on IQ, him and Wo actually talk about, like, their

34:27

IQs and like, you know, when I listen to it, I'm like, oh, maybe Mahler wasn't lying about that because, you know, he's doing a great job at getting

34:33

James. So, yeah, I actually think it's a very, you know, a genius method, even if I read some of the tweets and I'm like, oh, okay.

34:40

Okay. Trump was able to get all his enemies to talk about him. Yeah, no, it's very, it's very smart.

34:46

Trump actually did something really similar, too, if you think about it. He would just say stuff that would get his enemies talking and it made his profile go up and all that.

34:56

Bringing it back to go by association, though, I suppose the question then is, all right, is there, this probably wasn't the best example to bring up, but since I brought it up, is that a problem for someone like a

35:08

James White? Like, is this, is he showing, is he showing his motives here?

35:14

And I mean, I can't read the guy's heart, right? And I can't read the other guys who have done these debates. I can't read their hearts.

35:20

I can think of legitimate reasons, very legitimate reasons to have a debate with all kinds of people, right?

35:27

I've debated, I've had formal debates with atheists, with abortionists. They're, I think, debating people that can be nefarious and different and all, like, that's actually can be a very beneficial thing.

35:39

The question is, though, like, why are you doing it? What's the, and it does say something when you won't do it, or you put all these guard, these sort of barriers in the way of doing it with someone else who you also consider to be dangerous, who has a larger following and dangerous in the same category, but they're not going to get the same elevation.

36:00

And that's how it works online now, right? I'm very aware of this, even with my platform. The platform is, even if you put someone on there that disagrees with you, you're exposing them to your audience.

36:10

It's, it is kind of like inviting them into your house a little bit. Like there, there are certain rules that apply where you have to, or at least you should, if they're on your podcast, at least have some kind of a decorum.

36:22

And there you're exposing them to all the people that like what you're doing. So it is understandable that people would think that you're either trying to do a contrast or a comparison.

36:34

Like either this person is completely opposite of me, or this person is we're in, we're in cahoots, we're in league together, because it's, it's benefiting your platform somehow.

36:44

So anyway, let's keep going with the article and hopefully some of this will become a little clearer here.

36:50

Silence and complicity. Failing to address moral wrongs can in some ways tie someone to those who act immorally.

36:56

There are certain times when a Christian man or woman sees a brother or sister in Christ's sin, and they stand by silently.

37:02

In 2020, pastors who did not challenge government mandates to close churches or push against divisive racial ideologies hindered their mission.

37:09

James 417 says, therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.

37:15

James's wisdom is very helpful. God gives different gifts to different people. Let's see, not every man is the same as the next man, nor is every woman.

37:22

Some can see evil coming, some have a harder time, but most were silent in 2020.

37:29

Though they knew the right thing to do, they failed to act. So I see this as a guilt by association issue.

37:37

So if your group, like your denomination, your church association, was all compromised on this, and you decided to just kind of go with the flow even though you knew that this was wrong, that shows that you have a compromised character.

37:56

And it's partially because of the people that you are surrounding yourself with. You're running with people who are foolish, and so you are doing foolish things with them.

38:04

You're the companion of fools. And I understand it takes some courage, it takes some virtue to stand up when the rest of the people that you want respect from and that you're used to trusting are going in the wrong direction.

38:17

But if you know that they're going in the wrong direction, you are being negligent and you are exposing your own people that you should have care for and charge over to dangerous ideas that will hurt them.

38:30

So yeah, I'll keep going if you don't have anything, Matthew. Silence hall.

38:37

Nope, I have nothing further to add to that. We can keep going with the article. Many in the modern church want to be seen as nice.

38:43

They want to go along to get along without ever standing up for the right thing, whatever it may be, even if it is small. But sometimes not acting is worse than acting.

38:52

Many may feel inadequate to do the right thing, but here's the good news. James promises in James 1 that if anyone lacks wisdom, let him ask of God.

38:59

Christians who are soft or wishy -washy must call out to God. We have a duty to protect.

39:05

John 10 says, I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. He who is the hired hand sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees.

39:14

So the conclusion of all of this is guilt by association requires discernment. We may work with those we do not fully agree with, but we must guard our associations carefully and stand against evil when it threatens those in our care.

39:26

We must also not think every person in a particular group occupies the same role. Paul's words to the

39:32

Corinthian church are helpful. I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree together so that there may be no divisions among you, and that you may be united in mind and conviction.

39:44

So as churchmen, then, I mean, there's one thing talking about podcasts, it's one thing talking about the business world, the political world, but as in the church, what...where

39:57

are the boundaries? I would say doctrine is obviously a boundary in the church. So is character.

40:02

Those are two things that you should not suspend.

40:09

So if someone has a lousy character, they're not fit to be an elder, let's say, you can't give them your endorsement, and they can't have a stamp of approval coming from the other leaders, or else that is a guilt by association that is compromising, right?

40:27

But if the other leaders are unaware of a particular sin, right? I don't...Steve Lawson did these horrible things, this horrible thing, but John MacArthur didn't know that Steve Lawson was doing this.

40:37

So is John MacArthur on the hook for what Steve Lawson didn't know? But yeah, if you knowingly start platforming someone, giving them a stage by which to influence others, knowing that they could influence them in a bad way, then you are guilty for that.

40:57

That is a dangerous guilt by association. And so that's some of the difference there, and we'll take some comments, and then,

41:05

Matthew, if you have anything to say while I'm looking for comments, go for it. No, I think that most of what we've gotten at,

41:15

I feel like has been covered pretty substantially. Like the idea that the degree of association is a way that you discern the amount of guilt,

41:25

I guess you could say. The idea that also I think of is this idea that there doesn't need to be complete unanimous agreement to associate publicly with somebody else.

41:39

Like, John, I'm sure that there's a few things that you and I may not agree with. One time,

41:46

I don't remember what this was concerning, but you were saying this one thing, and somebody, someone was

41:53

DMing me and was like, man, what's going on with John? You got to tell him to blah, blah, blah. And I'm like, I don't know.

41:58

John's his own person. He does whatever. And he's like, yeah, but you have the podcast with a man. I'm like, okay, well, are you supposing that him and I agree on everything or that I'm going to be like, hey,

42:07

John, man, you got to stop doing this. I've sort of thought about that as well.

42:14

Just doing the podcast with you is like sometimes people will be like, hey, man, why is John saying that? And I'm like, I don't know. That's John's thing.

42:19

You go talk to him about it or I'll bring it up and see what he thinks. You should see all the ones I get about you,

42:25

I'm just kidding. I know

42:30

I'm just, I'm a highly controversial figure. Yeah, you bring up a good point.

42:35

Like the purpose of this podcast is I say it in the intro, right? It's to encourage men who are

42:41

Christians to live a godly life, to take responsibility in the home and their community and their church.

42:46

You and I can partner on those things, right? We are pretty close with what we believe anyway, but no two people are exact.

42:54

No two people. The goal is we're all trying to be like Jesus if we're Christians, right?

43:00

So we want to be like that person, but none of us on our way in sanctification are going to be exactly the same, even in our theological beliefs.

43:10

And so where are the guidelines and so forth? Well, I'm probably not going to have

43:17

Matthew come to my church and do a baptism service, right? I feel like my daughter might be in jeopardy of getting baptized if Matthew showed up and started doing that.

43:28

It's funny, you can't hear it, but as soon as I said that, I heard my daughter scream from the other room. She doesn't want to be baptized yet.

43:35

She's crying for the right to baptism and you're just ignoring her. That's right, we're just abusive parents.

43:43

But yeah, I mean, that's an understood thing, and it's not a fundamental doctrine, and it is a disagreement.

43:52

It's not a compromising kind of thing. If there was a character issue or a fundamental doctrinal disagreement, that could end up being a problem, right?

44:02

If I found out, Matthew, that you actually did reject the Trinity, or if you found out that I did reject the

44:07

Trinity or something, and then we continue to do this, that would be a problem. That'd be a big problem, right?

44:16

To me, it's not that complicated, I suppose.

44:22

I know I just said on Twitter, there's all these, especially when you have a platform, there can be all these personalities and there's drama.

44:28

That's true, but as far as whether it's compromising or not, a lot of it is, what are the motives of the individuals, and what specifically are they working toward?

44:39

If you're working towards good things, if it's a pro -life cause,

44:45

I can work with a Mormon on something like that. It's not a compromise, because I'm not saying to people, hey, this guy's—Glenn

44:53

Beck's theology is just super great. That's not the message I'm sending in going to a pro -life rally that Glenn Beck's speaking at.

45:02

If it was a Christian leaders meeting for men, and Glenn Beck's speaking, that is a totally different context, because now you're saying, oh, the

45:10

Mormons are Christian. I think that's the difference. Why are you platforming the person, or why are you in an association with that person?

45:19

That is what makes the difference. Again, motives come up here quite a bit.

45:27

I should have never said a thing about James White, probably, because now that's all the comments. Anita Smith, White was trying to gain advertising.

45:36

No, I don't think so. Not personally. To go back to what

45:41

John Carter said, I think a lot of this had to do with the alternative to our position is this guy over here.

45:48

This guy is kind of scary, because look at the things he says. Someone like a Stephen, you would have had a more,

45:55

I think, a contrast. Stephen represents more people. He's more in the mainstream.

46:01

He does believe lineage or ancestry has something to do with nationhood. You could have had a disagreement and a debate, and it might not have served the creating a scary contrast as much, but it would have actually been,

46:16

I think, a worthwhile educational kind of endeavor. Maybe that's also me.

46:22

I like to explore issues and ideas. I don't care for the drama as much, and so that could be me.

46:30

I could be wrong too. Matthew might be right on this. I might just be wrong on my opinions of that.

46:37

That's kind of a negative association, so probably not the best example to bring up. We're talking more about positive associations.

46:43

The Pharisees are saying, look, Jesus, you're with all these sinners. Jesus is like, yeah, but I'm not with them in their sin.

46:50

I'm not with them endorsing what they're doing. I'm with them too, because they're repentant, and the physician needs to be with the sick people.

47:00

Nathan says, a church invited James Lindsay in to speak. That seems wild in my opinion. That's a step just on a podcast with him.

47:06

I agree with that, to be honest with you. I don't know what you think, Matthew. I don't think James should ever be behind a lectern or a pulpit in a church.

47:13

He's an atheist. I don't think James Lindsay should be behind anything to speak with a public voice, but that's just me.

47:23

That's a bit of a joke. That's a bit of a joke. No, I think that's a bit absurd, yeah, the idea that he would be welcomed within a church.

47:31

I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that it wasn't during the main service, but regardless, even if it's for a

47:39

Bible study or any ecclesial event, I still think that's incredibly imprudent given that he's an out and open godless man who does not advocate for a particular

47:53

Christian morality or a Christian moral order and who scorns things that are essential to our faith.

47:59

The guy literally wrote books against Christianity, and you're going to have him speak there.

48:04

Sure, if you think he has good insight about wokeness, hint, he actually doesn't really have much good insight about wokeness at all.

48:11

A lot of it's just peddled garbage modern liberalism that's colorblind, and that's the way he fights liberalism, which doesn't really do anything.

48:21

I think that's incredibly unwise to have him behind any ecclesial pulpit.

48:27

He's pro -abortion. He's pro -pornography. He's pro -homosexuality, at least for some normalization and so forth—marriage, gay marriage, that kind of thing.

48:38

It doesn't make any sense to me. The only thing

48:44

I could see in a church is if there is an event being held at the church, so it wasn't like you said,

48:49

Matthew, a service. I don't know. Maybe some outside group is using it.

48:54

It's a political event. It's an educational thing, and James Lindsay is presenting on a particular topic that's not going to contradict what the church believes.

49:03

Maybe that would be different. I was just reading Edmund Burke.

49:09

He had the view that everyone had at that time. He's like, atheists don't really have a place in society as far as influence.

49:17

They shouldn't have any place. Everyone thought that. It's so recent that anyone thinks that atheists have this place.

49:27

All right, let's see. Lindsay is the mission field. That's true. That's absolutely true. Yeah, pray for James Lindsay.

49:33

I would hope to see him come to know the Lord. He's heard the gospel many times. He would identify as a heritage

49:40

American if he were aware of the phrase. I don't know about that. I don't know. James Lindsay would probably see heritage

49:46

American as Wilker Wright, to be quite honest with you. No, he absolutely would see it because it would entirely contradict his notion of propositional nationhood and things like that.

49:55

He would call it woke because it's an emphasis on people in place, which means noticing people in place, which is like, oh, being aware of realities that aren't just humans are bare material.

50:07

The woke see race and heritage American, that's just a dog whistle for white. Therefore, yeah, that'd be how

50:14

James Lindsay would think of it. I mean, maybe even if he is a heritage American, I guess.

50:21

I don't know. I don't know if he is or not. Yeah, so I do research in his lineage. Yeah, maybe he's an anchor baby.

50:29

No, I don't think so. John Carter says, debates only make sense between people who are in fundamental agreement.

50:36

What white Rosenboros say, et cetera, are engaging in it is internet blood sports, and they're blind to the actual effect it has.

50:43

I hate to say it. I'm not questioning those guys' motives as far as I don't think that's what they think they're doing.

50:50

I think they think that they're trying to defeat what they see as a threat. I do think that is the main thing, but I have to agree with John Carter.

51:00

I don't want to get sucked into this. You guys can pray for me and Matthew too if you want, but I would welcome your prayers on this.

51:07

I've realized there's a lot sensationalism, and there's a lot of just drama online that doesn't actually move the needle in any direction.

51:15

It's just like division for division or entertainment value. I don't know if that's all wrong, but there is something off about it, and I can't quite even articulate it, but yeah,

51:28

I don't like the blood sports stuff either. I would prefer... You remember those old debates?

51:33

Well, you were... Man, I'm dating myself here. You would have been young, Matthew, but early 2000s, so you were a little...

51:40

I don't even want to ask how old you were. I was born in 2001 for reference, John. All right.

51:47

Okay. So around that time when I was going to undergrad and you were a toddler, there was all these debates between Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens with guys like William Lane Craig.

52:01

Actually, James White was part of that. I don't even remember who all. There was a whole industry.

52:09

I think there was a website called Apologetics 365 that just would have all these debates posted. I listened to them like crazy because they were all happening.

52:18

It was really kind of refreshing because they were actual debates.

52:24

You would have an issue, for example, the motion,

52:30

God doesn't exist, and we're going to debate that particular statement.

52:36

You would have specific times for rebuttals and all that. But it was with people who were dedicated to reason most of the time, to at least a rational process in trying to adjudicate differences.

52:52

It wasn't the Trumpian -style quote -unquote debate that in 2015, it's like everything changed when

52:59

Trump started being like, oh, you're real tough, Jeb. We all laughed. It was hysterical. He just started mocking the people on stage, and that's how he won.

53:09

He actually didn't have to engage in substance. I understand why people like it and stuff, but I got to be honest.

53:16

I miss the old just trying to focus on the issue and navigate it using reason and logic and information and argument.

53:27

Now, I very much see this new emphasis that is somewhat against those things.

53:34

It's always a spectacle. I don't care for that myself. You blame Trump for this shift.

53:41

I know. I'm getting myself in all kinds of trouble. I liked when Trump said that because he was right about it.

53:49

Jeb wasn't actually being tough. Trump nailed it. They weren't talking about policy anymore, which is what debates

53:59

I always thought were supposed to be. I have my vision. You have your vision. Trump was like, let's cut through all this because the issue isn't your visions.

54:06

The issue is you guys are all a bunch of losers. You guys are corrupt politicians.

54:12

I think in that context, maybe it was good, but it just seems like every single debate now, all discourse has come down to this now where it's a lot of showmanship and loudness and mocking.

54:25

Mocking's powerful. It's not my thing.

54:31

Dr. Bob said it's low energy Jeb. He reminds us. Yes, I remember that. Low energy

54:36

Jeb and lying Ted. Right? Lying Ted. That's what he said at the time.

54:42

I was so mad. I was a Ted Cruz supporter. Oh, we got the comments coming in fast and furious.

54:49

I want to give you the chance though. We're almost an hour in. I can't believe that. Little Marco. Yeah, I remember that.

54:57

Oh, good old Trump. Well, you've kind of grown up in this, I guess. For the

55:02

Zoomers, that's kind of all... When you think of debate, what do you think of?

55:09

You probably think of more the Bloodsport style. Well, yeah. I think a bit about that Trump stuff.

55:17

When the primaries and stuff were first going on, I remember my parents kind of liked

55:24

Cruz and I don't know why I can't remember the name of this. Ben Carson. Ben Carson. Yeah.

55:29

They liked Ben Carson a little bit. I was just like, I don't know. I thought Trump was funny, so I liked Trump.

55:36

I actually watched a lot of debates, John, because we were just talking about James White.

55:42

I was a big James White fan when I was in middle school. I figured out, I'm like, oh, Calvinism.

55:47

This is great. At first, I heard about him like, this sounds bad. Then I was reading a John MacArthur study

55:53

Bible and I'm like, oh, I guess this makes sense. Then I started listening to the dividing line.

55:58

I watched all of James White's debates and stuff, especially the ones with Roman Catholics from the 90s and stuff.

56:06

I knew what debate was back then and all that, but no, I guess the blood sports stuff is kind of what

56:15

I've been exposed to. That's not to say I'm aware of the other types.

56:20

The other types are good and all that, but sometimes there is a place for blood sports where you just got to let someone know that they're stupid and you need to invalidate what they're saying.

56:30

It actually is somewhat productive. I'm reminded of Ecclesiastes.

56:36

There's a time and a place for everything. There's a time where you need to just be a bit more hardheaded and lay it down, but then there's also a time where you need reasoned, calm discourse, which is possible to persuade the other side and not just for demoralization.

56:53

Yeah. I obviously like the calm discourse more. I think that reaches me more.

56:58

I think when I listen to a debate, I tend to gravitate towards the person who's calm, cool, collected, and can give a good argument.

57:09

I'll be honest, in 2016, I didn't like Trump at first. That turned me off. I was a

57:14

Cruz guy, so that was part of it too. Looking back and then seeing since then, especially what he was up against and what he's facing, it makes sense why he went personal and why it resonated because these people are crooks.

57:28

He didn't want to talk about what's the taxation rate that you want versus what

57:35

I want. It just made more sense to be like, it doesn't matter what your policies are. You're an empty suit.

57:41

I think you're right, Matthew. There's definitely a context and a time for that. I think it's a lost art though, like the formal academic debate, which is what

57:51

I was used to where scholars came together who put a lot of time and effort and energy into an argument.

57:59

I always was fascinated by that because it's like, oh man, these people know what they're talking about.

58:05

I had a professor who would do these debates in seminary, and he said he would not even accept a debate unless he had a minimum a year to prepare for it.

58:16

I get sometimes invitations to do a debate tomorrow about a topic that just came up that I haven't even thought about a whole lot, and people are already debating it.

58:29

Anyway, I missed that kind of. All right. Last chance for comments and conundrums, cries of outrage, whatever you guys have, and then we will finish the podcast here.

58:42

I wish Grant Cruz wouldn't have had been so effeminate, Kazakh treason says. He had the policy positions I agreed with, but he couldn't even stand up for his wife.

58:49

I want to rip my hair out. Yes, I remember that. I was so mad about that. I don't know if you remember that,

58:55

Matthew. Trump started saying that Ted Cruz's wife was ugly, basically. Cruz, he said stay away from Heidi, but that was the extent of it.

59:06

Anyway, do you know Aaron McIntyre? Yes, I do know Aaron McIntyre. I think Matthew knows Aaron McIntyre too.

59:12

I've met him in person two times, but we're not best friends. We're not mutuals or whatever.

59:19

I've just seen him at two conferences. Yeah, I've met him in person. I've had him on the podcast, so I've been on his podcast.

59:28

He's a good guy. I like what he has to say. He actually did a really good episode with Doug Wilson recently.

59:36

They actually had a pretty principled, I don't know if you want to call it a disagreement, but it was a discussion where they were coming from two different angles with different concerns, and they were talking about the subject we're talking about.

59:48

We talked about a little bit here, though, that debate. I thought it was fascinating, so I would encourage people to listen to that.

59:57

All right, well, with that, we're probably going to just end the podcast. Next week, you can look forward to—we are going to do the

01:00:03

Sovereignty of God attribute we're going to be talking about, and we'll see what happens.

01:00:08

I know the news cycle changes, and we'll see what's on the True Script website. We appreciate all the listeners out there, and if you get a comment in after the podcast,