AD Owns The Gospel Coalition and ERLC Yet Again! ;-)

So I came across this article on the Gospel Coalition, and thought

I'd just mention it really quick. It's actually not a terrible article. It's written by Daniel Darling, who is the vice president of communications for the

ERLC. And, you know, I think that this is very, very representative of sort of the primary thrust of evangelicalism today.

That there are certain activities that they don't approve of, and I think primarily the reason they don't approve of them is because they are so effective against the nonsense that they're putting forward, that they almost want to anathematize it and kind of question the motivations of the people behind the activities that they don't like.

Now, again, let me just stress that this article actually has some good stuff in it. I think that the idea of, you know, minding your tone and making sure that— and I really do believe the

Bible is correct when it says—I mean, imagine that, I think the Bible's correct— when it says that the sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness.

That's something that everyone should consider when they're talking to people, including myself. This is something that I consider as well. I think if your default mode is just flamethrower all the time, no matter who's coming at you, whether it's honest questions, dishonest questions, whether it's a little old lady or an arrogant teenager or whatever it is, like,

I do think you should consider, you know, your tone should—you know, you should try to be as persuasive as possible and use different tones for different people in different situations.

I think that's true, but the real kind of thrust of this article—I mean, I'll just read you a quick paragraph here.

This is the thrust of this article, but again, just hear me. I do not disagree with this whole article. I like this article in many ways, but this is just quick comments here.

But anyway, here's what the thrust of the article is. It says here, it says, "...but we are often tempted to make knowingly offensive arguments, not because they are the power of God unto salvation, but because owning the other gives us credibility in the eyes of the right peer groups.

We dismantle the ideology and wait for the retweets and likes. We post the awesome clip, not to win over our atheist neighbor, but to further ingratiate ourselves to our tribe."

That's the idea. So when you post a video where you're owning the libs or something like that, what you're really doing is you're trying to get pats on the back from your own tribe.

And I find it ironic that he puts this on social media and the way I found it was someone giving him an attaboy on the back.

You know what I mean? This kind of an argument is just kind of silly because it can be used against you for doing this.

I mean, it's kind of silly in that way. But in any case, that's the idea that if you're trying to own the lib, you're trying to own the opponent by essentially destroying their arguments in a kind of a bombastic kind of way.

He's not saying it necessarily rises to the level of sin, but it's something that you shouldn't do. And that's just not true at all.

I completely disagree. Yes, I intentionally, sometimes, try to own my opponents.

I intentionally try to destroy their ideology in a bombastic, obvious, kind of shock and awe kind of way.

And I do it intentionally. Not all the time. And if you watch my videos, I think you'll see this. I mean, a good example is my

Reparations Week video. I did five days of videos all on the same topic. And some of them, I tried to own my opponent, like the

Thabiti two -step video. I owned Thabiti in that video. I owned him. It's just that simple. And then the very next day,

I posted a video, I believe it was the next day, called The Tale of Two Slaves, and that was a much more heartfelt, kind of soft, not soft, but gentle sort of plea, essentially, about the same topic.

So on one hand, I tried to own Thabiti. On the other hand, I tried to be a little bit more of a pleading type situation, where Paul talks about how he pleads with people with tears.

I didn't cry in the video, but on the inside, I really felt the emotions of that video. So anyway, the point being, though, is that I've talked about this many times.

We've got Ezra's and we've got Nehemiah's, and both of those strategies are needed. Both of those strategies are needed.

Look, Ezra, very pious kind of man, would pray all the time, would kind of wait for God to act.

And I'm not saying he was totally in that way. He did act on his own as well. But Nehemiah, you know, he prays as well, and he's faithful also, but he acts.

He acts, and he confronts people to their faces, and he makes things happen. Ezra and Nehemiah are so good because they were prophets at the same time.

They encountered a lot of the same situations. In fact, some of the exact same situations. Ezra would pray to God and would kind of wait for God to do something, and Nehemiah would pray to God and he would do something about it.

You know what I mean? It's just such a good contrast. Nehemiah is famous for pulling out people's beards and beating them, because they were intermarrying with pagans and things like that.

And I'm not saying you should go and do that, but I'm just saying there's a contrast between those two people. And the reality is, in modern evangelicalism today, there is no room for Nehemiahs.

There is no room for direct confrontations and for owning people. But here's the reality. There is room for that.

Look, here's what Paul says about his ministry. It is not all he says, of course. But I want you to listen to this paragraph, right?

Listen to this paragraph, 2 Corinthians 10. Paul's defending his ministry here. And he says,

So there's a kind of a contrast in Paul's character, right? It's not like he's trying to put on a face or something like that.

But when he's face -to -face with you, he's a little more tender. He calls it humble. And he's saying this by the meekness and gentleness of Christ.

Okay, so that's framing this whole conversation. Ready? So he's humble when he's face -to -face with you, but bold when he's away. And then he goes on and says this.

So he's talking about boldness and kind of a direct confrontation. You know, talking face -to -face, confronting someone to their face.

And he does that in his letters. But he says when he's face -to -face, he doesn't do that as much. And he will do it, but he doesn't do it as much.

Here's what it says here. And listen to this.

This is verse 5. Every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God and take every thought captive to obey

Christ. Being ready to punish every disobedience when your obedience is complete. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God.

Absolutely, sometimes I set up and I intentionally try to own the libs. I'm trying to destroy their arguments.

I'm trying to destroy every lofty opinion raised up against the knowledge of God. I want to destroy it.

Sometimes there's some good that you can do with a good finishing blow. I think about my own past.

I used to be scared to watch Richard Dawkins videos and things like that. I used to be scared to watch...

Maybe you've had this experience as well. When I was a new Christian, I would just come into the faith. I just kind of accepted that the scriptures were from God.

His words directly to people. And I could read and I could understand them. Christ had died for the sins of his people.

I was one of those sinners and he died for me. I trust that that sacrifice is all

I needed in order to have good standing. Right standing with God. This is early on.

I'd be scared to watch some of these videos. I was like, man, these arguments sound pretty good. I have this faith.

I have this trust in God. But at the same time, this Richard Dawkins video... And then

I saw someone destroy Richard Dawkins. And I mean destroy him. I forget who it was.

I think it might have been a James White video. It might have been a James White video.

Anyway, demolished him. Demolished him. I mean, we're talking he was owned.

Big time owned. You know what? That was the finishing blow for me.

And I started to understand the scriptures a little bit better. Because I saw how Dr. White handled it.

And he handled it as if it was totally authoritative. And I was still young. In my faith,

I believe the scriptures. Yeah, but you mean it's totally authoritative in every area of life?

Like everything it says applies to... You see what I'm saying? That was a finishing blow for me. I wish I could find that video that I saw.

And you know what? He owned Richard Dawkins. Owned him. And for me, that was so encouraging.

It was absolutely encouraging. And I think, too, for someone on the other side of that debate, that's going to make them stop and think about it first.

That's going to shut their mouths when they hear how authoritative that scripture is. And their hero,

Richard Dawkins, just got owned. And yeah, that's a little embarrassing for me to say. Yeah, I was afraid of watching those kind of videos.

I was. So let's just not pretend like there's no room for Nehemiahs.

And I'm calling sometimes Dr. James White. He can be like a Nehemiah. He can be like that.

And he doesn't put the flamethrower on every time. I think that's the reputation that guys like him get sometimes.

Where it's just constant flamethrower. That's not what I see. I see in some situations, there is some domination in the rhetoric and stuff like that.

No question about it. But that's not how he is all the time. And I bet you he's not like that in person. I've never met him.

But I bet you he's not like that in person. Paul seems to act the same way. Where in person, he's different than he is when he's talking remotely from his letters.

You know what I mean? So here's the thing, man. Here's the thing. Don't get guilty.

I mean, look. There's some good stuff to learn from this article. If you're one of these people that's just flamethrower constantly, maybe you should consider some of this stuff.

But the reality is that owning the other side is completely appropriate at times. And I think it's required, especially for ministers, to own the libs sometimes.

To own them. Destroy that argument. Because not only will it encourage those on your side when they see that finishing blow and that's just the end of the conversation, but I think it could wake people up because, look, evangelism is not always just a sweet like, you know,

Jesus died for your sins, but there's a better chance that he died for your sins than if he didn't. Like that kind of stuff.

Sometimes you just need to say it how it is and sometimes you need to shake people out of their stupor and be like, look, this is enough.

This is enough. Because here's what the Bible says you are and here's what the Bible says I am and this is completely authoritative and no matter what you say,

I'm not considering it on anywhere near the level of what Scripture says. It's just that simple.

And so yeah, sometimes you know that you're going to make an argument that's going to be offensive and you know what? You still make it because it might be exactly the strategy that's needed at that time.

It might be exactly what's needed. So there's room for Nehemiahs and so don't let this kind of article guilt you out of being bold because you need to be bold.

You need to destroy every argument and every lofty opinion raised up against the knowledge of God.