The Nashville Statement, the PCA, and a Whole Lot More

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line on a Tuesday, July 2nd. I almost said it's Tuesday, July 2nd. I'm Albert Moeller, and this is the briefing. But I can't do that because it's July, so then you would know it was fake.

You probably would have known it was fake anyways because we have a very smart audience. Yes, yes we do. At least, I think you're allowed to say that. I don't know. Well, anyway. It is the summer in Phoenix.

The summer finally arrived here. It took it a while. We had a very cool June, relatively speaking, according to the National Weather Service. And July, not so much so far, but it's cooling off today. Only 109 today in Phoenix, so anything under 110 is just, eh, whatever.

It's the summer. That's how it works here. So I get to wear Hawaiian shirts now because, yeah, it's time to do that, which is as close as you can get to a coogee, sort of. No, not the same? Okay, all right.

I'll leave it that way because Rich has coogee derangement syndrome, and it's a sad thing to see. It really, really is. There are a lot of sad things to see. That is, if you look at social media at all, it's pretty ugly.

So many things. Where in the world do we start? Well, I think we need to start with important stuff. Many of us, I wrote a few things this morning about this that I posted. The speed and pace at which things are, from our perspective, changing radically in culture and in the Church leaves a lot of us disoriented, uncertain about what we're supposed to be doing, which direction we're supposed to be going, all sorts of things like that.

And obviously, I will admit I was caught napping. I did not see these things coming. Oh, I saw certain elements, I suppose, but in the sense that I posted a link this morning to a Dreher article about the influx of cultural Marxism into the seminaries.

And of course, if you looked at the super liberal seminaries decades ago, all the stuff that you're now getting in mainstream stuff that we'd ever thought we'd ever hear it in those contexts, all that stuff was present back then.

And we knew that, but it was sort of like, yeah, well, they're crazy liberals and so they're going to do what crazy liberals and leftists do. But all of a sudden, things have changed and someone threw a switch and seeds that had been sown for decades, but especially over the past decade, began to flourish.

As I said this morning, billions of little green seeds posted, sown by George Soros and others have flourished. And yes, in our seminaries, in our schools, in our churches, in our denominations. And now we're seeing this all around us.

One of the ways in which that's being seen was illustrated last week in the PCA General Assembly. The Presbyterian Church in America split off from the PCUS years ago, same reasons that that always happens.

And that is the constant tendency of leftward movement on the part of theological denominations. That's just, there's no way to say it any other way, but there is a constant leftward movement in seminaries, and therefore denominations, denominational structures, people will build up a denomination, build churches, build seminaries, endow them, and then give them to their theological enemies.

That's just what the history of the United States looks like over the past 200 years. That just seems to be how things work. That's certainly how it's worked in Europe as well. So the PCA, and then you have the OPC, there's so many, you've got the, what, RPCNA and all sorts of smaller denominations out there as well.

And then you have PCUSA. And the last time I talked with really orthodox PCUSA people was when we did the debate with Barry Lynn in 2001. So that's been almost two decades ago. That was a PCUSA congregation that was trying to hold on.

But PCUSA, oh goodness, I can tell you some pretty sad stories. A friend of mine, oh, I won't go into it, but let's just say that we had first-hand experience with the collapse of the PCUSA back in the 1980s, PCUSA.

And so the fact that we ran into a PCUSA minister on Twitter last week, and still conservatives are like, you're a Presbyterian minister and you believe what? And it's like, yeah, that's where the majority of them are these days.

Being a Presbyterian minister doesn't mean anything. You have to ask much more specific questions. Being a Baptist minister doesn't mean anything. There are super ultra-American Baptists, ultra-liberal Baptists out there, folks.

And remember, if you believe what I teach about the Bible, that it's the inspired inerrant word of God, if you believe Jesus Christ physically rose from the dead, if you believe basically in the fundamental gospel message, you are in the minority in what calls itself Christianity.

That's just, that's just a reality. And you got to start thinking that way. You got to start recognizing that reality. Anyway, at the PCA General Assembly, there was a discussion of what happened at the Revoice Conference last year.

There had to be, because it had been held at a PCA church. That does not make the PCA denomination responsible for Revoice, but it does raise the question, what will the denomination do regarding those who would be involved in such things?

What's the PCA's position? And there was a discussion, not of the adoption as a statement of the PCA, but the utilization of the Nashville Statement. Basically, the agreement that the Nashville Statement speaks biblical truth when it addresses the issues of human sexuality, basically was what was going on.

So, let me read some of the Nashville Statement to you so you know what we're talking about. It's been a few years since it came out, so it may not be the first thing on the top of your reading list and stuff like that, but it is important to hear it.

I'm going to just start with Article 6 because there's some other stuff I want to address, and this will be relevant to that. Article 6, we affirm that those born with a physical disorder of sex development are created in the image of God and have dignity and worth equal to all other image bearers.

They are acknowledged by our Lord Jesus in his words about eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb. With all others, they are welcome as faithful followers of Jesus Christ and should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known.

We deny that ambiguities related to a person's biological sex render one incapable of living a fruitful life in joyful obedience to Christ. Now, this one for me is especially relevant because some of you may recall a couple years ago when I went right around this time of year, went over to CNN.

Well, I was on twice, once by Skype and then once in studio, and the issue of sexual ambiguity intersexed individuals came up. It always comes up in defense of transgenderism, and there is no logical connection between the two.

I ran the numbers a few, sometime last year, and I've forgotten what they were, and I feel badly about that because it took me a long time to track them all down. As with the number of homosexuals in the population, the people on the left want to exaggerate the number of, the percentage of the population that has some kind of genetic disorder.

You can have XXY and XYY, and there can be chromosomal aberrations that impact the development of sexual organs and issues along those lines, but the percentage of the population is exceptionally small.

I think it was less than 0 .4%, if I recall correctly. It was a very, very, very small number of people. And so, but since it is brought up, then the Nashville Statement addresses it, and here basically says the image of God is not determined by that, that those who would have this, you know, there should be pastoral sensitivity and that kind of thing in regards to dealing with intersex people.

So then, Article 7 then says, We affirm that self-conception as male or female should be defined by God's holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture. We deny that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God's holy purposes in creation and redemption.

Now, I identified this last week, since this is the section that was primarily being focused upon by people protesting, PCA ministers protesting the Nashville Statement and its involvement in the PCA.

This is what they're focused on, and they were focused primarily upon the denial. But once again, we affirm that self-conception as male or female should be defined by God's holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture.

So, no transgenderism. Transgenderism is a fundamental violation of God's created order and His purposes. Then, we deny that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God's holy purposes in creation and redemption.

And there is the issue. Though I called it Bible 101, 40 of the delegates at the PCA General Assembly voted against not the adoption of the Nashville Statement, but Presbyterians have 47 ,000 terms for all the complicated stuff they do, but the acceptance in the sense of being biblical, whatever, concept of the Nashville Statement.

So, 40 disagreed with, we deny that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God's holy purposes in creation and redemption. This is the homosexual Christian movement.

This is the Matthew Vines. This is now the Greg Johnson, because Greg Johnson, one of the elders at the church that hosted Revoice, spoke. He came out prior to the General Assembly. He had been asked specifically last year, are you gay?

He didn't say no. He said he had a porn addiction years ago, but didn't say whether he was a homosexual. He came out as a homosexual prior to the General Assembly and then stood on the floor and identified himself as such and received applause for opposing the second part of Article 7 of the Nashville Statement.

Now, it was passed, but what you see is, again, if it follows all the preceding mainline denominations, you see what's going to happen and how it's going to happen. And so, after it passed, Greg Johnson let me put this up.

I don't know if you can zoom in on that or not, or wait a minute. There we go. So, here's his tweet. Last night, NS, that's Nashville Statement, won the battle, but they will lose the war. One, we had a seat at the table, that's new.

Two, notice the average age of the proponents and opponents, big shift. Three, about 40 of PCA leaders rejected NS. Four, we got a study committee whose report will supersede NS in PCA. Now, of course, this is a tweet, so you have to be fast, you have to be short.

He did remove this tweet, not because of what it said, but because people were offended by the use of the word war. We live in the snowflake generation. So, last night, the Nashville Statement won the battle, but they will lose the war.

Is that true? Well, if the perspective of history, if the flow of history remains the same, probably. Probably. Number one, we had a seat at the table, that's new. Yep. Yeah. And look back at the Episcopalians, look back at PCUSA, look back at the liberal Lutherans, and once you start granting to women, homosexuals, transgenders, whatever, once you ignore biblical parameters of what is supposed to be the requirements to be able to fulfill those offices, then you're giving a bunch of people a seat at the table, and eventually, they will take over the table, and they will run your denomination into the ground, which is what has happened with PCUSA, Episcopalian Church in America, etc., etc.

Number two, notice the average age of the proponents and opponents. Big shift. He's right. And how has that happened? Professors, seminaries, culture, the next generation. As the older, more orthodox retire, that's going to become 45 -55, then 50 -50, and boom.

It won't take that long. It won't take that long. About 40 of PCA leaders rejected NS. Now, they could have had other reasons, but in all probability, it was primarily over this issue. That means there is a large percentage in the PCA that have accepted the idea that identity politics, and in this case, identity sexuality, and have accepted the idea that a person who experiences same-sex attraction should self identify as a homosexual Christian, that there is nothing in that act that is problematic.

And, of course, this is the doomsday statement for Presbyterians. The doomsday statement number four, we got a study committee whose report will supersede Nashville's statement in the PCA. In other words, historically, when Presbyterians, because of their polity, one of the ways that they try to avoid splitting is by creating committees, and those committees never go away, and they can go on forever.

And what has happened historically is that kind of thing just keeps bringing it up, and bringing it up, and bringing it up, and it's like the dripping of the water on the rock. Eventually, it erodes the rock away, and that's what's happened.

That's what's happened to the PCUSA and to all the liberal denominations that went before it, and anybody with any historical sense is looking at this going, seen this before, seen this before, here we go again.

So, it doesn't, you know, will the PCA recognize that this is a life-and-death situation for their denomination, and do something, and close the door on this, or is it too late? Is the infection too widespread?

40 That's a lot. That's a lot. That really, really is. And as we look around today, I said in a little article yesterday, I think, I'm seeing it amongst Reform Baptists. I'm seeing critical theory.

I'm seeing the whole idea of acceptance of this cultural milieu. It goes under the rubric of, well, we just need to be loving, and they think that loving means adopting these cultural mandates and these cultural ways of thinking.

Rather than deriving your worldview from scripture, it's, well, I can fit my worldview into this, etc., etc. No. And so, there's Greg Johnson, and I'm afraid that on most of the stuff, he's right. Now, he's in the wrong, but the point is, you know, and I'm not the PCA, so I can't, nothing I can do about that, but there you go.

That's what's going on. So, that Nashville statement, like I said, when I saw the controversial aspect was Section 7, and the reality that Christians are to have their identity in Christ as redeemed sinners, and hence, the intersection of critical race theory and critical gender theory, which we see coming at the Church from both directions.

And this is tiring a lot of pastors out who are just simply trying to be faithful and ministering the Word, but now we're just getting hit right, left, and center from all sorts of different directions.

And so, we're being told that you are to identify yourself by your ethnicity, by your self-determined sexuality, and it is weird. A lot of people that are willing to buy the critical race theory and the racial self-identification haven't quite gotten to the point of, what was, Dolezal, was that her name?

Rachel Dolezal. No! Okay, on the sexual part, we'll let you decide what you are, not when it comes to the race part. I think most people are like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, not gonna go there. If you're white, you're white, and if you try to pretend you're something else, we're not gonna buy that.

Got something in my eye. But still, I don't know why. I mean, if you can, by the exercise of your mind, determine what your sexuality is, why can't you determine what your race is? I mean, it makes perfect sense, but a lot of people aren't willing to go quite that far.

So, I was sent an article this week by an old friend, someone who known for many, many years, used to be a regular participant in our chat channel, and our chat channel is flowing along over there right now, and we've got folks in there that have been in there for years and years and years, and most of them will remember Jamin Huebner, now doctor, and so I was sent an article that is a review and critique of the Nashville Statement by Jamin, by Dr. Huebner, and after seminary, Dr. Huebner, as many others have, took a pretty hard turn left, hard turn left, and so I went down to Section 7 to see what the idea would be, and of course, at the end of the discussion of Section 6, we read, the clarity of the NS, Nashville Statement, seems to escape precisely those complex situations it was supposed to help.

Warren Throckmorton, a Christian professor of psychology, accurately assesses the situation this way, the real world of sexuality is not as neat and clean as portrayed by the signers of Nashville Statement.

I hope Leanne's story provides a caution to those who marginalize those who have been dealt a hand they didn't ask for, and again, this is in regards to that incredibly small number of people who are quote-unquote intersex, and again, that calls for great pastoral sensitivity, but it has very little to do with the utilization of that concept today.

And that's context for Article 7, which is quoted. Dr. Huebner says, the first line appears to be a third reassertion of CBMW's complementarianism, but why should human identity, all the more Christian identity, be defined solely in the categories of creation, redemption, and not, for example, by the teachings of Jesus or something else?

Well, because it's a foundational concept that Jesus himself grounded his teaching, for example, in Matthew chapter 19, in answering questions about sexuality, marriage, male-female relationships in creation.

The creation ordinance is going to be consistent with Jesus, but creation and redemption should not be in any way placed in opposition to the teachings of Jesus, so I don't understand that. Surely we cannot pass over the parables of Jesus or the Sermon on the Mount with its Beatitudes, Lord's Prayer, and Golden Rule.

No one was even suggesting that, of course. We're talking about categories, creation, redemption. We're not talking about specific texts of scripture. The same might be asked about Paul's truth of spirit, one of the earliest Christian summaries of Christ's likeness.

Again, I don't see it. This is at all relevant in a meaningful fashion as a critique of the statement that we deny that adopting homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God's holy purposes in creation and redemption.

Saying, well, what about the Lord's Supper or the Lord's Prayer or the fruit of the Spirit isn't relevant. Category error. The denial is confusing as well, since it implies that simply identifying, and that is in italics, that simply identifying as homosexual or transgender, whether verbally or even in one's own mind, is unacceptable.

Well, I'm not sure what simply identifying would mean, but yes, it is right here that we address self-identification, how you view yourself. Christians believe that you view yourself in light of God's revelation.

I don't get to have sovereignty over the categories of creation and redemption. I don't have that right. I don't have that power as a believer. Then, this was interesting. In parentheses, this assertion was made explicit in Article 10 of the 2018 Statement on Social Justice and Gospel and the Gospel by John MacArthur et al.

I guess that's how it's cited now. Quote, we reject gay Christian as a legitimate biblical category. End quote. Well, that's exactly what we did say, and that's, I stand firmly in support of that. There's no question about that at all.

But then, the authors might as well have said, we deny that recognizing oneself to be a sinner is consistent with God's holy purposes. How do you get from we reject the idea that we have the right to determine the categories of our own existence?

God does that by creation, to we deny that recognizing oneself to be a sinner is consistent with God's holy purposes. I mean, unless all you're saying here is that homosexuality is sinful and therefore should be recognized as sinful and repented of, but that's not what you're saying.

Recognize that. Um, no, the authors might as well not have said, we deny that recognizing oneself to be a sinner is consistent with God's holy purposes. But then how do we, how does this, how does Dr. Huebner follow this up?

But recall that Abram and Sarai were not called to immediately abandon polygamy before God would make a covenant with them. Nor did God abandon covenant promises when the people of Israel clung to a hopeless system of monarchy and bloody political maneuvering, 1 Samuel 8.

The apostle Paul also had his self-conception of being the greatest of sinners. In this sense, it is no more sinful to call oneself gay, straight, or lesbian than to call oneself greedy, arrogant, or violent.

Um, that is such a mass, a morass of categorical errors. I don't even exactly know how to untangle it. The point of the Nashville statement, I didn't have anything to do with that one. I can tell you, I can speak with some authority on the statement of social justice in the gospel.

It had nothing to do with the Nashville statement. But I can guarantee you that the point of the Nashville statement is that you do not identify yourself on the basis, as a redeemed Christian, on the basis of your temptations or your predilections.

And hence, we do not start groups, well, here, of greedy Christians. I'm a greedy Christian, and I'm going to get together with other greedy Christians. And I think it's terrible how the church has treated greedy Christians down through the ages.

There needs to be, something needs to be done. Maybe we need some reparations for how greedy Christians have been treated down through the ages, or arrogant Christians, or violent Christians, or thievery-prone Christians, whatever.

It's obvious that what is being said by those who identify themselves as homosexual Christians is that this is a constituent element of their self-identification. And what the Nashville statement, and what we said, is this is an inappropriate thing to do.

We are identified by our Redeemer, not by the sins from which we were redeemed. Admitting those sins is something completely different than then, having been redeemed, using that language to identify ourselves and to then draw ourselves into groups, draw lines of division, demand that the church treat this group in this way.

That's what it's referring to. And I don't see how anything about Abram and Sarai had anything to do with making a covenant with them. What does that have to do with a movement today of people who are attempting to overthrow basic biblical moral teaching by inserting into the church categories of identification that Paul said, such were some of you, not such are some of you.

Paul placed it in the past tense, people trying to place it in the present tense, and none of these illustrations are even close to substantiating that attempt to make that insertion. We go on, of course, homosexuality, set aside transgenderism for a moment, you do have to treat them differently, they need to be, does not always refer to homoeroticism anyway.

Homosexual often refers to those with same-sex attraction, a psychological state, it's not just a psychological state, it's a moral state, regardless that person's social actions and or sexual behaviors, an embodied social and ethical state.

So we want to start chopping, got to find a way for homosexuality to be given a special status. It's always sad to see this. In that case, saying I'm gay is like saying I find contemporary folk music to be beautiful.

Pure predilection, just taste. I prefer Glenn Miller over Stan Kenton. The same thing is I'm gay. No, it's not. Not even close, not even on the same planet, not even the same solar system, the same galaxy, or the same universe.

Musical taste is not the same thing as a fundamental twisting of the creator-creation relationship that Paul uses as an illustration of how deeply into the very formation of man sinful rebellion can go.

And there's nothing in 1 Corinthians 6 that would say, and don't be deceived, big band lovers will not enter into the kingdom of heaven and such were some of you. No. So in that case, saying I'm gay is like saying I find contemporary folk music to be beautiful, though same-sex orientation is obviously more permanent and central.

Then why use the illustration? It trivializes it. And this is viewed as morally objectionable. But this is absurd. No, the example was absurd. Are present-day disabled Christians to be charged with immorality for saying I have MS or I'm autistic?

I've allowed Justin Peters to address this because it directly impacts him, but once again, this is becoming incredibly popular for people to say that homosexual desire is nothing more than Justin Peters being cerebral palsy, keeping him in a wheelchair.

It's the same thing. No, it isn't. And if you can be so confused to think it is, you have lost all connection with biblical ethics and morality. You really have. Do you really, does someone seriously want to suggest that the apostle Paul would have gone, oh, yeah, mm-hmm, yeah.

I mean, he wouldn't have known what a wheelchair was. But yeah, yeah, sure, yeah, it's just a, that one particular sin is just, it's just like having a, you know, a bum leg, having MS or autistic or something like that.

No, the apostle would never have agreed with that. We should not either because it trivializes the prohibition against homosexuality for what it represents as a denial and a twisting of the fundamental created order made by God.

This is what happens when you embrace external sources of authority and use them to recreate Christian orthodoxy and the text of the Christian scriptures. Should they undergo conversion therapy and remain alienated from the local church in the meantime?

I suggest a genuinely Christian response to these questions is no. So I guess the idea is there is no such thing as conversion therapy. In other words, 1 Corinthians 6 should have a present tense, not a past tense, because conversion can't change anything.

And that's exactly what Greg Johnson said to PCA. He doesn't know of anyone who's ever, ever been delivered from same-sex attraction, ever. It doesn't exist. They have to, they have to. It doesn't matter how many people come forward and say, that's me, you don't exist.

You don't exist. Remain alienated from the local church. No, but there are two different attitudes that a person with same-sex attraction can come into the church with. There is the repentant attitude that acknowledges and embraces the authority of God's word to define these issues, that does not demand that the church change its theology, that does not demand that the church celebrate that person's sexuality.

And then there's the attitude that says, you need to celebrate me, you need to validate me, you need to say that who I am in and of myself is good, and you need to change your fundamental theology, and then I'll accept you.

That's what you encounter, that's what you run into. So it says, in short, the whole paragraph runs the risk of pushing some Christians into denial or back in the closet. It does not see the church as a hospital for sinners or provide sound direction for the complexities of local congregations.

So evidently, from Dr. Huebner's perspective, homosexuals need to be open and out, celebrating, and that a hospital for sinners is not a place where sin can actually be very clearly defined. So I would have to ask, is same-sex orientation in and of itself something that needs to be mortified?

And I can see why you push transgenderism out of the way and didn't address that, because that wouldn't fit this narrative at all. There is no way to avoid creation categories in discussing transgenderism.

But hospital for sinners, the very use of the phrase assumes the ability to define the term sinners. Sin itself, it's necessary. It's got to be there. This kind of material, again, I address this specifically because we used to know this individual.

This person was a regular in our chat channels. I still have scripts somewhere in my old Merck setup that were designed specifically for Jamin and I think Red, if I recall correctly. Yes? Yeah, yeah, I know.

I know. So there you go. A sad thing to see, but how prevalent is this? Well, and when I say this, I mean the infection of critical theory. It's everywhere. Oh man, do I give the context for all this?

Do I walk through this? I don't know in the amount of time I have left. Well, I'll try to be brief. It's not easy to do, but I will try to be brief without closing. Once again, Bradley Mason has posted some material.

I didn't at least start this one, but that's good. Looking at the Twitter feed, Bradley Mason says, first, it is interesting to pit me against James White. I'm inventing nothing, nor are these my ideas.

I'm simply attempting to bring together to the best of my ability centuries of thought and wisdom from African-American thinkers, pastors, and godly men and women. This is on the issue of race, though critical theory is going to be very, very much a part of all of this.

Second, if you think that it is leftist ideas that have been the shackle around the god-given freedom of African-Americans in this country, then I simply don't know what world you live in. The South argued it was atheist progressives who rejected the authority of scripture who were driving abolitionism.

Then it was Marxism and the influence of the Soviets that was to blame for integrationism. And now it is the cultural Marxism and leftism that is to blame for seeking justice in society just 50 years now following the Civil Rights Movement.

And at each step of this struggle, the victimizer condemned his victim for the public ideas and social systems he suffered under. So once again, for Bradley Mason and for this entire perspective, it's always, it cannot be, because the background of all this, again, was the tweet that we talked about last week.

The statistical anomaly 3 .5 times more likely black woman to seek abortion than the corresponding white woman or other minorities. Plus the article that said, hey, look at this. Canada, United States, different histories, same issues.

Why is it the same issue if it's Americans, the American history that creates all of this? That was the background to all of this. But then we had, yeah, this is a long thread, so doing screenshots is slow.

Last, the reason for this disagreement of historical and social perspectives is what James White and I, is that, use a larger font one here, it's so small. Last, the reason for this disagreement of historical and social perspectives is that James White and I start from two very different set of assumptions.

I simply do not believe there is anything wrong with black people, full stop. So there is, this is how you make assertions. If you want, folks, I just yesterday followed a few links that people gave to me.

There was a former, what is it, apostate guy, he's an apostate, he's left the faith, was making just wild and insane assertions about me in a thread and Jeff Durbin had responded to it and corrected the falsehoods and I couldn't see half of it because I had half these people already blocked, but there are places in social media right now that are just violently nasty.

Violently nasty. And they've probably always been there, but I just, I don't go looking for that kind of stuff and sometimes it just boils over and someone says, hey, did you see this? And you look and you go, then you realize these people have been baying away on these drums for a very, very, very long time and they're really angry and they're racist and they are minority racist and well, that doesn't exist.

Yes, it does. Let me say this again and it's the most unpopular thing in the world to say, but it has to be said from a biblical perspective. If you buy into the lie that a black person cannot be a racist, there is no end to that rabbit hole because you have now bought into an externally derived concept, unbiblical categories that fundamentally impacts our ability to even define what sin is.

Racism can be defined as a sin, but it's a complex of sins. It's hatred in the heart. It is a unfairness or a lack of justice in treatment of other individuals made in the image of God. You have to bring together certain categories of biblical teaching to create a foundation for the condemnation of racism.

But if you do that, then you have to recognize that the modern definition of racism based upon oppressor and oppressed power structures, you have to have power. Believe me, I go into these areas, those people have the power.

They're nasty. They're willing to do anything. They got power. They got lots of power. They can slander. They got lots of power, but no, no, no, no, no, no, it's not that kind of power. We don't define it that way.

No, no, no. It all has to be economic power. A lot of these folks are quite well off. No, no, no, no, no. See, critical theory doesn't allow for that. You're trying to reason with critical theory. You can't do that.

If you buy that definition, that some mythical definition of power is required for someone to be able to sin, and therefore a black person cannot sin, that's simple heresy. It should be identified for exactly what it is.

And it is absolutely destructive to the church's ability to actually call out racism wherever it exists, not just the United States. You see, I see people who are so willing to press this narrative so as to bring fundamental social change to the United States, that they are willing to do irreparable damage to the rest of the world's church in the process.

And don't you realize that in reality, what you're doing is you're dehumanizing black people to say this? There is the soft bigotry of lowered expectations behind this as well. There is only one standard when it comes to sin, and it's provided by God's law.

And if you can't see that, then you are blind to what the gospel is actually saying. Because there is racism in every nation in the world, and it takes on all sorts of different hues and perspectives and backgrounds and dynamics and everything else.

And if the gospel is going to speak to the whole world, it has to speak to the whole world. And once you redefine it, just so you can get your political perspectives pushed through in one place, you're proving yourself not to be a follower of the truth and willing to damage God's church wherever it might be.

So there is a tremendous amount of black racism and Hispanic racism and Asian racism and Russian racism and wherever you want to go. Wherever you want to go. You go to places in Asia and there are people you and I could not tell one lick of a difference between the two of them.

But there is racism involved, and it goes back a long ways, and it's still sin. It has nothing to do with power dynamics. And once you say it is, you are muting the gospel. You're shutting it up. Stop it.

So I'm listening to these people, and they are spewing racism based on slander and lies and falsehood, and they claim to be Christians. They claim to be Christians. Once you tell a people group, hey, guess what?

There's a certain sin. You can't even commit it. You know what that's going to do? It's going to result in a whole lot of that sin. A whole lot of that sin, because now it's acceptable. I can do it. Feel good about it.

It's deception. It's deception. So when Bradley Mason says, I simply do not believe there's anything wrong with black people, full stop. I responded by saying, well, I know a whole bunch of black brothers and sisters who will join with me in saying, you are completely wrong.

Because there's all sorts of things wrong with black people. It's called sin. And that's the same with Hispanic people and Asian people and white people and every other kind of people. Now, what he's trying to say is that I'm saying there's a special wrongness because of that one anomaly in regards to abortion.

But of course, he ignores what my real argument was. Maybe he didn't listen. I don't know. I do not have any reason to trust anything Bradley Mason says. He has twisted my words so many times that I, why should I, why should I even begin to give the man the benefit of the doubt?

There's, there's no reason to eventually just have to go. The missing element of his criticism was that he ignored a, the PragerU video that I presented specifically in regards to groupthink. Groupthink, which is demonstrated by the fact that in the United States, the American black population votes 95 the same way.

And then how they treat black Americans who don't stick with the group. And we've, we've, I've shown you, I've shown you the tweets from people like Dr. Anthony Bradley calling people Oreos, Eric Mason, talking about Christian brothers as black on the outside, white on the inside.

In public, without the beginning of a semblance of repentance, nothing. They stand by that. And so the whole point that evidently people like Bradley Mason just want us to just walk on by and ignore is the fact that you can have a people group who adopt a way of thought, a way of thinking and enforce it upon themselves that is self-destructive.