Neil Shenvi & Jon Harris Convo

All right, we are going to get started then and hopefully it'll work this time So welcome to the conversations that matter podcast for like the third or fourth time.

I've said that We've been having some technical difficulties. We're hoping that it works this time. I have a special guest with me today

Dr. Neal Shindy and he has a PhD in theoretical chemistry from UC Berkeley.

He's worked at Duke University He did work there until 2015. He now homeschools his children and attends

Summit Church in Durham, North Carolina and you can find his work at shindyapologetics .com

and so I've already said this once but I'll say it again for those who are now hearing it because we're recording it

Neal and I have crossed swords a few times on Twitter and the purpose really of this conversation is for us to kind of expose and and Demonstrate those differences so people that you who are watching can see what those are and hopefully will be beneficial for you

As you are trying to challenge social justice movement critical theory those kinds of things in your church

So Neal and I approach this a little differently, but that being said I do appreciate much of Neal's work

I was looking at a blog of yours Neal just recently on critical theory and No disagreements thought it was a really good piece

And and so I want to start off with this a simple question to kind of lay this common ground

When was it that you realized critical theory was a problem in Christianity and what made you decide to write about it

Sure, a few years ago I began noticing like I said in my talks a drift Theologically and people that I knew personally and in other figures and so I wanted to know where it was coming from And I met my good friend

Pat Sawyer who has a PhD in education and cultural studies And he was telling me about his research and that's how

I got to know more about critical theory Gotcha so so is that Three years ago two years ago, okay?

Yeah, I think a lot of people is kind of like around that time that they started saying what's different What's your if you don't mind me asking?

What's your main problem if you had to kind of boil it down into a nutshell with social justice theory or critical theory

I? Think it functions as a worldview. I think people are So it's very it's comprehensive and holistic and so that's the main problem

I have and so to impact how you view all kinds of Christian theology in a myriad of ways

So that's why I'm concerned gotcha all right, so so the purpose of our conversation obviously is to discuss why we approach it differently and And if hopefully

I'm being fair in this analysis. I think if we were to boil it down You tend to think that myself and enemies within the church are dishonest in the way that we handle this

And I think I tend to think and I don't speak for anyone else But I know there's other people that probably share the view that you tend to be inconsistent in the how you apply

Who you go after what you go after so that kind of thing so that's what I want to discuss and And I know the last

Twitter conversation we had I think this is kind of where we left off You were we were talking about Walter Strickland's affinity for James Cone and Jade Diotis Roberts And and we can start there if you want or I know

I know You had some things you wanted to bring up so if you have an example that you want to talk about If it's one

I'm familiar with I should be able to interact with it, and we can dive into it, so how's that sound yeah?

That's good, and so I thank you John I appreciated your very ironic tone in your last podcast although you were critical of my work, and that's fine

I encourage dialogue. I encourage people to critique me and to read both sides. It's totally fine But I did tell you that I do think that your approach to these issues is dishonest now

I do not to make it clear. I have no problem with naming names with criticizing major figures beloved figures

It's not a problem Christians should welcome critique Even if it's not delivered in love.

I'm not saying that you're doing that. I'm just saying that even if Unloving people say nasty things about us. We should examine ourselves and say are they true or false

That's the question because I want to honor God and why do you mean that's so not that's not my issue

With while you're you're attacking people that I know and that I care about it's not it's not my concern

My concern is again with the honesty of the narrative you're telling and I prepared a really brief sort of Montage, and I'm hoping and I I told you

I tried to just so you the listeners know I Offered to discuss these things privately and you really wanted to have me on your show

So I thought springing things and surprising you with anything that I'm gonna present tonight We talked about it at some length.

I you know, so just to make that clear. Yeah, I just show well you can Yeah, I'll say this anyone and yourself included now.

I don't have time so I can't always That through every email I get but anyone is welcome to approach me including you

Neil If there's something that I've done that's wrong. I'm not above error So that's you know,

I've certainly you know as many podcasts of I'd as I've done I'm sure I've said things that are off here and there so there's an open -door policy on this end

I want to be humble. I want to be teachable Want to be firm in my convictions, obviously an immovable if I think that that's right

So so that being said, yeah, you are free to whether on my show or off my show

You know show me whatever you want to show me. So yeah, so go ahead Let me know.

Can you enable screen sharing for me so I can show just the this montage that I created sure

If I if I know how to do that you're asking me to do technology, let me see here screen Share screen.

Is it this just enabled me to screen you can I think I did it. Did I do it? Let me try it. Yep. Thank you.

Alright, so there you go. Alright, so this is a really brief montage that I created.

Oh gosh My gosh entitled enemies inside the church now John. I'm gonna read the slides

I'm not gonna offer any commentary so you can imagine that just just you know, it's a recording or a voice whatever narration

So here's a video on your Facebook page why I defend the Confederacy and it's a 30 or so minute video about you defending the

Confederacy and Here's a web page that you created called the rising seed

It features a prominent Confederate flag and a quote from Jefferson Davis and the mission is to honor the

Confederacy and spread its message And I'm verified that this was indeed your website.

It's taken down now, but here's a quote from Alexander H Stevens who is the vice president of the

Confederacy? He said, you know the founding fathers of the United States the prevailing ideas were those of equality that they thought slavery was in Violation of the laws of nature that it was an evil.

These are the founding fathers like Jefferson They rested upon the assumption of the equality of the races

This was an error now speaking of the Confederacy saying our new government The Confederacy is founded upon exactly the opposite idea

Its foundations are laid its cornerstone rests on the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man that slavery

Subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition This our new government

Confederacy is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical Philosophical and moral truth and that again is a very famous speech by the vice president of the

Confederacy and again this is your website whose mission is to honor the Confederacy and spread its message and Now we have a shot of you talking about your personal hero,

Jefferson Davis Here's a quote. He was of course the president of the Confederacy and what he said is that That slavery, you know is instituted for the class of persons black people not fit to govern themselves

Recognize the fact of the inferiority Stamped upon that race of men by the Creator and from the cradle to the grave our government as a civil institution

Marks that inferiority. How many more slides do you have because you already told me you weren't gonna do this. Okay No, no.

No, I said that was very short not monologuing and so my I'm done. That's it. There you go So I didn't want to go on So I'm gonna stop there now the question

I would ask John is that I know for a fact For a fact

I can give you evidence that that slideshow was dishonest Would you agree with that?

It could well Yes, it was dishonest in the sense that if you're trying to paint me as I agree with Words and things that I haven't endorsed then it would be dishonest.

Yes. Absolutely. I agree. There's several things there I'll point out the problem. So that that slideshow was dishonest.

It was misleading and For a number of reasons. I'll misname them. I to be clear.

I do not endorse that show I could I could when people on Twitter actually had

Compiled a whole bunch of screenshots not just two or three but dozens of you saying things about the

Confederacy and You actually objected to it and you said hey, you're cherry -picking, you know,

I have lots of other stuff I've written and if you put it in context It's a very different picture of my actual beliefs and you

I think we're upset at how they had Painted a narrative that was that was false

Well, well there was there was someone who was trying to take primary sources that were quoted in a book that I wrote and then

Attribute them to me that I had said them and I'm like, no, I'm quoting a source It's not me who's saying it and there's a purpose in the context of why

I was quoting it but yeah, I mean so so it I think the distinction here is that when you when you look at an idea like if you look at 18th and 19th century views of race by anyone really good

Abraham Lincoln Thomas Jefferson almost anyone of that time period and you say Something like well, I I appreciate

Thomas Jefferson's views in the Constitution what he put down. I appreciate In the sense of the

Confederacy, obviously, I'm not defending the Confederacy. It's not 1862 I'm defending against those who would want to rip down monuments to soldiers who fought to defend their homes and that kind of thing.

So if If you were to say well That means John must agree with everything from if I said let's say even

Abraham Lincoln if I said I like something about Abraham Lincoln you said well John must endorse Abraham Lincoln's views on race.

Well, that would be dishonest because they're not fundamental to Abraham Lincoln, they're not fundamental to Thomas Jefferson I would argue and I could argue very well that they're not fundamental to the

Confederacy either Despite there's a there's actually a big dispute about that Stevens speech.

He even said later He didn't say those things but but here's here's the main issue though in all of this when you have a guy like Jarvis Williams or Walter Strickland Quoting critical race theorists or liberation theologians

They're not quoting books that they wrote on hiking or camping or fishing or you know, some unrelated thing

They're actually taking the heretical ideas themselves and then they're using them to corrupt even the gospel

I would be as so bold as to say Jarvis Williams definitely does that But that's a huge difference

Neil, okay Well, let's but let's examine that so that I think the problems there were several manifold in that in that montage

The first is I called you an enemy That's a very serious charge. So to call any, you know, professing

Christian enemy Oh, you know a wolf in sheep's clothing, which is what you're when you say, you know

This is the montage that begins with enemies within the church. I know on Twitter. You said well, I'm not calling

Strickland an enemy I'm saying the enemy is Marxism. I'm not calling I didn't say that. No, I said that the enemy

I'm so enemies within the church is a sequel. Yes. Judd Saul's a director to a movie called enemies within which is about Marxism Infiltrating the

United States Congress and Senate. And so what he's saying is that These same ideas are now infiltrating the church, which

I agree with him. That's the enemy. So that's that's the brand That's the context that you're talking about. You're not calling

You know this Strickland for example an enemy because you said in Twitter technically Neil I didn't call him that Yeah, I would call

I'd say false teacher that would be a much that would be more a theological word that I would use I Didn't label the movie or the documentary, but I wouldn't

I mean if I did Maybe I'd call it false teachers in the church or false teaching in the church or something like that They're different biblically right because false teachers are actually wolves.

They're not sheep. They're not Christians So would you say that he's maybe teaching false things? For example, you know,

RC Sprouse of Presbyterian. He's not a false teacher He I'm a Baptist. I think it's false to baptize babies, but I would never call him a false teacher

So yeah, so is a Christian who's teaching wrong things or are you calling him a wolf in sheep's clothing?

Well, so the emphasis I think in Scripture is on the false teaching itself And so if you're gonna so if you're gonna examine a topic, especially within the church the there's a big difference between social issues that Affect the here and now in eternal issues and I would say that people like Walter Strickland and Jarvis Williams Are actually corrupting the gospel itself

That's been my contention really from the beginning is that this stuff is getting into areas Soteriological areas where it should never be

Are you calling Strickland then a false teacher in a biblical sense an enemy? Yeah, absolutely

All right, I would say well, but here's the thing when I say this you understand I've used this example quite a bit when someone

When you bring up like let's say Galatians and the Galatian heresy Paul confronts Peter an apostle and Peter hasn't completely given into this false teaching

But he's providing cover for it. He's Tipping his hat to it and it's a real problem

He had to be confronted to his face because he was doing something publicly. So Paul rebuked him publicly and And so I don't know where everyone is on that threat, you know, are they more or less a false teacher?

Are they I don't get into really are they going to hell or not? I mean unless something's extremely obvious what

I will say is that there is a corruption I believe going on of the gospel itself and that concerns me greatly way more than anything that could affect this

Material world. Well, that's the thing is again. So I said, are you calling Strickland an enemy? You said technically

Neil? I didn't call him that but now you're saying well, I am kind of calling him Something but here's it.

So maybe this will help to it. So well, I didn't label the movie. That's all I'm saying I wasn't I came up with the title or anything

Again, so here's the picture of their title slide and it shows this is actually important pictures to show you this

It's a man a person with his fingers crossed behind his back so he's lying about what he believes this is an important image

So he's not just teaching wrong things He's actually deliberately lying about what he actually believes and then again the the actual

Synopsis says they're exposing false teachers and people and organizations that are active participants in destroying the church

So it's not like passively airing and you know wayward brethren, but these are non Christians They are wolves that are actively trying to destroy and then lying about it.

So this is a Very John just pointing out that yeah, there there is definitely a category for that for sure But but by putting it

Strickland and any really anyone in that montage and you have a montage You're implying something about that person.

Well, I put when they put you in a montage of enemy inside the church I'm saying that I'm implying right the enemy not that you're airing, right?

Strictly Strickland is endorsing liberation theology though on a level in which it affects the gospel

Okay, so that that is a problem. So yeah, dude stop with it. Just stop with the slideshow for one second.

Yeah Because here we already discussed this. I said we're not doing presentations. We're doing a back -and -forth

So so we have to examine each Element as it comes up, but really the good thing for the audience would be to find something we disagree on So we disagree on Strickland, right?

I think I think that he's promoting a false gospel I think that he's promoting ideas which subvert the gospel and you don't see him that way

You don't you don't see him as promoting those things So I think that would be the place to have the discussion sure and let me but let me just quote there's more than to It than that.

So, um, I want to quote Tom Askell here. I won't show the slides I'll Tom Askell by the way showed the same montage on by what standard he took that montage and put it in the film

So here well the one you're complaining about but the enemies do you had that slide in it? He didn't call it enemies within the church

But he took the same the same basic tactic that you're saying to quote Walter Strickland and to show here's what

James Cone teaches That's exactly what Tom Askell did. Well, so let's go. I haven't actually watched by what standard yet Although it's been recommended to me, but let me quote from Tom.

He was actually asked about that Montage under the heading enemies in the church and here's what he said

He said that if you were asking him, did you partner with this this enemies in the church organization? He said no

There's no partnership between founders and them and he closed that article by saying, you know

Yes, their problems for your serious problems within the church We do not however need automatically to regard those with whom he disagrees enemies

The Lord Jesus has been incredibly patient with me and my errors and folly over the course of my life

So I'm very hesitant to to paint other people as wolves in sheep's clothing Yeah, but that's but you're putting words in the mouth of Judd Saul at this point because I've already explained to you when he says

Enemies he's talking about Marxist. It's a brand But it's persons. He said on the picture is a person.

Well, we don't have disembodied error We have people that carry the error So he's saying that the people that are carrying the error into the church or enemies are enemies

But he's but he's talking about Marxism coming into the church now It's gonna get into how this it's a false gospel

Marxism isn't it will affect other things? But that's the brand enemies within the church.

So it's not he's not Going any farther than that. Well, he's calling these people false teachers.

I'm calling them false teachers that labels them enemies and Active participants not just erring brethren, but wolves.

Yeah. Well look here's the thing if you correct someone and then they keep saying the same

Untruths for a long time and they don't actually ever amend their ways Then there there is a certain point which you have to say then well,

I guess they they're false teachers at this point They're not they didn't respond the way

Peter did when Paul confronted him. So Strickland I mean this has been a couple years now that he's been confronted on this from multiple angles and there's been no retractions

And you it seems like you continue to defend this guy Which is I think what has a lot of people that are more conservative scratching their heads.

Why would you defend Walter Strickland? Promoting liberation theology. Okay, so let's get it. Well, let's get into some specifics then

John So in that montage you had a picture of Strickland a video of Strickland interviewing interviewing with Lisa Fields And he said that James Cone's book the cross in the lynching tree

He said he's a prolific author which is true and that the book was beautiful This monograph was beautiful and that whether or not you agree with or disagree with it.

You'll be blessed by it That was that what he said about that book But then the montage put in clips of Cone saying things in an interview and now you objected you said

Oh, you can't say that. I okay Jefferson Davis is my hero doesn't mean I agree with everything He said look look when

I when I wrote that was a 2010 years ago And I wrote that after watching a documentary about Jefferson Davis and it by the way

That was a time when these were more open questions and you could debate them now It's it's cancel culture has taken over all those things and it's because of some of the new left and critical theory ideas

That we're fighting in the church. They ransacked the historiography before they got to the church

But but I have no problem saying yeah, like I think you know, look at the life of this guy

Look, he lost I think what couple wives It's been a while since I saw the documentary but lost a bunch of his children lived with his former slaves after the war

He even you know when he was in Congress He was fighting to make sure that slaves can could patent things that they had invented

He was actually a progressive guy for the time and and so in his book rise and fall the

Confederate government after the war He's basically saying this was all a constitutional issue

He said one of the it's almost a direct quote from him He was slavery was not the occasion or not the cause of this conflict but it was an occasion for conflict and he gets into all the

Constitutional issues and so I I have a respect for him because he was a man who suffered greatly

Never never got the trial that he should have gotten He did proclaim faith in Jesus Christ and And so that's the kind of character.

I would want in leaders and and then the same goes for you know Oh Howard or Joshua Chamberlain many northerners as well, but I'm looking at the whole man.

I'm looking at the character Of the individual himself, so so I don't have any problem saying that but I'm not taking

I'm not saying You know what? You really ought to do you guys really ought to go to Jefferson Davis and look at all his 19th century quotes on race

Quotes that would have been common for that time and you need to take your cues from that, you know No, of course,

I wouldn't do that and I've never have done that But Walter Strickland is going to liberation theologians

Cone and deotis Roberts and he's endorsing their heresy That's a big difference.

And so that's the problem that I have James Cone and and I have a bunch of quotes from Strickland James Cone He's allowed

Strickland in his own words to see how to live out Christ in certain circumstances by asking questions of the text right from personal experience

That's standpoint. Well, that's what that is is actually the horizons approach to scripture, which is the foundational liberal liberation theology destroys objectivity

He introduced Strickland James Cone did to the theological idea of systemic sin He opened Strickland's eyes to the idea that Christ is trying to restore brokenness

He helped him see the totality of the gospel as Individual and social because Christ summarized the gospel as loving

God and loving neighbor guys. That's not the gospel. That's the law He's now combining law with gospel

And I could go on and on he recommends reading Cone to the evangelical world without any qualification He's done this a number of times.

And so I feel very comfortable putting a montage together and I limited it to Cone talking about the cross in the lynching tree specifically

I didn't go past that but I could have but it's just here's Cone talking about his book

And it's more entertaining from a from a you know Video standpoint to see the guy talking rather than here's just quotes from his book with Deoctetus Roberts.

That's what I did It was just quotes from his book But again, you you think you're saying it's okay to say that Jefferson Davis your hero, but doesn't mean you endorse everything he said

Well, it's okay to say Thomas Jefferson's your hero too, right? But I'm not gonna say, you know

Go read what Thomas Jefferson said about race here something that we would both disagree with but John So I'm saying you have to use the same standard.

I am equal ways measure So you can't then quote Strickland endorsing say a book and by the way the book itself

It's mainly and I'm not trying to whitewash Cone. Cone was a heretic Undeniably, but the book is actually not mainly about Cone's theology

It's mainly about this book of a historical theology about other people's theology and some of the ortho

Some of the theology in the book. It's others people's theology is actually Orthodox and there's stuff about how he says

You know, he says the gospel is found wherever poor people struggle for justice. Yeah in the book

Oh, yeah, that's a denial of justification. No, I totally agree. And so think when Cone talks about his own theology

Yes, it's heretical as Cone's a heretic But in the book if you look at the chapters the chapter on like theology of black and full of black spirituals and blacks who are being lynched like praying to Jesus and saying

I'm at peace because Jesus saved my soul. That's that that is not because he says the cross in the lynching tree interpret each other

There's a soteriological element. That's the reason he's telling these stories. That's what liberation theology is about but John the point is you you can't say because Strickland thinks the book is beautiful.

Therefore. He endorses all these other things First of all that Cone says not in the book, but in an interview about the book

He's there's a number of quotes out there from Walter Strickland endorsing James Cone, but it's not just one book that he's saying

Well this one book and he doesn't even get qualifications with that. It's a heretical book The purpose of the book is heretical

Neal. Let's get will you admit that that the purpose of that book is a heretical purpose? I think so.

Yeah, cuz Coons I get it. So why would you endorse it? John listen to me. Listen to me Let's go.

You said he never makes an attempt to correct or offer any and he pushed back against Cone Is that I did not say that no, he does

It's very vague and it's after most of its after the New York Times article that he got in so much trouble for that He says well, there's things

I would disagree with with James Cone on so that interview was in 2016 I think yeah

And then listen to this emitted clip from the video field says to the Lisa field says

When I was reading through him Roberts because you the video portrays Roberts and Cone is basically be on the same page

Roberts is a rank heretic. And yes, he says that Roberts is better. I know listen. Listen Yeah, when

I was reading through him Roberts He critiques Cone and gives him the same critique of Cone that I was giving many times

Cone I believe goes a little far left I like to go and he reels can Roberts reels Cone back in Strickland says definitely definitely when we see

Cone interacting with the black power movement He lets that ideology really engulf his theology

So there so right so Strickland says Roberts is pushy is a critiquing Cone and actually if you read it

Roberts Yes, Roberts says yeah, most of my critics they read it and like saying I'm pushing back against Cone That was how the book was interpreted.

That's certainly how so Strickland's reading it He's saying Cone's way off here and Roberts is playing balance and pulling him back and he says another quote, too

He says Roberts is locking the horns with Cone. He's saying my Christian faith Roberts's is dominant over my desire to do all this violent stuff.

So Roberts says protests Yes, but in a way that's aligned with Christians. It was a direct quote from Roberts combines works with the gospel

Though he is a heretic. I can read you the quotes from the specific books Even the one that Walter Strickland says it is his favorite book the theological book of all time

That's a direct quote from Strickland. It's heresy I've read it. You said a quote.

There is no effort to contribute to contradict any of the heresy Marxism, etc In this video, but you left out the part three actually says yeah

Roberts. No No, look not Roberts Strickland Strickland quotes

Roberts as Yes, and he's saying yes, and he said Birmingham. Yes.

I agree with you Lisa Definitely Roberts is not a but Roberts is a heretic as well. He has the same problems that James Cone has

So the the disagreement between Between them is not a significant disagreement not significant enough to say well one's

Orthodox and one's not there neither of them are Orthodox Yeah, I think oh, I agree with that. He's definitely designs inerrancy in there, but I'm pointing out here

There's a wait. Listen, there's a pattern you're omitting things from on or that you I don't know if you created it

But there are things omitted from montage They would actually contradict things you said about the montage and then let's go to this further to be like what?

What like I said like these quotes saying actually killing Roberts are not on the same page here that is irrelevant me

That's absolutely irrelevant they're both heretics in the same way in the same sense just because we're a little farther left and because Strickland said

I don't like that when he's a little farther left that that doesn't matter So we've done again you protested against leaving out context from that montage that I created you said you can't just leave out

So I said what is this? It's not it's not about it's not about context It's see in the what you tried that the narrative that you tried to weave about me though was going back to sources that Like I said, they're not these are not sources that would

Be fundamental to whatever I'm endorsing. That's the difference with Walter Strickland he's going back to sources and he's actually pointing out the heretical sources and endorsing those

I've never done that Well, you did endorse the Confederacy and the vice president says it's grounded and rooted, you know, this is the cornerstone of government well,

I already explained that to you though, I Defend the Confederacy against those who we want to rip down the statues to brave soldiers and those kinds of things

I'm there. We're not in 1861. I'm not out there. There's no Federations long gone As far as the the quote from Alexander Stevens, that's it.

That's a disputed quote I mean I can take you to a number of other places like Ethnogenesis or for causing comrades a secondary source that talks about why the soldiers fought or we could go to You know the reason they didn't have to be an invasion just because there was secession

I mean I could we could talk about all sorts of other speeches that talk about states rights and you know it the

Secession itself being a constitutional right and and that's the reason they were dated So you want you want more context more?

You believe this you believe this you said but look we could do that about America You know, we could say the American flag flew over every slave ship 1619 project that's exactly what they're doing to America right now and people say whoa, hold on You can't do that because these were not fundamental to America itself.

You're just taking quotes here and there I'm not taking quotes here and there with Strickland I'm not just cherry -picking and saying well

Strickland endorses this endorses this Strickland's made broad sweeping claims about James Cone's works that are

His theology that is heretical itself. Okay, so so here's the difference if you were to say like, you know,

James Cone Has a great cookbook and I really like the cookbook or I really like James Cone and James Cone wrote one heretical book and there's a

Bunch of other stuff that's really good. Well, we couldn't do that. But James Cone is all he writes are heretical books He's known as a heretical guy

There's nothing useful in James Cone's theology as far as he's not even a Christian and Strickland is specifically saying he's opening his eyes

To gospel things to he's helping him understand the gospel better and that evangelicals should hear the voice of James Cone So they'll understand the gospel.

That's the difference So for example, like so what when when when Strickland's been asked about what does he what why even read

James Cone? What do you what's at the point of it? What do you appreciate about him and he actually says he said in the quote you read He was the first theologian that Strickland encountered who talked about systemic sin

Now you believe that systemic sin can't exist like you've gone on record as saying the American slavery system was wrong

That system was wrong. You said that yeah Well, if you can point out a specific law or something like that Yeah, and you can say well you can point out that law and say well that's creating a system that's wrong

Sure, but but again, he's this is not James Cone is going way farther than that.

James Cone is talking about invisible He's talking about Systemic sin in the sense that a critical race theorist would talk about systemic sin

Well, he's talking about in that book that that that trickling liked it was about lynching which is

Right, but lynching but lynching is a present reality and it's also a reality that interprets the cross its contextual theology

It's liberation theology. Wait, that's not what so Strickland says. What is there you said? What is there about this book? I said well Strickland says

Cone. Why do I? Think it's useful at all to read him. It's well He was the first person to show me that let me let me read you some quotes from Cone from Strickland rather This is why this is why he says this way says about James Cone and endorsing and just a few things the evangelical world

Would do well to hear the voice of dr Cone and drawing us toward the reality that the gospel the resurrection of Christ has implications for the here and now

Heretic he's talking about John John. Is that false? Does the gospel implication for the here now? You're getting it from a heretic.

No, no, but is it John? The you said to me you can get true things from like Jefferson or from actually from anyone

These aren't heretical. These aren't heretical ideas and they're not fundamental to what they stood for at all Jefferson Davis says that but You just read is that true or false?

That dr. Cone that dr. Cone is drawing us toward the reality that the gospel. He doesn't understand the gospel

It does the gospel implication for the here now? Yes, but dr Cone doesn't understand what those are or how

I even navigate that I believe I would you read Cone for that? Yeah, well, you could read Joseph Smith. Why not?

The point if you said that about Joseph Smith, would you have a problem? That yes, right, but why not?

Why not James Cone? Because I think that John that James Cone is actually articulating things that are implications that are real for and James Joseph Smith if you were talking so if Joseph Smith wrote a book saying oh gosh, what did he write even well

Tell me what you agree with with dr. Cone. What is it that you you say? Dr. Cone was right on this John Cone thought the lynching was a sin.

Do we agree on that? Yes. I think we all agree that lynching Yeah without due process is wrong

With I hope lynching is kind of always wrong. Yes, but that's what lynched by definition. That's what we think of lynching

The point is John it maybe it's a difference in our attitude in general I think that obviously cones a heretic

But even a heretics can say true things and we can and again this is maybe we don't believe this

We can learn even from heretics now. We have to be very sure but we don't we don't learn heresy from here

That's the difference but wait, but what you just quoted the gospels implications for the here and now is not heresy

Right, he doesn't understand you're talking about a guy who doesn't have the same gospel as you You know heat when he when he says when

Cone is talking about the gospel It's not the gospel that you and I are talking about. That's right. It's a different gospel

Can we then say yes his understanding is faulty But when he says that this gospel our gospel has implications can

I realize that can I realize it speaks about? Lynching and yes, I can realize that and if you need you need to read a liberation

Theologian to find out that lynching is wrong. I don't get this No, I think so I don't know why but Strickland says that the first person he talked about the

Utah who he encountered to talk about systemic sin that was Cone and I Don't know who he read

Calvin I mean Calvin talks about systemic sin too But the point is and the Bible talks about how sinning can infect cultures and create all kinds of wickedness in the culture

But the point is when when when Strickland's asked what do you take away from Cone? He doesn't take

I take away. I need to be clear on one thing, too Yeah real quick when you say systemic sin, I don't know if we're on the same page on that I mean,

I mean because when James Cone talks about I don't know if you agree with James Cone, but they're talking They're not talking about something that like a individual human beings hearts sinning you can point to it

It codified itself in a law necessarily. They're saying that there's a whole System that you you don't even always see it's this is interesting.

It's gets an interest convergence and all that kind of stuff. It's It's an invisible system that allocates privilege and those kinds of things.

I don't agree with that I don't agree. Well, I don't think was Cone saying that he was writing a night. This is like well

I guess but he he he applies lynching. He's he applies lynching to the present though He said it's it carries on to the abuses that go on.

It's the hood. It's the ghetto. It's yeah It's all the same it's all lynching and then he extrapolates it back to the cross and that the lynching interprets the cross

So lynching is a more esoteric theological category that he's creating

From this is liberation theology the contextual theology of some an actual space and time occurrence lynching

When you when you say what? Circling actually says he takes away from Cone.

You're saying well, he doesn't really take away that takes me something else But he says It's a different gospel,

I don't know why this is so hard No, like you don't have a problem calling me out or enemies within the church out

But you will defend Strickland to the to the T. I don't get this because listen, you're not listening to what he's saying

He's he's not saying Cone preached the gospel. He's saying what I learned from him He learned is orthodox or interpreted in orthodox way, but Cone was not orthodox

I think an example of you said this you said in Facebook you said he's positively

Promoting liberation theology and the example the number or one slide you gave the first slide of yours 37 slide

Syllabus, well, there was a syllabus that circling has for a course in liberation theologies and he has Roberts He has

Cone he has Gutierrez and Clifford, but he also has Anthony Bradley on there. Have you read rents

Bradley's book liberating black theology? If the brow I haven't read it probably no, okay, because you said well, he's positively

Promoting liberation theology Strickland is okay Bradley's book is just this Scathing it denunciation of liberation.

I have I found that hard to believe for me. Listen Bradley. I Thought wait, listen

I want to read some quotes to you because I thought you probably heard Bradley's name on Twitter and thought he must be promoting It no nails.

No, you know, hold on. Hold on. Hold on. We gotta move on here because No, I want to read some quotes because and you pointed to this as evidence.

It's being positively portrayed Bradley says in that book the major flaw of black liberation theology is that it views people perpetually as victims perpetuates a separatist and elitist platform into the so he says things like black theology

When the black person is victim remains the starting point black theology Predictably continues to veer further away from historic

Orthodox Christian theology The whole book is a ringing condemnation of Cone and black liberation

Which would which would make no sense then if Strickland is saying that cones helping him understand the gospel

But it would make sense it listen John This is the key point it would make sense that he would teach a have a book on his syllabus that rips apart look ration theology if Strickland is saying he's taking away things from a known heretic and yet the things themselves

Are can you know what we believe? What are the what are the problems with liberation theology? Okay, what are the problems with it turns the gospel into a political gospel base, that's okay, but what else what what's specifically though?

What is liberation theology do that corrupts the gospel? And how does it undermine that the

Bible itself scriptural sufficiency? Okay. Well, that's there's a way that there's tons there, but it would it would reinterpret scripture through the oppressed

You know oppressed experience hermeneutical spiral, right? Well, it would it would also is well, it's more than that though It's it would also say our primary problem is not sin.

It's you know oppression political oppression It would mean salvation that is interpreted as yeah, here's the thing though here's the thing because because Samuel Escobar says this who's a

Evangelical he was an evangelical theology of liberation He'll say I'm not a liberation theologian But then he endorses the same kind of horizons approach to interpreting scripture, which does not give you objectivity at all

It is a subjective approach He also what he ends up doing is he engages in syncretism

He takes this one approach and says this is part of the gospel and then also well justification by faith in Christ That's also part of the gospel.

They're both part of the gospel and they live side -by -side You can't do that. You're mixing down two categories and that's exactly why you have

Walter Strickland saying things like loving God and loving neighbor and as you saw my James Cone in this in the fuller quote

Is is a summary of the gospel that Strickland saying this that is that is a law category

Strickland says that Cone helped him see the totality of the gospel.

So totality, right? So he had only a part of the gospel before he didn't have the whole thing

So he so in other words, he had an incomplete gospel. That's a big problem, right? He's saying Cone helped me though. See the totality of the gospel as Individual and social so he's saying that the new category.

It's not just individual It's social now too because because because Christ summarized the gospel as loving

God and loving neighbor That's not the gospel. That's the law. That's the

Galatian heresy You start mixing law and gospel. You're gonna end up with a works gospel now that this was in an interview that He made this was

I believe is I in 2018 at the end of 2018 through his podcast at Kingdom University.

So this is this is part of what he's getting from Cone and that this is heresy You have

I agree is if he's mixing law with gospel. That is very bad but I don't want to point out is

I Would need to see the context because I went from looking at how you've used these quotes and montages

Well, I can send it to you. Yeah, that's fine. But it's it but I've already put it's already been out there for a while It's been it's literally in the notes for the southeastern montage

Okay, the whole the full quote for it, but I'm pointing out that in those notes For example was

Strickland recommending Bradley's book which eviscerates. Yes. It's in it's in there, but it doesn't

I don't look so so is Is Strickland then just contradicting himself all over the place if should he be teaching theology if he just contradicts himself

That makes no sense. Yes He's teaching a class on liberation theology, so there's textbooks you work through to talk about ideas

Those aren't all endorsements of all the ideas in those textbooks There's other quotes from Strickland where he's sharing his personal views.

Those are the ones I'm pulling from I don't know why you want to go back to the syllabus because that's really Irrelevant you cited it as an example of how he's positively teaching liberation theology and yet it contains a book that you hadn't read

The syllabus shows that they're teaching a class on liberation theology at Southeastern.

It doesn't show Strickland's personal views Strickland's personal views are in the podcast quotes

They're in the interviews that he does those are and I've watched all of them. I've done transcripts of them I've looked at all of them.

Those are what concerned me So I don't I don't know how he feels about Anthony Bradley's book

I don't know how he teaches all the other books that he does in that liberation theology course. He's just exposing students to ideas

That's my point John. So if you don't mind, but his personal views He's given so we should believe him when he says things like what

I just quoted. This is important John This is another thing you say well trust him when he talks about his actual views, right?

So I agree the syllabus itself because it has apparently a mixture of things and so it doesn't really tell us either way including a book that slams liberation theology

But when the Strickland has been asked about his personal beliefs, he says look I believe the

Bible is a word of God and I'm committed to the Baptist faith and message 2000. You know, here's the key I know listen, I have a quote from you

This is where I the member the image from the enemies And he's in the church the picture of the guy with a hand the fingers crossed behind his back

He's lying right you said this there's deception going on. Sure So you're not just accusing

Strickland of teaching or believing wrong things your tea. You're accusing him of lying about what do you believe?

So in other words when he says no, no, I made a mistake I don't I don't I don't know.

I don't know what he's lying that here's the the problem The emphasis in Scripture is on the false teaching. That's all

I'm concerned about. He's bringing false teaching in are there people enabling it there? Yeah, there are people who know better at Southeastern.

I know that because I have confronted this I've talked to Danny Akin personally about this They've been warned they should know but there has been no retraction of things that have been publicly said and when you say that you

Know anything Bradley eviscerates liberation theology and stuff. Look This is the whole point Evangelicals when they have taken liberation theology and Marxism and critical theory and all these other ideas that are false

Gospels or contradict the gospel Etc. They try to fuse them together so you can make it look like you're eviscerating it

But you're meanwhile adopting those categories. That's the issue. I think that's exactly what Strickland is doing

He's saying that it's completing his gospel. He's not he's not saying I went full -fledged liberation theology He's saying whoa,

I can tack this on to what I already know and then he winds up with long Gospels in the same category

But but John so the thing is though you say well, why hasn't he said it clearly what his beliefs are?

But when he does you say well see it, but he's lying And so what I'm point you back. I didn't say Strickland's the line what you said here.

I may quote to you Statements of faith. This is from a minute fifteen zero zero on the last podcast that talked about me

Okay said statements of faith are being used as she'll statements of faith are very helpful in defining where someone's at But they become a shield at Southern Baptist institutions.

Now. Yes, it's happening with Danny Aiken and Walter Strickland. That's their go -to Yeah, Danny Danny Aiken is using it as a shield.

Look Walter Strickland sign these things. Yeah, I'm not saying Strickland is necessary He could be self -deceived. I don't know listen.

So it's become a shield. This is your quote So it's become a shield and in a sense it hinders at this point because you know

That they believe things that actually contradict the things that they're signing So the point is you're saying yes, yes

Strickland signed it, but you know, he doesn't believe it Because that was the example you just gave and saying yes

Strickland and naked that they're the ones I'm talking about here So now you're not just yet. Well clarify your beliefs You're saying

I know you're when you he does that when he says no, I believe this you say nobody's lying though I I don't

I don't know. I don't know if Strickland is so so either way He shouldn't be teaching if you have someone so John are you gonna retract what you said then because you said

I don't know Believe things they actually contradict the things they're signing. Do you say well, I actually don't know that it's fine

I mean sure I'll amend it. I'll say this Yes, I find it very very very hard to believe that Walter Strickland after years of being confronted on this

Doesn't know how it contradicts or it hasn't been pointed out to him in such a way that he can understand I find that exceptionally hard to believe.

Is it possible that he's ignorant? Sure My main point though is that again this goes back to the image of the man with the

Danny Aiken does know With his fingers crossed Yeah When people do clarify and so for example when you said well on Twitter people share that montage thing or things like it and you

Said hey, I've spoken out against racism If I employ that same hermeneutic of suspicion and say why can

I say well, he's lying though I have him saying these things at the Confederacy. He said well, wait a minute. He said he doesn't believe that.

Yeah, but he's lying Charity you have to say look, but unless I have real strong evidence that they're actually lying

If they're gonna come in and say, you know what? No, no, this is what I believe Then I have to I have to trust them.

There's a con. There's a con. There's a contradiction Neal So so you you have to make sense of this too if he is promoting heresy

Which it seems like you've admitted on some level at least then What why is he signing a statement of faith that would seem to contradict that heresy?

How would you make sense of this? There's there's there's something wrong there so I'll have to look at the one quote you've given me so so far because I think when he says something like You know cone taught me the gospel has implications and like well, yeah

And he said the a cone and he says elsewhere cones theology is very different than my own repeatedly He said that so what he's saying?

Well, he doesn't get specific though. He doesn't look. Oh, he says this is doctrine I'll give the quote to you. He says it's doctrine of scripture is doctrine of salvation ethics

He talks about what exactly is wrong with categories categories. Okay. Yes. He does not get into specifics

He does not show how the the actual categories of liberation theology that Cone brings in and Jay Dutis Roberts He was even a bigger problem in a way because he really wholeheartedly endorses

Roberts He doesn't talk and he never talks about that. I've heard at least publicly, you know, here's why

I disagree with Roberts He pretty much endorses Roberts and Roberts has the same exact problem that James Cone has

In fact, he has multiple problems and I and I could go through all the quotes with you. The Bible is not sufficient

He has generational sin denial of body the unity of the body of Christ he has to Christ essentially that he advocates

There's no forgiveness basically for for White liberals.

He has a those who want well, I could read you the quote, but it's He combines works with the gospel in numerous places.

He says we need Karl Marx and Freud Not just the Bible to to interpret the world in specifically racism itself

I mean it just goes on and on our understanding of the gospel is political direct quote.

This is Jay Dutis Roberts This is the man that he says, you know that his favorite theological work is by him

So real big problems here and the thing I think this is the thing for conservatives that This is what

I would want to be hearing you talk about a little bit and answer Why is it that you'll go after me?

You'll go after enemies within the church You don't problems naming names there, but then right in your backyard in your denomination someone like a

Strickland or a Jarvis Williams Or even maybe to some extent JD Greer your pastor

Why why is it that you don't express concerns about them in the same way? So two things John one thing

I'll say is that well I don't think the thing else prefers what I would say is I think Strickland in this interview and even

Publicly should do exactly what you said. You should have said at the outset cone is a heretic This is exactly this is why

I disagree with him here and here and here and here and here he should have done that and The criticism I have of him.

He needs to name this person when he's gonna anyway in any way recommend people read him

He has to say but look you can't follow him here and here and here and here and here. That's very deadly But yes, you'd say that he didn't say that in this interview and that was wrong

He should do that, but not condemning a heretic is not being a heretic

Failing to speak out clearly against someone's heresy does not make you a heretic It might make you lacking discernment might make you irresponsible even in sin

Yeah, but in importing heretical ideas into your understanding of the gospel itself would make you a heritage it would but John again

Well, I would I have to listen to the actual quote cuz I get I'm showing you here Is that a lot of these places you're missing you're leaving out context

You're not looking at what see like Bradley actually wrote and thinking it says me it doesn't because you've heard of Bradley on Twitter No, no

Neil. I'm pointing out that there you're making two huge leaps to try to use Bradley that way number one

You're not you don't have a quote from Strickland talking about what he thinks of Bradley's work All you know is that he use it for uses it for a course that he teaches so that's irrelevant

We have actual quotes of what Strickland thinks about Conan Roberts The other thing and I have explained this now things the third time is that even

Jellicles tend to be syncretistic they take liberation theology and other ideas like critical race theory and they try to incorporate that into their understanding of Christianity in the gospel, etc, so Anthony Bradley could very well have said things like you quoted against liberation theology

But also be bringing in categories of liberation theology and mixing them and that would be just as problematic

So so that's in my mind. That's just as irrelevant. He's Recommending people

Christians read Cone without qualification Specifically because they're gonna understand the gospel better from reading a guy who doesn't understand the gospel

He does the same kinds of things with J. Diotis Roberts. There's a lot of quotes I can send you a PDF on it if you want

Why why don't we just say this is heresy or if you don't want to use that word? Because of the connotations just say this is false teaching and I'm really concerned

I'm concerned about this coming into the church and man, I'm gonna make a stink about this I'm gonna I'm gonna really it's never been retracted.

Does that doesn't that concern you? So again, I would I would just say is you have to judge people by what they're at And I am willing to look at what

Strickland's actually said. That's what I'm reading to you. Yes But no, but because you're often saying things like he recommends this person this person says this

But wait a minute, for example, I I'm a big fan of CS Lewis I really am I like CS Lewis right his theology and mine are very different in serious ways

Very serious ways and if you compile a list of all the crazy things CS Lewis has said I yeah go through that But you say look

Neil keeps endorsing CS Lewis and I do all the time I quote him I but I would be like no I totally disagree is

CS Lewis that is he known for and is his Contribution to theology only heresy

No, it's a CS Lewis understand the gospel is he a Christian that has issues with say, okay, that's a big difference

But but but John I still want to insist on this point you have to when I just because I quote anybody and you have to say well

I can I can quote and and and Admire Jefferson Davis, but it's it's not the core day who he is

Okay, fine, but I also make the point that I can love it. Look you can admire Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln They had the same kinds of views on race.

Yeah, but you're not admiring them for their views on race Right, but Walter Strickland is admiring James Cone for his liberation theology

But John that's what I'm saying is what that's when he says why I say John Strickland. Why do you admire

James Cone? He points you to other things. I keep telling you that look at it was actually said not just who he's recommending

But Johnny, I'm gonna hit more thing You said why do I go after say you and not Strickland by remind you

I didn't go after you and I repeatedly said we Private you you wanted me to come on your show.

You've done it on your group on on Facebook You know, I guess I was saying me and enemies within the church, right?

Why do you have a you you don't have a problem you I mean Blasting them if you want to but you but Strickland you're defending with it's it's a reversal

So John listen, and we're not promoting heresy. So wait, so I am Doing that is so if it's like it was a group and oftentimes

Judd will post videos and other people will comment and I will But again, that is a closed group number one and number two

You're acting like I haven't had discussions with some of the people you're naming not pop no one publicly

But look there's been no public retract traction in any of this But John and I also I I wanted to not do this public with you, too

I wanted to do it privately, but you could have done that you could have done that and it's not like I wanted it

I just invited you look you I didn't even show it but you Basically there you had emailed someone you you're my popularity was you didn't like that You didn't like the way

I approach things and I'm not even remember all of it But it was then that I was like, dude, like I appreciate you

It seems like more than you appreciate me like you're welcome to come on my program any time But John and then and then the last week last week you email me and you you're asking me about you know

Was this my blog? Did I write this book those kinds of things and I'm like look I think we should talk about the things that Separate us so people can see the different approaches we have and now we're not doing presentations on a program.

We're interacting That's and that's kind of where we left it Well, I said I said

I said I kept saying to you John I told you I was gonna talk to you about you know misleading montages and about admitting omitting important quotes that you'd in admitting things like this things in the syllabus

I Said it's repeatedly. It's a private when you kept saying come on your show. So I'm here. I didn't keep saying it

I never kept saying that Neil I I said that I said I'm looking forward to having you on the show and you could have

Told me whatever concerns you have off air on air. It doesn't matter. I said, I'm hey, I'm willing to talk about anything

I just don't want you doing like a long presentation on something because it we're supposed to be interacting. That's all And when we are interacting and I'm glad we're interacting.

I don't feel like we've gotten any places We've been stuck on Strickland, but but I mean look we could so Here's here's the deal.

I have a lot of quotes from Strickland from Jarvis Williams even some from Greer and stuff all

Problematic all all quotes that I would think someone such as yourself He says you're really concerned about these things coming into the church would say

You know what? Like I'm gonna have to oppose these things I'm gonna have to and you're telling me you're privately doing that if I'm Understanding you correctly, but there's been there's been nothing publicly said to correct public error and and that's kind of the issue that I have

You know Paul opposed Peter to his face. It was a public thing. Jesus corrected the Pharisees Publicly because they were in public error

And so I think that that should be the model that we take and sometimes it means naming names

All did that I've been seeing Nehemiah pull people's beards out. So I'm not Problem I'm not saying a little short.

I'm not saying I have a problem with people naming names and being mean I I don't it's not, you know,

I mean being mean is right, but being blunt and candid. It's not a problem. It's biblical Okay, so it's being winsome and gentle and kind it's also biblical

It's it's different wisdom when you use which but I'm saying here again I think the theme here is that you're you're not applying the same standard you want used of Yourself to other people but yeah,

I think I am I think I absolutely am yeah, let's let's move on say yeah I do yeah on the time look look look

Neal if you look real quick if you said I love I Defend America.

Yeah, I love America I love the founding fathers and if someone were to just start pulling up all their views

That would be out of sync with the views of 20th or 21st century people

Then I think you'd rightly say well, you know clearly it's but even in common parlance

That's that's not what that's not what I meant And here are the things that I meant because those views that you're pulling up are not fundamental to America or who those people are

That's that's a very different thing. You know, you look at a book like Liberation and reconciliation by JT just Roberts or James Cohen's across the lynching tree

I don't find the redemptive things in there that the whole purpose of the book is a heretical purpose

And that's to me. That is the key difference. So so So I'm fine.

If someone wants to say yeah, John, he supports the Confederacy because he you know, this is what he said about some of the the figures of the

Confederacy and this is what he says about Confederate monuments Staying up and and these kinds of things.

Yeah. Sure. I'll defend that But but that I'm not saying that 19th century views on race are things that I just really

Want everyone to read because they're gonna understand race better if they read these sources from the 19th century

That's a big difference in my mind, so Yeah, let's let's can we do this can we talk about resolution 9 a little bit because I think that's the elephant that's that's what everyone wants to talk about because it's the you may be sick of it just like I am sometimes but But let's just briefly even if we don't agree

Can we just lay out kind of like our case why you support resolution 9 why oppose resolution 9?

so, um, so I thought this would be kind of a telling question maybe and it's kind of along the lines of the

Discussion we're currently having but would you be against using something like phrenology as an analytical tool?

You know phrenology meaning the study of the bumps on your head to figure you're right, right? Size of the skull and I mean, of course this went into scientific racism in Philadelphia in places like that, but yeah, we

I would hope the answer would be no, but could you use that as an analytical tool? Yeah, no, because it doesn't work.

I mean if it didn't work, I'd be yeah sure use it doesn't work. And so that's why Yeah, why doesn't it work though?

Because it's well as far as we know, it's not true because we discover some miraculous discovery that it's true But as far as we know, it's not true

There's assumptions behind it that are faulty, right What about Marxism? Would you be against using

Marxism as an analytical tool? So interestingly? No, and I'll tell you why this is

Al Mohler's vision, too He said sometimes you can look at things the markets talk about and through a Marxist lens and know that you reject all of those

All of the assumptions they have some point. So he talked about it on his podcast actually after resolution 9

He's like look the way Marxists they talk about how You know companies are trying to turn children into consumers and talk about those things based on Marxist framework

I totally reject Marxism, but that point I can abstract and say okay, that's a decent point, right?

Yeah, so and yet that's the length they're using you like like this or that don't take another example So so so that would that would be in spite that that's not because of their

Marxism though Well, right It's not it's not because they're using Marxism as an analytical tool that they somehow rightly discovered something

Broken clock can be right twice a day, right? You just said that it can be right

And so you can you can make an observation that's correct for all the wrong reasons and you're not using that It's not those reasons that those analytical tools that are bringing you into the truth in that sense

You just happen to go ahead. I bet it made a better analogy that I guess we could But then a broken clock is sort of right accidentally

Maybe a better analogy would be like a really just dirty pair of glasses, right? They're dirty, but like they have a few spots where they can see through them, right?

I shouldn't deny that you can see through them at all. You're saying they're just filthy and they're messed up I'd never use them permanently, but you can still see through them in places and sure enough

I look through them in this way And yeah, I see some truth and of course all truth Would actually be part of the

Christian worldview and say then yeah So if someone discovers some truth not through a

Marxist lens It's that is still truth and you don't have to use the Marxist lens But if you happen to use the

Marxist lens to discover that truth, you shouldn't throw the truth away I'm trying to follow what you just said.

Okay, so okay So truth is objectively true whether one arrives at it through a wrong method or not, right?

Sure, so it's something like intersectionality and this is the thing so you actually hold on real quick real quick But wouldn't that be?

Phrenology would be the same thing. All right, if you arrived at well, this person's not as smart

Their IQ is lower and look their skull is also, you know, you would have arrived at it through a wrong method, right?

Same thing a little bit, but it's more like this What if there were some set of people that actually had these crazy bumps that led to some other thing and you're like, oh my gosh

Phrenology was right in this case. Oh, okay. I don't give arguments for phrenology here But My point my point is that there are there's natural revelation of special revelation natural relation tools that are fundamental to reality that are in the

Fabric of the world God created his world. You got ideas then now in the minds of sociologists not fundamental to reality they're actually different that they're they're they're worlds that don't even exist their different conceptions of reality and and then taking those

Different conceptions of reality that are not part of the real world and saying we're going to use those as analytical tools

Is not the same thing as comparisons. I know you've made you've said, you know It's like using I think you use math as a comparison, you know science different scientific things

It's those are fundamental to reality. They're within the fabric of the world God's created. So there's a huge difference there so Maybe I think the important question is how you're defining intersectionality

So remember I said on Twitter and this is on Twitter's I'm not put a lot of thought in it But I said intersectionality the fundamental observation is the identities are complex and they interact in complex ways

You're not just a man. You're a white man. You're not just a white man. You're us, you know Well power power is the fundamental.

No, listen to this is important So you said that's ridiculous and I let me quote you here. You said, you know intersectionality is not just About our identities are complex.

It's not what it is. It's I you said intersectionally is the idea that our identities are complex No, it's not you laughed. It's not what intersectionality is.

Is that 330 in your your talk? There's more to it than that It's that there are overlapping identities of oppression

That's specifically what intersectionality is about that needs political representations. That's why I was started.

Yes. Yes Well, so listen, this is the importance is key Okay, if you look up the word intersectionality in actual academic sources, they define it in very different ways

But here's just a few there's D 'Angelo in their book. What does it mean to be white? She says intersectionality definite definition the understanding that we are simultaneously

Occupy multiple social locations, but these positions do not cancel each other out they interact in complex ways.

It must be explored understood Here's it Here's here's it.

I think it was a Builder who was it that you brought up there? Yeah Collins's book

I think which I which I read was reading at least in that session and and they

Specifically talk about power and if you read the book all their applications all their examples are

Power dynamics. Yes, and and that's what intersectionality is. So actually no though So Bilge and Collins talk about how eugenics and white supremacists can use this right worried

They're worried about it because they're like man. This is there's no value attached to the windows They argued it should be but they say you can use this tool to do evil things

And here's a great so when they interview Crenshaw, this is a problem John So people have taken that idea of you know

Whatever you want to call it so Crenshaw's idea and they've used it all these crazy different did she changed it? They've manipulated it they fiddle with it and they actually

Vox interviewed Crenshaw and she's like, I don't understand what it is anymore So Chris, I know but here's but here's where it gets here's where it gets nerdy though And this is where I think a lot of working -class people just lose all their eyes just glaze over Because this has a history this this came out of like Kimberly Crenshaw Williams is a critical race theorist as well as somebody promotes intersectionality

It came out of the same pool which trace back to new left ideas which trace back to cultural Marxism and Marxism itself

It's all part of this stream. And so when we're talking about intersectionality, it is a tool for a purpose and the purpose is to address inequities

It standpoint epistemology is fundamental to intersectionality I mean they bring in all this other stuff when they're talking about this other philosophy when they're talking about intersectionality

And so it's to bring up just one, you know, here's here's the rote definition from this book Well, there's a lot more going on than just that wrote definition

But John that is the definition they're giving now other people give out their definitions, right? But here's

Ben Shapiro that you know, the arch Marxist progressive Ben Shapiro in that article He said this the original articulation of the idea by Crenshaw is accurate and not a problem.

Yeah I'm just pointing out look the the word is so nebulous at times that you have to be careful with what you mean by it

Okay, and some people they see they mean create things like you're saying it's all about oppression and power dynamics But other people are at least defining it, you know in words in a very

Blah -blah like like Jim Shapiro says and give me a break. Yeah, of course, they're complex So all I'm saying is we need to be specific about we're talking about okay, and and so just saying it's clearly about oppression

Well, it depends who you ask. That's all I'm saying and so So how would you have reworded resolution 9 to say?

Yeah, there's some people who? They just think it's it's common sense. Some people question.

Well because then I'm wondering is it even intersectionality? This is just the way every this is common sense The way what do you talk about the nursery workers and or no the single mothers

Actually, it's an example that I think Collins uses the example of like a homeless mother So it's like it's like that's what they're thinking about but it's not but it's not a power thing you could have let's say a

Homeless not homeless mother I guess but a single mother to use the example you gave with tons of cultural power

Yeah, and they would still have unique emotional needs because they don't have a husband and it's

God's design So if we stick to the world as God created it, then we would we would see all those things

Those things would be obvious. We don't you wouldn't use intersectionality to find that, right? And again this but this is cuz it goes back to like we're talking about with Strickland to have to bring him back in But the point is people

I think that I'm more open to finding truth That has been marred and stained by sin and error and heresy but saying but it's still truth

We can abstract that truth and realize it all fits into a Christian worldview We don't we don't know it's tricky and dangerous.

Would you do that with Mormonism? Do that with Mormonism. That's what the truth is I mean family values

Mormons, you know, they good marriage training materials or something child rearing materials. So say let's use that Yeah, so the example would be a good one.

That's a great one John. That's even better than I mean Look, that's I think intersectionality is worse than that. But right so here's the thing

John. It's exactly right So what if a Mormon actually I think I used an example at one point I said if you found a great

Mormon authored book about Family values. There you go, right? Do you do you write but you recommend it, right?

Right, but my point the reason I brought that example up is because Mormons attach the nuclear family to their conception of other doctrines

Christian doctrines and so you would never recommend a book like that You'd say there's actually this is about rank heresy because that's the whole motive

That's the telos and that that's one of the things that I think is important to me in this whole discussion is the telos of it

Where is this going? What's the purpose of it? You these are tools. What are these tools for who race theory tool of destruction of Taking apart things it imports the new left critique.

It's deconstruction intersectionality a tool of construction And and it's going to construct the world along a different line than the creator has done it is about taking down the hierarchies and Reconstituting an equitable egalitarian world.

That's utopian. That is not Christians. Actually. It's a false gospel when you get down to it Would you agree with that?

This is what I'm at worldviews So the worldview that that produced critical race here and intersectionality is yet totally antithetical to Christianity But what

I'm trying to do is say we can't write off actual truth that is truth just because it is was promoted in and propounded by these non -christians they often and actually yeah, so I don't get it but I think that process is very hard and that's why

I would never hand a Mormon book on parenting say to an immature believer and say just knock yourself out here like, you know,

I'm gonna hand it to anyone Well, but here's the problem John are you what you're saying then is you wouldn't forget

Mormons Even even atheists have or even non -christian all non -christians by definition have a non -christian worldview

Yeah, is it fun is what you're gleaning from them fundamental to our Christian worldview. That's a nice but you see this is where people like Well, this is where people would say in some sense and this is where I think sort of Presuppositionalist would get things right all this idea.

These knowledge ideas are connected. You can't be like well math books are totally

Devoid of any content that comes from a non -christian worldview. They're written by non -christian Well people didn't know all of these ideas are connected

But you know, you're this is in a denomination that has professors one of them on the actually

Well, you know at least one of them on the resolutions committee who are using critical race theory as analytical tools in their work in fact

Jarvis Williams has said he understands scripture better the teaching and scripture on race like from Ephesians chapter 2 because of critical race theory, so This is actually happening in real time in the denomination that I used to be a part of you're still a part of right

But the answer there John is it this is what I would not want to do That's why I want to be precise and this part of the reason

I want to be precise To to say something like there is no truth at all in these in these disciplines at all

It's a bit like saying how would you view a biblical criticism? Are you for it or against it and the answer you can't give an answer to a higher criticism or lower?

What kind of criticism there's different assumptions and there's different ways those tools work depending on the assumptions.

That's exactly right Yeah, what we have been precise because we don't want to say well, it's all bad or all good

We say well some of its bad some of its good some of its like textual criticism like what the actual text

Yeah, but behind would you agree that? Intersectionality there's a postmodern element. There's a there's a standpoint epistemology element behind that there's a unique circumstances unique knowledge unique level

You don't I guess you don't want to say a little oppression because you're saying there's some people who claim intersectionality that don't say level of oppression

But there's at least there's a different spin on truth that you're gonna have because of your context, right?

That would get rid of objectivity as soon as you import the standpoint epistemology Again because again,

I got to tell you John if the literature is a wide and so you you can't oh gosh I know I totally agree.

Yeah. Yeah, but it look I Do you view critical race theory differently than intersectionality do you say like that's that's because you said you you're so concerned about this coming into the church

Yeah, I've heard you say that the critical you're concerned critical race theory is coming into the church Well, I'm just saying do you treat that differently do you throw that all out but you're okay with intersectionality being used as an analytical tool not critical race theory

Again, I I don't want to throw anything out that contains any truth as a whole like biblical criticism

I don't know that I want to say what is true and what about Nazism? Do we take Nazism and use that like?

Yeah, are there some ideas that are there? So they're so bad Ideas yes,

John, but like elements of truth. No, I think that's again This is a maybe this is a fundamental difference, but I make it was one point here about resolution 9

So I supported it because I thought it had some errors in it, right? But it was trying to parse out these different ideas very carefully

And also the big thing it did was it said explicitly what was wrong with critical race theory intersectionality says

Here's the things that are wrong with it. I like thank goodness when saying that I would have added Tom Askell's amendment, right?

And he said if he'd added that amendment, he would have voted for the resolution also So I supported I would have added the amendment, right?

But but I think that resolution I in my mind was at least saying The bad things and putting them out that okay overall

I would have changed some of it, but it was good I'll quote from the so who I didn't see though is what actually

I was at the convention So I didn't see all of the back -and -forth that went into the resolution People viewed it then they're like wait

Steven Michael Feinstein the resolution he brought forward was totally negative now They basically reversed it.

It looks terrible. But all I saw was the product and the product is like, okay, they're trying to Differentiate they're gonna point out errors and then say oh, there's some truth here

But there's here the errors so the net for me was okay It's not good Even though if I would change some things and added

Tom's amendment Well, are you concerned about critical race theory and intersectionality being used in the church's analytical tools?

If they're only if they're only using them, you know in a way that's consistent with biblical the Bible Oh, I can't be right if it's consistent with the

Bible, but it's not at the problem. There's so much that's not that's why I'm concerned Okay, so Steven Michael Feinstein who?

Promoted the original amendment but forward he actually revised he created a new amendment later in California didn't get passed

Unfortunately, but he made some changes to it and that That a new revolution was liked and retweeted out by Tom Askew and it included things like this statement critical theory and intersectionality are principally concerned with oppression emancipation and that search that sees sin as their chief

Sorry it sees a temporal oppression rather than sin as humanity's chief problem to overcome and Any and all worldviews in which critical race theory and intersectionality are central critical or fundamental must be rejected as incompatible with Scripture so that we deny that any group is socially situated in a way that prevents its comprehension of the truths of Scripture or that any group is socially situated in a way that causes special or unique insight into the truth of Scripture It's denying standpoint of etymology

That resolution which again Thomas seemed to support it. I don't want to words in his mouth, but he liked it retweeted it

It was like that one better. Yeah, and He was that was supported by Trevin wax

Keith Whitfield and Curtis Woods. Sure So the point is I think we're a lot closer than we think on this

I don't know why we couldn't reach agreement two years ago when you're whatever it was Well, because it was jammed down their throats last minute and they didn't

Tom Askew had I think what was it? 45 minutes to try to craft some kind of response to it. My only point is that people you were saying

Well, why are they tweeting out Neal? Yeah, I think again. We're a lot closer than we think on these issues We are all concerned.

We do want precise language and actually and Stephen admitted that his original resolution was not precise

Enough and he does not hold me ill will to the committee for rewriting it But this one is stronger and I think we have a lot of when you when you take a bird's -eye view of this though Neal when you look at the full context of what's happening not just in the

Southern Baptist Convention But in America as a whole and in the Western world, then you're seeing these ideas being used as analytical tools

And it's not pretty they are being used for for deconstruction. They're stirring up envy

They're stirring up hatred and all and all the horrible things that we're seeing around us and they do come from a

Marxist analysis so Essentially essentially we could just switch out

CRT with Marxism and it sounds like you'd be okay with that. Yeah So this is an important point because you criticized me for saying

CRT is not Marxism, right? So you were you're saying look I say you just need to be I think it's vague

It does it confuses people because mark if you're looking at the trajectory you're looking at Where did the lineage of CRT you're they do draw it does draw from Marxism And no it does but here's the thing on the podcast

You said, you know, I said CRT is a Marxism and you said I gotta say we all grow we all learn I mean, I've said things that I look back on and say

I could have learned more since then since you at sure 25 and You know, you said look Neal's hopefully

Shen V's learning and growing Neal this morning in his article this morning it and setters white fragility series

He actually says that D 'Angelo's ideas are rooted in Marxism he says that today maybe he's grown because that wasn't too long ago

Yeah, this is March. So you're critiquing me for saying the CRT is not Marxism But if you look at and I said you said he asked because it was in response to I think it was a

Tim Dukeman or someone who was saying that look that this is Marxism. They're saying we can use Marxism an analog tool

You're so well, it's not Marxism and I'm like just be There's a if you're trying to teach people if you're trying to help people understand this that's not helpful

That's just that's just whack -a -mole to someone who says that Tim's on to something He's saying yeah this and it is look

Marxism is like Christianity. There's a lot of different denominations and Critical race theory is is one of the dominations that's formed.

It's evolved But yeah, if you want to get down to the shell, it's it's a different engine in a in the same car

It runs off of power dynamics. It's taken postmodern ideas and Put those into it and now it's it's a it's a fusion of Marxism and postmodernism, but it's it's in the same

Umbrella, so you would say that the CRT intersectionality, you know white privilege queer theory

All this stuff is they're all they're all marks. It's being used. It's being used by neo -marxists. Yes Those are the kind those are the people are using these things and that's where they came from Yes, but you okay, but I said it wasn't

Marxism and you said no it is you're missing the forest for the trees No, you shouldn't make those distinctions. It's not helpful.

Is that what was your criticism? You're saying? How is he an expert? He doesn't even get that. It's Marxism. I mean you said that that's what you said in her

I said you didn't get that it was Marxism Yeah, you said I think my critique is I remember is I you're you weren't you're not being clear at all

I you're saying you're set on the you're very clear in that article that you wrote for Christianity today.

Yeah about Marxism being related to it But then when Tim brings up that, you know, this is

Marxism being used as an analytical tool or He said something along those lines you shut him down Here's what you said.

You said Neil actually says that D 'Angelo's ideas are rooted in Marxism But if you look at what I say in the article,

I don't say that I say D 'Angelo roots her ideology in the ideas of Karl Marx But also the

Frankfurt schools critical theory and postmodernist philosophers So I'm not saying I'm saying is it's not just Marxism Marxism and neo -marxist new love sure

I'm also saying that it's not just Marxism. I'm saying the ideas of Karl Marx. Why is it important?

I said it in the tweet because critical theory today rejects some of the ideas of Karl Marx. He had many ideas.

Sure So but it doesn't reject the look. It's it's the same kind of It's the same kind of critique except it's power dynamics.

They use postmodern categories. They're still trying to get an egalitarian Utopia they still have a very similar understanding of history

They might have booted some of the materialism, but it's it's the same kind of tell us and as so here's what you said

That James Lindsay was a go to guru and considered by many the world expert on critical theory, right?

So I want to go at James Lindsay says about this. Okay, he says there are many misconceptions about what is and isn't postmodernism

The most common one conflates postmodernism with Marxism referring to cultural Marxism or postmodern neo -marxism, right?

Although there are complicated connections between Marxism and the postmodern that can be constructed it This claim is frequently a simplistic one

Yeah that insists that applied postmodernism takes the Marxist category or ideas of oppressed and oppressor classes and Applies them to other categories such as race gender and sexuality

Listen, this is specious What is specious that idea so Lindsay says the idea that you can just call this

Marxism that you're just taking it's cultural Marxism You're applying a Marxist ideas. He says the idea that you're just taking my ideas obvious You know everyone that knows anything about critical theory knows that it's not classical

Marxism. It's not just it's not just Marxism There's obviously a lot more. I just said that okay, but but so did

I John and you criticized me for saying I criticize Look what I what I'm critical of is you have a guy who's saying that look the at the

Southern Baptists are saying that we can use tools from Marxism and And it they are tools from Marxism There is a relationship there and you're saying no critical theory is not

Marxism I mean it kind of like shutting him down and I'm just saying no. No, I wasn't shutting him down I told him why so I said you were criticizing me for just saying

CRT is not Marxism There's more to it than that. I'm trying to make the point that Lindsay's making is that it's simplistic

No, but I agree with that too. I always said, okay Well, then I was trying to figure out your critique then because I said exactly what

James Lindsay says here and you said he's a Go -to guru El Tori says this he says He says on his new discourses blog

People who observe that Marxism is somehow tied into all of this woke stuff then are certainly not wrong

But it just as certainly isn't Marxism Yeah, it's not classical

Marxism, right? Obviously, he's making the point that I'm making John I'm saying is that yeah, but Neil Neil Yeah, I'm my whole point in Bringing any of that up was that this is an opportunity to to tell people what critical theory is

It's a teaching moment and Marxism is part of critical theory. It drew from that.

It's in that lineage I think I made the analogy of it's like a pond and you have a stream. It's in that stream

It's drinking from the well of Marxism. That wasn't your critique. You said now I gotta say we all learn we all know

It was I said that in the podcast. I said about me because I didn't yes, it was Marxism but I'm saying

James only says exactly what I say and James I've said exactly what you say that it's not it's not classical

Marxism I said in that very podcast you're quoting me from I said, of course, it's not classical Understand your critique, right?

So here's another one John This is my critique is just the relationship between the two.

I think should be spelled out. It should be highlighted It should when you're talking when someone's

Bringing up the fact that this is related to Marxism that should be yes It is but not not just it that my critique was more the way you went about it than anything else

Okay. Yes. Yes. I It is it is part of Marxism. It is part of mark

Depending on how you look if you're a guy who studies Marxism Like if you're like a Trevor Loudon, right and you're looking and your whole thing is

Marxism From Karl Marx to the present you're you're looking at critical theory as he's told me this and you're saying well, that's

Marxism But it's it's a different kind of Marxism than the kind of Marxism that Karl Marx came up with.

It's evolved, right? So you someone can say that and that's completely accurate, but you can't engage in presentism and say or you know say that Classical Marxism and neo -marxism and critical theory are all the same things.

They're not it's evolved It's become more complicated just like in Christianity or theology develops

So if someone if someone said John Piper, man, that's not Calvinism or you know, maybe that's not a good example

It's Piper actually uses the word Calvinism But if they said, you know, that's not Augustinian ism or something and someone says it is

Augustinian is well, are they both right? Yeah, but if someone knows what's going on there, then they say yeah

It's taking the ideas of Augustin and through Calvin and through Edwards and yeah here we are at Piper So so that's it's the same thing.

We might be on the same page. I don't know Yeah I was just trying to figure out because you were critiquing for me for saying exactly what

Lindsay says and then I didn't mean Look, I'm sorry if I didn't mean to offend you.

I know I'm not offended but here's another place to John in All right, hold on hold on hold on James Lindsay I want to bring this in since you brought

James Lindsay James Lindsay doesn't seem to have a problem going after a lot of the Southern Baptists, which is another thing that interests me.

He goes after the SBC as a whole. He goes after JD Greer He goes after Jarvis Williams. He goes after Danny Aiken.

He goes after Southeastern specifically He was after Resolution 9. He's done that a whole bunch

And and so one of the questions that I wanted to ask you is do you have a problem with James Lindsay for doing any

Of that or do you disagree with him? So I can actually consider Jim a friend my personal friend.

We're not really well, you know, we've done some interviews together and stuff I Keep saying this. I don't have a problem with anyone going after anyone or critiquing anyone.

I only ask that the criticism is Correct number one and number two obviously for Christians charitable

I mean we want to be you know I mean sometimes it can be serious and severe and candid but we should still try to again not accuse people of lying

Okay, so so when James Lindsay says that Resolution 9 Inserts critical race theory intersectionality into the official doctrine now, he doesn't understand

I think SBC resolutions exactly It's not binding but he says as an isogenical tool.

Is he being accurate there? So they say that because he said that yes directly in an interview.

I Want him to quote him here. I have to pull up my Twitter messages. This was in July 26 2019

Southern Baptist Convention They're currently blowing up over what is called Resolution 9 which is called to insert critical race theory

Intersectionally into their official doctrine as an isogenical tool James Lindsay as an isogenical. That's what he calls it

Yes, it's sort of a strange phrase, but I think when I talked to him in an interview With Me actually

I said him I don't think so. I said I said actually I think it was privately I've looked at my DMS again, but I you know,

I wrote it down. He says that the resolution is technically correct I think we look that up and make sure

I got that right but his point and he is still critical of it Right, he was so critical of it But he says that technically and this is actually

I agree with him the way that often these the critical theory works Is it it's like it does?

Start with the Mott and Bailey tactic. They start by saying something modest. That's true. And then they they sneak in something

It's much more dangerous. And by the way, I actually Agree with that's how critical theory gets into institutions

But I argue in an article that the proper way then to respond is not

Not to burn it all down. Why because you're playing into their hands

This is the key because if you if they pull this trick of saying all we're saying is this little modest claim

Yeah, I understand. I understand that. Yeah, so he and he said I don't want to misquote him So we take this the right assault, but I believe what he said in an interview was that technically the resolution is not false

Yeah, so that way he I talked I talked to him personally about this too. And he brought up the the first part of that He did not say technically it's not false to me.

He was very concerned about it And here's what here's another thing he publicly said this is

September 13 2019 I will talk to anyone who wants to understand critical race theory and the rest if I have the time and resources to do it

It's crucially important to understand that it is not merely what it bills itself to be Contents do not match the description on the box spread the word and we just talked about it example here

I am talking about critical race theory in the context of a resolution passed by the Southern Baptist Convention I'm a left -wing liberal atheist.

The difference is relevant here and degree. It matters. It must wait So he's saying that in the context of resolution 9 being passed.

He's saying this this is not what it's claiming to be This is so he's not saying it sounds like almost the opposite of this is technically, correct

He's saying this is not This is a lie essentially is what he's saying. Well, so here's the quote that I have from him

I can go to my DMS, but he said it's all superficially true So that's interesting.

So now what he says publicly. Yeah, he's against it. There's no doubt So I agree, but I think what he's doing and I think and this is why would he be against it and you would

Be for it though. That's that's what we're that's the the splitting hairs people want us to split. What's the difference?

I think what I'm reading is when he says it's all superficially true. He's and I guess I don't have to ask carefully

What he means I think what he's saying is the actual words on the page are all superficially true But he's concerned that people will use this resolution to smuggle in, you know

These terrible just destructive ideas and they'll claim. Oh, all we're doing is using it as a tool Now that actually is a concern

I share with him. So why you for a resolution? Why were you for it? I said this this is why I should talk to Tom Haskell in an interview

What I thought was that there were enough in the resolution number nine There were enough explicit statements that said here's what we will not do

That is what critical race theorists and international people who are really into the worldview. They do want to do those things

They're saying we're not going to do these things and they named them things like where you know, then it is not found in you know sexuality for example, but Good luck finding an intersectionalist who does not believe you can have like a gayness as an identity

That's a huge component of obviously queer theory But the bottom line is that I thought on balance there were enough of these statements that were

I think yes exactly, right? That it would make it much harder If not, I mean I'm possibly much harder for you to smuggle in these dangerous ideas because they were explicitly said we reject these

That said I recognized Tom's concern and I share it Especially now when it's gotten so much worse in our culture and in the church,

I would say That we need to have a much stronger resolution If I said that, you know a year and a half ago

We need something stronger and more precise to pick out even more for example There was no mention of standpoint epistemology in the original resolution, right?

It's like it's got to be in there So when when Pat and I helped, you know, Stephen with the new resolution

We put that in explicitly and again the committee affirmed it so my point is

I was what they get the charity thing goes I Want to say if the committee is affirming this stronger resolution and Tom I can't speak for him

But I think he liked it. Maybe we're a lot closer than we think we are and they're not Smuggling this nefarious motives of smuggling.

Well, this is but this as they're doing this this is what's going on This is you know, Jarvis Williams says this critical race theory and social identity theory are helpful tools for understanding identity formation in the

New Testament and and there's a number of quotes by him where he's Very favorably quoting critical race theory.

In fact, if you look at his In the book removing the stain of racism from the Southern Baptist Convention, and if you look at his syllabus, but especially

I would say that book you'll find all the elements pretty much of critical race theory

You'll find racism is normative white privilege maintains white dominance voices of color thesis standpoint epistemology interest convergence revisionism social construction thesis opposition to colorblindness multi and then he gets into applying the multi -ethnic church model and quotas ripping down even says

That that we need to get rid of white Jesus and and and that's a it's a tool of white supremacy and those kinds

Of things so he has all these applications for it but and then he fuses it with the gospel this is going on at Southern seminary and He's using critical race theory and he's blatant about it

While they're passing resolution 9 So when James Lindsay says it's being used as an isogetical tool or it could be it's already being used that way

Before the resolution even passed it was being used that way. So that's the concern we have.

That's what we're seeing That's that's why I shine the light on this stuff and I oppose it

So I can't comment on professor Williams. I haven't read some of the material and and what I was given

I did not see Saying a heretical in it. What I would say is just be careful again to say something like so when he says

Critical race theory is helpful to understanding identity formation New Testament. I what that's

I mean, it's only one snippet He said that but I would say I don't think it is. I'm not sure what you're saying there

Well, but that's that's that's so he says that he says that thing But Neil that's that's the revisionism

That's the revisionism in critical race theory because the Bible is a historical book And just like we've taken our own

American history and we've started to engage in these things Uh, you can go to ancient texts.

You can do the same thing and i'll give you some examples of that Peter's problems in galatians 2 was not misunderstanding of justification by faith, but a gentile exclusive Gospel, that's what he thinks the problem there was right

The inclusion of the gentiles in the god's covenant as racial reconciliation, um applies to groups of people alienated due to skin color um

He said so I can I can take you to numerous passages where jarvis williams does this he? completely subverts what the text is actually talking about And he does exactly what he says that that um critical race theory has taught him to do

Uh, he understands identity formation in those passages where that's that's not It's not in the same way that those passages are talking about identity formation.

That's dangerous. No, so again I haven't read that. I just want to be careful about saying if he's doing what you're saying he's doing

I would say yes, that is dangerous again. I have to qualify that because I haven't read him. I want to be fair to him Okay But you said you had read his syllabus, right?

Or they not the syllabus not strictly. No. No jarvis. I saw a comment on twitter Oh where you had defended him and you said that you had seen his uh, his lecture

There's a syllabus where he said something like, you know, what is it works are part of salvation and I said he says

The gospel should be broadly defined to include maintenance language And then he says that this is takes place in in uh, ephesians and galatians.

I looked at the passages and it's it doesn't Um, and he says failing to view racial reconciliation as a gospel issue means having an incomplete understanding of the gospel

Jesus preached racial reconciliation as part of his gospel message Yeah, he's understanding race and ethnicity different.

That's that's a mistake But he says racial reconciliation is part of god's gospels demand

So he works there and southern baptists should live multi -ethnic lives to erase the stain of racism. But wait

And I can go on you should fight. Wait, wait, wait go back to what you just said So which one you said it's racial reconciliation is part of god's gospel demands.

Yeah so so in one section he says that it's it's This is part of the gospel that racial reconciliation

Exactly what he says is we should be willing to die for it as you would for penal substitution And it's part of what christ accomplished in the gospel was racial reconciliation ephesians, too

But then but yes, but then he turns around and he says but that's true, right?

I mean that christ did reconcile. That's a big point. Yeah, it's not it's not the same kind It's not crt racial reconciliation, right?

But I agree with that statement No, I don't agree with that statement. You don't agree that christ It's not racial. It's not racial reconciliation.

He took away the barrier of the law contained in ordinances That separated jews and gentiles, but that's not a racial reconciliation

But it's all groups Race is not the significant factor and that's something god accomplishes in salvation

I understand that but the point is that you would agree that but you would agree that all people matter how they identify themselves all

Christians were reconciled by christ on the cross 2 000 years ago Yeah, all christians are reconciled from themselves, but it's not uh, this is not about social groups

That are divided because of ethnicity or something like that reconciling which is what he tries to make it out to be

Ethnic groups too because that is mentioned in a yeah, but that's not a significant factor in this The significant factor is the jewish law and the requirements of it.

It's not what about in colossians It's well in collage. It's the same issue really in colossian

Isn't that barbarian scythian slave and free and right, right? Those are ethnic categories, right? Yeah, and and Genders as well.

Yeah, good. Okay. So but so those are all different categories that are all the point is paul's point is Well, but but here's the point is this is this makes

This is where the discussion needs to go because this is the significant factor in all of this if I can find it I think I lost it um

He says let me see if I can find it again He all right, so he says this is something that's part of the the work of the gospel that we need to do uh here it is racial reconciliation is part of the gospel's demand and southern baptist should live multi -ethnic lives to erase the stain of racism from The sbc now if racial reconciliation is something accomplished by christ it's it's something that you should it just is we should just believe it because Um kind of like, you know, bode bachum talks about it that way.

It's just is just believe it Yeah, then why is it that there's a gospel's there's a demand and he says southern baptist should work towards removing the stain of racism um from every aspect of ssbc life uh

He says it so he says the unification of all things in christ includes racial Reconciliation and yet southern baptists have to work towards this and when you get to the list of things that that means

It's it's basically it's all crt stuff. It's like every element of crt is in jarvis williams approach to this

He admits that crt is what's motivating this so this is happening This has happened and I have no evidence that it's not happening.

It's never been retracted So I bet you have to quote something here because you're telling me what it says, but I need to hear a quote

So I I don't know. I'm gonna if you send me the if you send me the document i'll reread it again okay, because the what

I was pointed to is when he says like isn't like works are part of our salvation and that was taken as a heresy, but Salvation again.

He's understanding it broadly to encompass justification sanctification And it's classic protestant theology is that our salvation is a whole not a justification not justification

But the process of that that does include works and that's he says the gospel includes maintenance language

And it tells one how to live in the power of the spirit the reality of what god has done for him in christ

And he cites galatians 5 through 6 and ephesians 2 through 6 if you look up the gospel

It's only used three times in ephesians in those two passages And it never refers to maintenance language and I can quote

I have to so that that was not what I was asked to look At so i'll have to look at it myself. I I I don't want to come

Well, this is what tim this is what tim's point to you. I think was though in that thread on twitter He was talking about the salvation not including work and I said well, but that's exactly what i'm talking about, too

But wait, but again salvation understood broadly broadly not justification But when you talk about you know, we're being saved i'm talking about the gospel itself

Good news good news of the gospel is it's not good news when you start adding works to it or Categories of law to it is there's no longer good news anymore

I I agree, but would you affirm that salvation broadly, you know the process of our christian? Yeah, you're talking about glorification sanctification

Yes, and that includes good works that includes works that christ accomplishes in us.

Yes Oh, okay, but we're doing those works too, right? Just like we have faith just like we have faith

We were kept I believe we're kept in salvation the same was monergistic Okay. Yeah, I just want to be sure but yeah,

I just my point was I was asked to look at the statement that salvation He's defining salvation broadly.

Listen, that's what I read Well, yeah Doing good works not and I I wouldn't yeah

I know it's the bottom line is that in that to me it read like classic protestant theology that part of it

Well, yeah, but that's the thing neil with all of this I think that might be one of the dividing lines between us or why we approach this differently

Which is this is what's helpful for the viewers probably is I When i'm looking at these evangelicals i'm looking at yeah, okay

They made a an orthodox statement here and then I look and see there's a contradiction though over here That's a problem and that is what

I would expect. I would expect to see contradictions I don't expect the heretic or this person pushing false doctrine to show up and be like i'm going to push false doctrine

By the way, and here's all my false doctrine and that's all I have No, of course, they're going to combine it with categories that are accurate

That's the danger in it's truth mixed with error, but right but johnny It's about I guess this is a difference between us.

I also would want to say to ask them And if they say no, I you don't understand what i'm saying. Here's what i'm saying, right?

Right. I want to look at so I don't so they've been asked many jarvis williams has been asked many times About this and it's been years that these things now have been exposed

Did he say for example that yes the you know, the gospel, uh, you know, we're justified by faith and works for example

I mean he doesn't know no one's gonna blatantly make that statement. You can't make that statement at an evangelical institution

I I agree and this is the thing here john It because you're presuming you're saying it but there's either when they make these orthodox sounding statements.

That's just because they're lying Is that what you're saying? Because that's I mean, that's what I asked him and he said yes, he is

It's very it's very possible. It's I mean, look, is it a will is it a willful lie? I don't know if it's a willful lie or if they're self -deceived

Well, a lie is something that's not true, right But no, but it's intentionally not true.

So if I say what time is it i'm like nine and ten It's not a lie a lie is when you willfully Well, this is a sinful law.

Yeah, if it's a if it's a sin, yeah So when you're accusing them of lying john It's not like they accidentally got it wrong or they were confused is that they had their fingers crossed behind their back

You're accusing them of that john That's what I don't know. I don't know then you why do you look?

Go ahead go ahead then if you don't know it's fine So john, I I guess that I have my my focus has been on the ideas.

I read almost entirely Secular people, okay So for all I know right the all the people you mentioned and tons more could be complete here

It could be saying heretical things. I haven't read. I don't know but what i'm pressing you to do is to to Be very careful one with how you're treating them in context and not leaving things out we can give other examples again where I think that's a point somewhere where you yeah, but the other thing is to The accusation someone is lying meaning it deliberately deceiving you

Is a very serious one and we should be very hesitant. It's a lot look here Neil it's a the serious thing in my mind is the false doctrine that's coming in Um jarvis williams literally makes a distinction between final justification and justification

He says all sinners experience justification before god by faith in jesus christ apart from the works of the law But without personal holiness, we will not experience final justification because of our works

We'll prove whether we trust in jesus and our works will either vindicate us or condemn us in the judgment This is very problematic language and there's it's not the only time he makes that statement

That's in the uh, the one that tim dukeman, uh sent to you, but he wait But he is saying that we are that our works are evidence of our faith.

They produce our justification Yeah, well, he's quoting james too. Yeah faith without works is dead but No, so correct me if i'm wrong

But isn't the traditional protestant interpretation that that that our works will vindicate us but not make us righteous before god at the judgment yeah, well our works are are the uh

They don't keep us in the faith or anything like that, correct But they but they they showcase that there was a true genuine conversion if you are justified

It's you know, you you will be glorified. Yes, you will be sanctified. You will be glorified

That's the golden chain of redemption. Is he not saying that's what i'm asking. Well, he's making he's making it He's saying all sinners experience justification before god by faith in jesus christ apart from the works of the law

Yes, so apart from works we're justified yes, but without personal holiness we will not experience final justification

Because our works will prove whether we trust in jesus and our works will either vindicate us or condemn us

In the judgment and the key is that and they will vindicate us because christ spirit will you know produce enough holiness

It'll sanctify us because that's a promise of the romans 8 right? Well, here's another here's another he says It's right after this quote

He says god by his spirit enables every christian to pursue and experience personal and corporate holiness But every christian must likewise work to pursue and experience personal and corporate holiness

All christians have the supernatural ability to live holy lives and to progress in obedience to the gospel

Because god has worked in them to do so although christians experience personal holiness at different places and at different levels

Our personal and progressive holiness sanctification is not optional, but is necessary for us to experience final salvation

So this this means that christians would in my reading of this would have a reason to boast In contradiction to ephesians 2 9, but he but he affirms that what god the you know

The good work that god began and still complete and it'll finish, you know being completion So he's he's not saying he's saying one by one again

I may have misread him. I I have to go back and read this again but is this is this not like if he's saying

Yes, good works are necessary for finalistification and god produces those good works and they're not the ground of justification

They're evidence that would be justified what i'm saying Here's what i'm saying. Yeah, this there is so you're having trouble with this quote is because it is so poorly written

Okay. All right. Okay. All right that this is this is my problem when you start making okay There's final justification and then there's justification.

No, there's there's one justification. There's justification Well, there is a verdict that god delivers right god Yeah, when when all when a sinner is justified they are justified and they will produce these works

And but at that at the final judgment god will vindicate us before all people. That's I think what he's talking about.

Yes Well, I think he's talking what in my reading with everything else He says in this and mixing categories of law and grace

And then he ends it with that. You don't know what he's talking about final justification and just if there's two different What is what does this mean?

And so here's my point. This is a guy that's teaching at southern seminary this is a guy that um,

I mean some of the ideas that I even read to you, uh, not those two those were in his um, Lecture, but some of the ideas on critical race theory

I mean it was in a book that al moeller and dorsen contributed to Like this stuff is at the highest levels of the sbc.

This was before resolution 9 So the concern has already been there. You got you know, like russell fuller has been challenging jarvis williams for a long time

Before even resolution 9 and he wasn't the only one inside of southern seminary these things have been known and so when james lindsey says that They critical race theory can be used or will be used as an eisegetical tool.

It's because it already has been used That's our concern. That's my concern with it um Are they all lying about their orthodoxy?

Well, they're either self -deceived or they're lying. I don't know and so Yeah, i'm willing i'm perfectly willing to say they could be completely self -deceived they still shouldn't be teaching them.

No Some someone is I I know there's some people that are lying. I don't know specifically specifically those people are

But yes, there there are some lying but It what what you what you're reading to me again

I I I agree you're saying it's poorly written So it's either you're saying it's you said it's poorly written so either it's a lie or they're self -deceived well well, i'm saying it's poorly written after sharing with you where the category of law and gospel have been

Combined so He's already done that but i'm saying look it comes out in other places his pro

He doesn't make clear distinctions between the two And that is that's a real problem. That's that's heresy

I'm more much more concerned about people spending an eternally eternity apart from god Than I am anything that happens in this physical world.

Well done. That's true. You can be concerned with both false teaching and also, you know Not not accusing positions of lying.

You can you can be concerned with both at the same time, right? So You can say i'm concerned with this teaching but then also not say so clearly they're either lying or self -deceived

That's a that's a again. That's a very serious statement you're making. Yeah I'll make it again. I don't look that's that's that look here's here's the thing

When paul confronts false teaching when jesus comes when any of the apostles really confront false teaching They can often be very harsh about it

And I don't mean to be harsh, but but there's a lot on the line here I I know john, but i'm going to point out to you as you just said it

Maybe it's uh, just poorly it's poorly written. It is poorly written. Well, then you jump to the conclusion. Therefore. It's heresy

Or or it's it's no no, no I already showed you the heresy the Combining law combining categories of law and gospel i'm talking about the passage you cited as poorly written and then you said well, but see it's e so it's either that he's

He's already or he's helped. He's already the heresy is already there. I already showed you that I'm saying though i'm saying it comes out in a number of places though that his his the law and the gospel categories uh

Not making clear distinctions between those it comes out all over his writing And I can bring you to more places where where either it's vague or or it's or it's clear that that's what he's doing so this is not part of the gospel

This is not a gospel issue the the gospel is the good news that jesus christ has

Uh come into this world. It's the story of christ obviously and that sinners can have a right relationship with god through repentance and faith

That's the gospel. It's good news for sinners, right? so Starting to add all these things that penal substitution is just the same as there is racial reconciliation and then his conception of racial reconciliation is all crt stuff

That this is damaging This is bad and I would look i'd be way more concerned with that than a graphic that enemies within the church has which by The way is about again.

It's about marxism when they're saying that they're saying there's marxists coming in to subvert christianity.

That's their point And and and that's it's part of their brand. I don't know. Have you seen their first movie?

No, but they're talking about people with their hands crossed behind their back Which is why you can accuse people so repeatedly of lying

But but here's do I do I accuse people so repeatedly of lying? No in the trailers

John and the trailers accused because of that graphic Yeah, and and also because you just said in your talk that marxists are coming in to subvert the church

That's what the graphic is supposed to communicate But they're they're lying and also and you said that like, you know, they believe things

They don't said, you know that they believe things they actually and you said, okay, you take that back. You don't know that So I just want to point out john.

I just want to caution you. That's a very serious thing Accusation to make um, let me see one more thing.

I I you you had a bunch of criticisms or concerns that you raised about me I just want to point one more.

This is why john. I I I really am big on reading primary material So i've i've said I don't know for all you know for all

I know because I haven't read it personally You're interpreting williams correctly for all I know You're not I I can't do it on the fly because I want to see the whole thing in front of me

And sure he's like a huge it's like 30 pages. So I'd have to read it again and be careful So I thought you did read it

I read it one time and then looked at the passage that was pointed out to me and I said well This seems like it's just saying salvation is broad.

So I want to go back and look at what you're saying So that's why i'm hesitant to say I want to pass judgment on something that I haven't read thoroughly.

That's fine But here's i'll send it to you of why so here's an example You know, one of the things you mentioned in your last podcast was you put up a tweet that I had of uh, and the

About joe carter's article about social justice and the subtitle of on your slide was shanvi

Defending the use of the term social justice as potentially meaning biblical justice Right and then in the podcast, this is not necessarily a big deal

But you know for someone who claims to be an expert it's muddies the waters Who claims to be an expert you say me, you know, you people are telling me oh, oh, oh, yeah

But you're here. He is defending and he said I think he's defending a joe carter piece if i'm not mistaken here

Right, but you were mistaken if you okay, who was it? Well, no, if you know if you click on the article,

I actually wrote the subtitle says it's first of all It's called a rejoinder to joe carter.

I'm i'm Rebutting his article and the subtitle is should christians reclaim the term social justice question mark

I'm, not sure that's wise or necessary and I make exactly the argument you make about how we really shouldn't be using this term

So the point is you didn't even read the article and then you and you were claiming you're like, oh, come on Why you know why you might

I don't I don't have the graph. So you were saying um, You were what was it? Was the caption

Or the the statement that you made that should create you were asking the question should christians reclaim the term social justice

I said no And so I was actually and you you said I think he's defending joe carter piece here

I'm, not you said no in the article in the no even in the tweet I said I don't actually recommend you see the terms in the tweet

And I said and you said that i'm defending joe carter and i'm defending the use of it. Yeah, I don't know

I don't know. I don't know. I have here. I'll put no I have right here. That's all right. I'll pull up No, it's okay. I'll put it up So well if I did

I apologize if I misread something I could certainly misread things. Yeah, and it's great So can I obviously right we all do that?

So here's the you know This is a tweet and you say you shouldn't be defending the use of the term social justice And the tweet says

I don't actually recommend using the term social justice and that article itself Makes exactly the point you make that it has other meanings and it's unwise to use it might be confusing

That's the entire article. I don't see it. Is it did you put it up? Yeah, it's there on the screen Oh, no,

I don't oh, wait, hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on Oh, okay. Yes. I see it now. So that was your this is your slide.

I say but it's uncharitable Right, I don't actually okay. I see it don't actually recommend using the term social justice

Uh, I tweet like social justice could mean biblical justice. I think it's at the end there Okay, and and the reason

I say why do I even say that well because like the esv for yeah. Yeah okay, I so so here's this is this is probably the like the

The least important point I made in that whole entire thing my my point is, um the the term social justice is used as a uh

To mean something that we would all disagree with. In fact, I walked into the gym today on cnn and they they had uh, you know black lives matter and they use the term social justice social justice is

Uh, they're I don't know what legislation they were pushing in some state, but it was a social justice legislation or something so We hear we're hearing this all the time.

It's it's a word that's problematic because it has a common parlance in which it's used a neo -marxist parlance um to to carve out kind of an exception right to say that Um, you know, hey look a christian could use this.

Is that technically true? Yeah, I would say yeah, it's technically true christian I guess could use that but I would want to hasten like a christian was doing that.

I want to say look hold on We don't we don't really you realize what that could mean what the implications of that, um

What this means to broadly speaking and really even it's it's history uh

More often than not it has meant some kind of a marxist idea. Uh, there's a quote

I have um, I was doing some research on it from like the late 1800s and there was it was someone in scotland who's saying

Uh, yes, the term social justice is the same as marxism. That is what it is They're they're the same thing.

So it's it's been like that for quite a while. And so my only point was that um, I wouldn't

I I just think it muddies the waters to try to carve out those things I I think the better thing to do would be to warn but but john that's what

I say in my article I say exactly you you warn you warn that it's being used that way. Yeah, so could it technically be used?

But yeah, okay We're in agreement then but the bigger point is this john this is when you say you say like well

What about this and this and like yeah i'm telling you quotes that circling has said and that williams has said here are the quotes And but things like this there's other examples in the in this last podcast too.

I can be more than that. We're like here You're criticizing me for and I said the exact opposite of what you said.

I said and so I right but if you hear if you're someone like joe carter uses the term social justice, right?

I don't want to carve out an exception for him and just be like well, hey, you shouldn't use that joe But yeah, it's okay.

It's it could you you could you could use it. I wouldn't say you could use it You're missing. That's the difference john.

You're missing my point. You said i'm defending the use of the term I'm actually doing exactly the opposite In fact, i'm invoking the very arguments you just made in the article what you didn't click on What you are you are hold on you are defending

But you are defending that christians can use the term and it have nothing bad attached to it

Yeah, because you and that's exactly what you said. You said right you said okay, uh, gosh

We're getting so lost in like details here. No, but john my point that are so irrelevant honestly, like look here

I look i'm, sorry. I didn't mean to offend you John i'm not offended i'm making a point here and this is a broader point

This is why but I wasn't but i'm not being dishonest there neil if that's the point you're trying to make that's not accurate

It's this is not dishonest. This is a mistake. Okay a genuine mistake I I totally believe that okay, but my point is no,

I don't think it was a mistake you were carving out The a space for some you were carving out an exception.

Someone could use that term I don't think that's a wise thing to do. That's my whole it's it's not wise and yet they could use it that way

And you said listen quote, I guess someone could do that. They could use it biblically I guess someone could do that I would just say they shouldn't you say

I would say the proper response would be like hey look I understand you want to use this term, but here are the origins of the term

Here's how the term is commonly used and this is why you might want to use the term That is exactly I wouldn't publicly

I wouldn't publicly go out there and carve out an exception for someone like joe carter though That's the that's the point i'm trying to make is like I wouldn't

It's not this is like a very very minor point But I don't I I don't think it's more of a wisdom thing than it is a right or a wrong thing

Okay, here's another I wouldn't phrase it. I wouldn't phrase it that way. You know, that's all here's another one john. Yeah Hold on.

Yeah, hold on. Yeah um You're so so I I have a couple of your tweets right here.

Yeah, and I brought up um This you have this whole back and forth, uh exchange with in fact,

I don't even know if I want to get into that because uh you I guess the broader point that I wanted to make was that you have defended jarvis williams.

You have defended jd. Greer Um, you have defended walter strickland, I think for someone who's watching this from a bird's eye view and they're saying

The concern that they have what they're seeing churches being are being split up neil I get Emails from people that are just crying because of what's happening

And it breaks absolutely breaks my heart um, and i'm seeing that this is everywhere and and then

And and the ideas that are doing that are coming from People that are people like this and people who are promoting some of these ideas so That's I think the main concern if you really want to get down to like the core of it is i'm looking at the telos

I'm looking at where this thing is going what it's doing to churches. It's disrupting the fundamental unity of the church itself um

It's corrupting the gospel When we just incorporate all these things as these gospel issues and and do the law and grace thing where we merge those categories

Uh, it ushers in a post -modernism that destroys the authority of scripture because of this standpoint epistemology

And and we see it all around us and I think for someone like yourself who really you want to criticize

Here's the thing. You know, I want to because i'm because we've been we're both tired. We've been going at this for two hours We we both don't want to see critical theory come into the church.

We're both against that. We both have tried to fight this but In the places where you have the most influence in your own backyard

That's where we would expect I think someone like yourself to fight the hardest. That's where I fight The hardest is in my own backyard.

Where do I have the most influence? Where will people listen to me the most and and and and I can actually get something done

Right, and and so yeah, i'm concerned about the things happening in the secular world. I am

I am concerned about the radical abuses, uh You know the crazy social justice people out there

But i'm also concerned because i'm getting the churches and the people who are leaving their churches and their churches are splitting up uh because of some of the

Figures in the southern baptist convention. We've talked about does that I just want I just want to know i'm heard on that Does that make sense?

No, I understand. Okay, I said I understand you're concerned I get I share those concerns tom askew shares those concerns.

Lots of people share those concerns But when you say why aren't you doing this in your own backyard and the answer is first of all

I am But you're saying why don't you call people out? Well, because it's again. That's not what I do. I don't call you out either

But why but why well, yeah, but you've called enemies within the church out you call me me out in public, too

Okay, well as attached to that i've dishonest I this dishonest montage and that kind of thing

You'll you'll do that again. John that was a private email and I know i'm talking about twitter, you know

Before we've had discussions about this. Yeah, and that was why I said that you're calling it.

Uh, you're calling strickland an enemy and he said well No, i'm not really but i'm saying that no it was that was deeper into the conversation

We had already you already say he's not endorsing liberation theology. He's not endorsing strickland and or sorry.

He's not endorsing cone that that's where we we um That's where the conversation was and we just had that conversation

But you don't seem have a problem getting into that But there's but this is the bigger problem like i'm small potatoes, right?

Even even if what you're saying about me is true, right? Let's say i'm some Um, I i'm not i'm not a racist.

I'm not a liar. But let's say I am let's say i'm a racist I'm a liar. I'm all these things. Um, i'm not corrupting the gospel.

I'm not um I'm, not destroying churches out there uh But this stuff really is and it's not just destroying churches

We we see it destroying the fabric of our country at least the idea is connected to them so So that's that's

I guess I I think as i'm saying this i'm saying it as representing people who have voiced these same concerns to me

And and i'm hearing what you're saying too, by the way, um, and I appreciate uh, look I I just appreciate you having the conversation with me to begin with it's this is a positive thing in my mind to talk about these things

Um, but to tell us where it's going the direction that's what i'm looking at.

That's what concerns me So i'm seeing these things are connected is what i'm saying Okay, and I get

I would agree with the this idea this broad movement that is working its way into the church I I would agree with that, but I think that doesn't give us uh,

I think ironically, you know critical theories have this very Uh false black and white binary of you have the good

Uh good oppressed people and the bad oppressors, you know, the sons of light and the sons of darkness, right?

It's very binary worldview. Everything's good and evil. Sure. Call me nickian, right? I genuinely worry

That that that people are that's very simplistic and and uh, right and and wrong too, right?

Because we know that actually there is a binary right john, which is people in the body of christ people on the outside That's a real binary, right?

It cuts across but yeah, sure. There's black and white in the bible Yeah, right, but but but black and white is sons of light some darkness, right?

But not repressed or oppressed in the way that yeah, right where you and I are in lockstep on that But here's the thing john

What i'm worried about is i'm seeing this other false binary that's being drawn as sort of like This is how it goes both ways.

You've got the big eva the bad bad evil and the righteous

Elijah's who have not bowed the need of bail, but the sermon bloggers sermon bloggers, right and again couldn't evil

And the other side at the other side, you've got the righteous woke and the evil white supremacists

That's true That's the way that I say that that's the way to even sort of woke -ish evangelicals are seeing that binary

And i'm saying we have to recover the biblical binary which is body of christ And those outside but that means being this is where I I do think there's a serious difference here

I share that telos concern that idea that there is this movement. It's deadly. It's dangerous

But that does not give us leave to sort of cut off certain people with you actually are believers

And say you are wolves Yeah, i'm worried that we're gonna remove the healthy tissue with the cancer and what's more john is that when we when we

Again, excise healthy tissue along with and i'm not denying there's cancer within the church

I'm, not saying that there are false believers in there tom askew believes that I can make your documentary cancer within the church

We're just kidding. Well, no, but that's what i'm i'm pleading with you. John dissociate yourself from that title and be careful again with how your

You know, I think I just here's one clear example where you I think you misunderstood what

I said and didn't read the article and we're very confident in saying but here he said this, but I didn't and so When it bears upon my my whole tone with that tune, you know,

I don't know if you saw I was very um I I was kind of shrugging putting my hands up just kind of like man

Yeah, it was I was not pointing a finger at you in that I was just saying it's more of a strategic thing in my

Mind, I wouldn't have written that and that's all that's all i'm saying. I think in principle. I think we agree

According to what you just said we ironically call someone a wolf and you're still calling them a wolf I didn't call you a wolf.

No, no, not me. Not me. Not me. I'm just saying that other people and yeah Well, I think jarvis williams though. He's look if you're promoting a false gospel

If you're subverting the authority of scripture or promoting false doctrine, right? And you've been doing this now for years without retracting and you've been corrected and I don't know.

What else do you say that this is a false teacher? This is false teaching That's you have to separate from that.

That's what that's what scripture calls us to do So I don't have a problem saying that about someone like a jarvis williams or or walter strickland

Um, now my hope is always that they would uh repent of these things. That's always been the hope um

So I That's that's I think the frustration I have is

You know, I can show you. Uh, here's all this information and you you're trying to what you're doing it seems like is you're creating all these exceptions and saying well if we

If we if we read what he's saying this way then we can somehow, you know

Justify it or something and I just don't see there's any justification. The concern should be

These men are training pastors to go out into the denomination We shouldn't have to be bending over backwards to try to to make all kinds of justifications for them

And defend them it should be calling them out on the carpet and saying look little old ladies are giving money

So you can teach pastors to go preach the gospel And this is what you're doing.

That's the outrage, right? and um, I I don't see it from you a lot, I guess that's there there's more of a

Concern in your mind that we would miss mistakenly somehow categorize someone wrong

But john, that's just that's a serious concern to call a brother in christ a wolf in a heretic

You're not i'm not saying they're brothers and i'm not saying they're brothers in christ I I know but I am but I am john

That's the point is that i'm saying that the evidence that you've presented i've shown you i've gone through and been like wait a minute You find that in teaching from anthony bradley's book.

Why doesn't count? Well, but he said he affirms this I already explained that But we can go back well,

I would just urge this neil neil I don't understand this. We I went over this like two or three times in this same interview

Why do you keep going back and repeating the same thing? Because the difference is so let's just say

I disagree That you have made the case say that walter strickland is a wolf who's lying and a heretic

I don't think you've made that case and if you have not made that case That's a serious. I I don't look

I don't know if he's lying I I don't when when are we talking about when he signed the statement of faith?

Is that what you're talking about for the lying part? Okay when he signs a statement of faith um

Does he does he have beliefs that are in contradiction to that? I believe yes I believe so he has ideas that are undermining that does he necessarily see all those connections himself clearly in front of him?

No, I don't know if he does I don't know him well enough. Do you think he's lying then?

Or do you think he's just? Self -deceived you think that there's two options or he's lying or self -deceived, right?

so so so is he is he saying like Oh good. I get to to come in and teach teach against this doctrine and he's very self -aware of that No, I don't

I I don't know If that's what he's doing, I would hope not but you but you're but you are my calling my heretic

You're calling you're questioning his his very salvation not just his like what should be teaching but you're saying he's promoting a false gospel

What do you do with that? What do you do with that But I don't see john. I don't think he's teaching a false gospel

You admitted that to me earlier in the interview when you can strickland was yeah, I read

I read for you Where where he combines the category of of works of law with the category of gospel?

And you and you and you were like, oh man, I haven't read that. That is bad I said if he said that that is wrong

But john, it's possible that for example if I read the context like wait a minute john He didn't say that or I said this is what he meant or or even john you're bending over backwards

No, john, you want me to read it again? That's right. John Listen to me. I am bending over backwards because that's what we do in the body of christ

No, neil. That's not what we do in the body of christ when there's false teaching We call it out and we correct it and this has been corrected for years.

That's my point and it's only obfuscation it's uh It's try circle the wagons it's delete the things that uh, uh were said it's there's no answers

There's no explanation. That's what we're met with every single time without any exceptions I can think of That's what that's what i've been met with.

That's what others have been met with and believe me There's a long line of people Who have who have tried to correct these things in strickland?

Well, i'm glad that we've I think we've hit the core difference here. I think it's Yeah, it's really

I I truly believe that walter strickland is not A heretic and is not a false teacher and is certainly a believer now.

I could be wrong. I'm not My god, i'm not infallible, right? But but that's what

I view him as and I say that when he said for example Let's say he did I and I have a look at the context.

Let's say he did Say, you know They mingled the law with the gospel, right? Right, and then you come but let's say he did that Could he have misspoken and he said oh my gosh.

Yeah, I totally messed it up That could be the case right just like we all misspeak. We all say wrong things, right?

You're going into hypotheticals that don't exist. He's go ahead But when he says when he says no, but I I i'm telling you

I affirm the statement of faith I affirm this gospel that i'm committed to this teaching of our body and then you say

I don't believe you I'm saying if he does not retract his heretical

Abuse then you can't believe you're obligated not to You you can Look You you mark someone who's divisive

Um, you call out false teachers That's serious business. That's the serious business uh in the church and I mean i'm looking at the quote again,

I I won't read it because we've already gone over it but um, but but this is just the tip of the iceberg this is

I mean All the things that he says about cone liberation theology j .d. utis roberts, um raise red flags that are

I mean uh Liberation and reconciliation is my favorite theological book of all time.

That's quite the statement That he makes I have the quotes right here from the book liberation and reconciliation.

I mean we can go over them again It's it's not like it's uh, you know, just a little bit here and the rest of the book is great

No, it characterizes the book. It's the telos of the book. It's the purpose of the book It's liberation theology so Anyway, yeah

Well, I would but I would urge people to do and this is um I think we could probably agree on this.

Yeah, I do think that all people engage in this conversation um, we need to Listen to primary sources, right?

And and so when I say something Uh, and this is actually generally why

I don't um I mean, I don't have a podcast, uh, because I want to Not want to always generate content that relies heavily on me telling a story

That's I want to rely on let the primary sources speak for themselves And but even then as I showed at the very beginning

You can tell a false misleading story with nothing but quotes that are true

So I would just the best way to combat that Is for so I would urge your listeners

To go and find people who disagree with you and listen to their arguments and same with me, by the way

People that hear me speaking like oh neil's wonderful. Whatever. Okay, fine That's great. Thank you for your support.

Whoever you are hypothetical person, but I want you to listen to people who disagree with me

And hear both sides. It's the best way to guard against what I think are these false narratives, right?

John, like I said, I I am very concerned With I know I hear you.

I hear you. I am concerned with critical theory, you know that right? But i'm also concerned with how we treat each other within the body of price

I know you're saying but yeah, but harris is a serious thing But I just disagree with you about and then like and not everyone

I'm sure that some of the people you're naming that you could name as obviously problematic and heretics I would say yeah, of course like james cohen

Obviously, but I would say that when we disagree on who all these people are and that's a serious issue too

As well as critical theory Right. Yeah, I hear you on that. Um, well, I guess what

I want to say more I guess in closing is to be a berean To to test everything go test what

I say. I say this on my program quite a bit Look, I can get things wrong I can misjudge something because i'm a human and we all do that to some extent

Um, but go to the the infallible source go to the word of god test All the ideas that you hear against that paul was an apostle and commended people for testing what he said

Against previous revelation And and so that's that's what I seek to do.

Um, and uh And so, you know neil I appreciate it. Uh, this has been way longer than than I was expecting and uh

I know we talked in circles a little bit. I hope that was helpful for people if anything just to kind of hear your

Your approach my approach and and how they may diverge. Um, and uh, you know, hopefully this uh

Hopefully this built up some trust between us and and just uh, you know, we got to know each other a little better even if it was uh in controversy, uh somewhat so, um

Website is shenvyapologetics .com. I get that right. Yeah .com

if you want to find out more about neil shenvy um I appreciate it neil. Yeah.

Yeah. Thanks john Like I said, I I I do want to close though because you know, well, I think it's 19 I do think what you're doing to other christians is is bad.

And so and I and again I could be wrong But I would really urge you to consider whether or not you're treating people fairly and charitably just as you would urge me

To ask you know, am I being as you know concerned about heresy as I ought to be?

Right, so I think we can both do those things. I think we both should do those things. Yeah Yeah, absolutely.