Session 1: A Biblical Theology of Man, Racism and the Church with Virgil Walker

Welcome to the 2022 Equipping Conference. This is a full two-day conference, and I hope that you're not going to be overwhelmed by the material that you're about to get from Virgil and Daryl, because this is two content-rich days that are ahead of you.

And I wanna give a couple of just administrative announcements about today and tomorrow. First, our first Q &A is already prepared. There should be cards on your table that if you have a question that comes up that you would like to have answered in either the question and answer that is at the end of today's sessions or at the end of tomorrow's sessions, then if you could write your question down on that and bring it at some point up to my table, which is right up front here, and leave it there.

We will catalog them and kind of categorize them over the course of the day, and we'll bring in as many of those as we can in the Q &A sessions. And there's been a little bit of a change to the schedule that was posted online.

Just in case you're curious, Daryl asked to combine two of his sessions into one session. So he wanted to speak for like an hour and a half or four hours or something like that on one of his topics today.

So we moved things around, and one of his sessions is gonna be quite long, and that's the one that's right after lunch. So he has the additional challenge of trying to keep you awake after you're filled up.

But that's on him. He asked for that.

That is it.

I'm gonna introduce now Virgil Walker, and then before Daryl's first session this morning, I'll come up and give an introduction of Daryl. Virgil Walker serves as the Executive Director of Operations for G3 Ministries, and along with Daryl Harrison, Virgil co-hosts the Just Thinking podcast, which is what Phil Johnson calls the most influential long-form Christian podcast in the world, which is substantial.

And I would also add to that the adjective irregular, meaning that they put it out when they have time. If you're used to listening to a podcast that comes out once a week or once a month or once a day, that's not these guys.

When they drop a podcast, it is loaded with content, and once they get done speaking on a subject, you kind of feel like there's really nothing else to say about that subject, because their long-form podcasts can be upwards of three hours.

I think some of them have been three hours long. Virgil has completed his Master of Business Administration, is currently working on a Master of Divinity at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He's been involved in jail ministry, sidewalk ministry at abortion clinics and street evangelism.

He's co-authored Why Are You Afraid? and Just Thinking About the State, and then a soon-to-be-released Just Thinking About Ethnicity, which we were hoping was gonna be available for this conference so we could give that away for free, but it wasn't available.

Virgil and his wife, Tamika, have been married for 25 years and have three children. Virgil and Daryl have become widely known for their resolute and uncompromising confrontation of the spirit of the age and progressivism in almost every area of our culture.

Two years ago, when I scheduled it for Daryl to come up here originally, I knew that he was the best guy to deal with some of the issues that we're dealing with in culture, and I wasn't as aware of Virgil at the time.

I just knew of Daryl. I'd met Daryl and Virgil at a Shepherds Conference. So I scheduled this with Daryl. I kind of thought, well, two years from now, is the whole woke Christianity and the progressivism and everything is racist, is all of that really gonna have blown over in our culture?

Will it really be timely by the time they show up a couple years from now? As it turns out, I think that that thread is not going away, and it is as timely now as it was two years ago when I originally planned this conference.

These men have proven that they do not back down. They boldly confront the lies of our age in their podcasts, their books, their online articles, and social media posts, and they do not shy away from confronting the culture or tackling some of the most explosive subjects in the headlines.

When George Floyd died, they came out within a month of a podcast on that. So these guys just tackle the things that are relevant and in the news. And I hope that by the time we get done with these fine brothers this weekend, that they will serve to equip you to think biblically and respond faithfully to the challenge that are being presented to the church by our culture.

So please welcome Virgil Walker.

The Cultural Moment and the Rise of Gender Ideology

Well, good morning. It's a joy to be with you this morning. And man, with an introduction like that, I feel like I just need to sit down. Darrell and I are extremely honored to be here. I have never been to Idaho.

I'm sure you're all shocked by that, right? But it is an honor to be here. I flew in late last night, so it was kind of one of those things where I didn't get to see the beauty of everything. Then the sun kind of shows up, and I'm like, oh, there are mountains.

This is a great place. We are absolutely honored to be here, and I look forward to what we're gonna embark upon over the course of the next two days. I will tell you, it's a good thing you're at tables.

It's a good thing that you have booklets that provide opportunity for notes. Because if you're familiar with our podcast, you know very well that we come loaded for bear, and we come armed and equipped, and we've done our research and our study, and we wanna give everything to you.

So I promise you, before the weekend is out, you will indeed feel like you've been equipped to address the topics that we're intending to share with you. I wanna thank Pastor Jim for having us, for calling me.

I'm glad I got on the ticket. I'm just glad I got to be a part. Darrell does just a fantastic job. Because of who he is and where he is, there are a lot of opportunities that come his way, and he never hesitates to pick up the phone as my brother and say, hey, you're coming with me, and here's what we're gonna go do together.

So I appreciate you always doing that for us. I wanna also, just by way of just opening up, just thank the elders at Kootenai Community Church. I know this is some work for you all to do, and as Executive Director of Operations for G3, I know a little something about putting these things together and what happens behind the scenes that nobody knows about, and that's how it's supposed to stay, but those who take care, those who do the work and takes care of those kinds of things are the ones who are really doing the heavy lifting.

So I wanna just take a moment and thank you. As I learned about this conference, the equipping conference, I was talking with Pastor Jim about the speakers you've had in the past. You have Andrew Rappaport, you've had Jason Lyle, Scott Klusendorf, Paul Taylor, Phil Johnson.

I have so much respect for Phil. He has an encyclopedic mind, and he's just phenomenal. So to hear his encouragement, what he has to say about the Just Thinking podcast means a tremendous amount to me, I know it does to Darrell as well.

We've got a lot of ground to cover. Let me first, before I do that, just bring you greetings from my boss, Josh Bice, and G3 Ministries. If you're not familiar with G3 Ministries, shame on you. You should be.

G3 is one of the largest Reformed conferences in the world this past year. We hosted 6 ,400 people in Atlanta from all over the country and parts around the world. We had all of the best of the best speakers, leaders, thought leaders, all were there.

Of course, Darrell and I were there, so you know, had to be something going on. No, we were honored to be there, and Darrell and I daily kind of pinch ourselves from two guys who were in our own little areas of the world, me in Omaha, him in Georgia, sitting on a bed.

We talked about how to put the podcast together. I'm literally in a closet with a microphone, right, trying to make things happen, and to go from that to where God has us has been absolutely breathtaking, and we're incredibly humbled by it.

It never gets old for us. We're always humbled by those kinds of opportunities. I also wanna bring you greetings from my wife, Tamika, who is at home there with my son, Price. Price just graduated from high school.

I have two adult children who are in Omaha, Nebraska. Princess, my daughter, who's the oldest, and Princeton, who is there taking care of his sister. As we moved down to Atlanta, those two decided to stay, and we were hopeful that they'd be able to manage themselves and take care of themselves, and they've done incredibly well, so I couldn't be more proud of them as well.

Pray for them, pray for our youngest who's trying to figure out next steps as he transitions from high school to what comes next. I think that's all of my greetings. I've got the whole thing marked out here.

I'm looking forward to what we're gonna talk about today. The topic that I was given, or the title of the message, is A Biblical Theology of Man, Racism, and the Church. A Biblical Theology of Man, Racism, and the Church.

I wanna warn you, when a speaker brings a bottle of water this size, you're in for it, okay? Truth is, I take some medication that drives me out sometimes, so from time to time, I'll take a little sip, so I wanted you to be aware of that.

I don't normally bring that with me, but in this instance, I needed to. As you can imagine, with that kind of a title, the Biblical Theology of Man, of Racism, and the Church, I was really excited when Pastor Jim told me that my early session could be about three hours, because that's about what I need to take for, no, not three hours, okay.

Well, again, with all of that ground to cover, we've got a lot of work to do, so I'm gonna ask you to roll up your sleeves, get your pen, and let's dive in. On May 15th, 2022, Rosemary Rabideau received a call from the principal of Kyle Middle School, where her 13-year-old son, Brayden, attends.

Principal Mike Hendricks called to forewarn Ms. Rabideau that she would be receiving an email with allegations of sexual harassment, a sexual harassment charge against her son. Now, like any concerned parent, Ms. Rabideau, upon hearing the term sexual harassment, her mind immediately went to things like rape or inappropriate touching or something of the like.

Well, Ms. Rabideau was shocked to learn that her son and two other boys would be charged with berating a non-binary classmate who screamed abuse at the three students. Their crime, they used female pronouns instead of gender-neutral ones.

The school sees the misgendering of the student as a Title IX violation. Now, according to school officials, the administration sees using the wrong pronouns as automatically punishable speech under Title IX.

Now, Rosemary, Brayden's mother, said this. She said, you know, this is middle school. These guys are kids. They're learning how to interact with one another. They've been taught all their life to see a girl and use she and her.

They don't understand using plural pronouns for one student. Well, her thought process absolutely makes sense. Well, the family is fighting the long-term damaging impact of this charge against their son's reputation.

They're fighting this in the courts. Now, fast forward to New York, where there's a new law written governing discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression. The law, however, does more than provide equal protection for transgender individuals regarding equal employment or hiring practices or housing.

The New York City Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance states, the following can be grounds, listen closely, the following can be grounds for legal or civil action. I'm quoting from the current law.

Number one, the intentional or repeated refusal to use a person's name, pronoun, or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman him or mister after she has made it clear that she uses she and her and miss.

Number two, refusal to use a person's name, pronoun, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, insisting upon calling a person, calling a non-binary person mister after they've requested to be called mix, M-X.

Number three, prohibiting a person from using a particular program or facility because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, a woman's shelter may not turn away a transgender woman because she looks too masculine.

Oftentimes, when these women enter a shelter, they're there because of the protective nature of their circumstance, and at times, to get away from a violent episode with men. Now, imagine that same woman being told that there's nothing keeping a transgender woman, a biological male, from entering that space.

Similarly, men's shelters cannot deny service to a transgender man because she does not look masculine enough. Number four, prohibiting a transgender person from using a single gender program or facility most closely aligned to their gender identity.

For example, a public university cannot prohibit a transgender man from using the men's restroom. On the other hand, a transgender woman, a biological man, can also use the same facilities where women usually house.

Number five, requiring a gender non-conforming person to provide identification or proof of their gender to access the appropriate single gender program or facility. Number six, barring a non-binary student from a single gender after school program out of concern that they may make other students uncomfortable.

So even if you're a woman and you say, you know what, this really makes me uncomfortable, there is no protection for you in that space. Number seven and finally, forcing a transgender, I want you to listen to all of what's being said here.

All of the categories of people, of persons that we're encountering here. Number seven, forcing a transgender, non-binary, gender non-conforming or intersex person to use a single occupancy restroom instead of a shared restroom.

In other words, they are required to be able to access a restroom where there's a single gender in that particular restroom regardless of how they self-identify. Now the punishment for violating any of these codes, they will allow the New York City Commission to impose legal ramifications on the one end, but primarily civil penalties as well.

And the civil penalties can be anywhere from $125 ,000 for violations and up to $250 ,000 for violations resulting from the willful, wanton or malicious conduct. While this may seem to be a step too far, when you look at these incidents, when you look at the situations and circumstances that are coming down the pike, you begin to scratch your head like, what in the world has gone on?

How did we get from there to here? This seems to be a step too far. When you begin to wrap your mind around that, think about the fact that when you add the issue from gender and you add the intersection of ethnicity, the stakes are even higher.

For example, the now-confirmed Supreme Court Justice, Ketanji Brown-Jackson, was held as the most highly qualified nominee for the Supreme Court in years. From the beginning of his presidency, Joe Biden made it clear that he would nominate a black woman at the first opening on the Supreme Court.

Well, this was hailed by media, celebrated as a triumph. Ketanji Brown-Jackson would be the first black woman to serve the court in its 232-year history. She would be only the fourth woman to do so on the high court.

However, despite this, Jackson herself had a difficult time answering, if you remember, a simple question. And that question was, what is a woman? How can you define or can you define a woman? Jackson would respond by saying, I'm not a biologist.

How did we get to this place? I'm old enough to remember simple truths from less than five years ago, right? That only women can get pregnant, right? That chest feeding isn't a real thing, right? That there's no such thing as a pregnant person, right?

It's a pregnant woman, not a pregnant person. Men and women have corresponding plumbing that indicates their biological identity.

These are simple truths.

Sex and gender are used interchangeably and are not societal constructs, as some would suggest. All of these statements are factual statements. Everything that I've said and shared is absolutely true.

The way we get here is because someone, through the course of history, began to develop the flawed idea that these notions weren't true, these presuppositions weren't true, and they began to posit their own ideas.

After World War II, French feminist Simone de Beauvoir, I'm gonna spell that name for you because I want you to know this person, I want you to have their information. Simone, S-I-M-O-N-E, de, D-E, Beauvoir, B-E-A-U-V-O-I-R.

Let me do that one more time. Simone, S-I-M-O-N-E, D-E, and then the last name is B-E-A-U-V-O-I-R. Now, listen, I'm from Omaha, Nebraska, really from Oklahoma, so I had to learn how to say Beauvoir, all right?

I actually practiced that for a while just to get it correctly. Simone de Beauvoir had a different idea. She wanted to look at the issue of gender roles, and after World War II, she had a different idea about femininity and those gender roles.

In her book, The Second Sex, written in 1949, Beauvoir writes this, quote, end quote. Pretty benign statement. She's just identifying, articulating the truth that we all know and hold dear, that forever, as far back as we know and understand, whether it was the issue of science or philosophy, sex and gender were interchangeable.

However, in the 19th century, it was Beauvoir who had a different idea while acknowledging, in the quote, the etymology of the word gender and that it has always been connected to sex. All of science, all of philosophy presupposed this truth.

Beauvoir was undeterred. She didn't care that that was true, that that was real. She had a desire to change some things, so she would be the first to introduce the ideas that would become known as gender theory, positing the idea that sex should be separate from gender.

She was the first to do it in 1949 in her book. Beauvoir would advance the idea that gender was something other than sex or biology. She distinguished gender in this way. She would say that gender is really the prevailing thoughts of society.

Gender is really those traditional norms of how we think men and women should be. And as a result, if she could reject those, she could change and transform her gender. In her mind, sex or biology was the immutable characteristics of the body that were closely linked to psychological traits.

So in other words, her thought process was, my body says one thing, but my gender may be something different. And in its infancy, she would launch or lay the foundation for what would later become gender theory.

Beauvoir aimed to deconstruct every traditional role and societal expectation designed for women. What she wanted to change and transform were issues around marriage, what marriage looked like. She wanted to change the ideas or thought processes about the need to bear children.

At the time that she was alive and doing well in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the family structure was intact. The idea that a woman would find a husband, would marry, would bear children and be a homemaker was very embedded, ingrained in the fabric of our culture.

She had every desire to change that, to transform that and to thrust upon society the idea that these are things that we need to let go of, we need to walk away from, and she did so in her book. In her book, The Second Sex, Beauvoir writes this, quote, and yet we are told that femininity is in danger.

She began depositing ideas that those who were in the know and who could see what was coming began to say those ideas are dangerous. The idea that you're gonna decouple, A, sex from gender, that's a dangerous thing you're doing.

The idea that you wanna throw off any constraints that marriage would provide or the protections that marriage would provide, that's dangerous. And so she responds by saying this, and yet we're told that femininity is in danger.

We are exhorted to be women, to remain women, to become women. It would be apparent then that every female human being is not necessarily a woman. To be so considered, she must share in that mysterious and threatened reality known as femininity.

Beauvoir then jokingly asks the question, is the attribute of femininity something that is secreted from the ovaries? Is this a platonic essence, the product of a philosophic imagination? Is a rustling of the petticoat enough to bring it down to earth?

She's casting off restraints. You can hear it in the language. Her desire is to no longer embrace the cultural milieu of that day regarding femininity. Here you witness Beauvoir's disdain for the traditional or traditional gender roles where she writes this, quote, the truth is that just as biologically, males and females are never victims of one another, but both are victims of the species, so man and wife together undergo the oppression of an institution they did not create.

Now you've gotta listen to what's being said in that. Let me walk you back through it. She says, the truth is that just as biologically, males and females are never victims of one another, but both are victims of the species.

What she's denying is a sovereign God who has ordered the structure of how men and women are to interact. So we're just mammals just trying to figure things out in the culture. We operate no different than any monkey or ape.

We're just trying to figure out what our senses are, and we're caught up in this trap called marriage. We're caught up in this trap as a woman of femininity, of masculinity, but we're actually victims of this idea that we didn't invent that was thrust upon us.

Later we'll unpack how it was thrust upon and who did the thrusting. I'll walk back through that here in a bit. If the assertion is that men oppress women, then the husband is indignant. He feels that he's the one who's being oppressed, and he is, but the fact is that it is in the masculine code.

It is society who has developed the male, and in his interest, he has established the woman and her situation. Again, what she's saying is that there are all these outward things, there are all these things in culture, in society, in our environment that actually craft who we are.

And if that's the case, we can reject those things and recreate our own design. That's what she's saying in essence. The premise of Beauvoir's theories in turn are the beginning of what would usher in the whole world of gender confusion, and later it would give rise to what we're seeing now, which is transgenderism.

Advancing the ideas of Simone de Beauvoir was the second wave feminist, Shulamith Firestone. I'll spell this for you. Shulamith Firestone, S-H-U-L-A-M-I-T-H, S-H-U-L-A-M-I-T-H, Shulamith Firestone.

She would advance the cause. She was a second wave feminist. She would come after Beauvoir, and what she would do is she wrote a book called The Dialectic of Sex, The Dialectic of Sex. She wrote this book in 1970, and in her book, Firestone would write this, quote, just as the end goal of the socialist revolution was not only the elimination of the economic class and its privilege, but the economic class distinction itself so the end goal of the feminist revolution must be not just the elimination of male privilege, but of the sex distinction itself.

Genital differences between human beings should no longer matter culturally, end quote. Again, in her writing, what she's trying to do, again, is cast off any restraint. She's trying to say that just as a socialist revolution came and did away with economies and broke economies down in an effort to make all of us equal and to kind of blur the lines between the haves and the have nots so that we can all, what socialism does is it causes us to suffer equally.

Is what it does.

It's a flatlining of everything. There's no benefit in it. Everything is flatlined. All the money is taken and when there's no money left, we all suffer equally is what happens in that environment. Well, she's wanting to do the exact same thing.

In her mind, just as with regard to the socialist revolution as that was a flatlining of economies, her thought process is we can actually, as feminists, do the same thing regarding gender. If we simply decide that we wanna push the envelope and eliminate the sexual distinctions, we can actually be in a situation where human beings would no longer matter.

Genital differences won't matter any longer culturally. Firestone's work would be followed by the postmodern third wave feminist Judith Butler. Judith Butler, whose groundbreaking work advanced the cause of gender theory.

She wrote a book in 1990. The book was called Gender Trouble, Gender Trouble, Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Gender Trouble, Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. As I'm reading this content in preparation for our time together, I realized, especially with the work of Judith Butler, that everything she would say in her writings sounds exactly like what I'm hearing repeated today.

If you read her works, you would think that you were watching the latest edition of CNN or the interview with Liam, the swimmer, right? You would think that you were listening to that if you read the book in 1990.

So here we are, 20 years later, parroting the ideas that came from this work. I thought, and this happened, what, five minutes ago? This gender confusion, I mean, what was this, two years ago that we're hearing this?

No, these seeds have been sown and now if you go all the way back to 1949, it's been a 70-year process to the point where we are now. We're in academia and in culture and even in our churches. We're beginning to hear conversations that mimic the writings of these forerunners of gender identity, of gender theory, rather.

Butler writes in her book this. She says, quote, there's no reason to assume that gender also ought to remain as two. The presumption of a binary gender system implicitly retains the belief in a mimetic relation of gender to sex, whereby gender mirrors sex unless we otherwise restrict it.

She's arguing for the idea that, yeah, we can do this. We can restructure this thing. Butler continues, she says this, quote, if the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called sex is culturally constructed as well as gender.

Indeed, perhaps it is always already gender with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all. Now, Daryl and I read a lot of academic works. When we hit the CRT component, Daryl's gonna flood you with quotes.

The reason for that is we wanna go back to the original source material. We never want someone to watch this on video or see it in a live stream. You didn't quote that, no, no, no. What I'm giving you is not my opinion.

What I'm providing to you is what the actual author of the idea said in their own words. But more times than not, when we read their works, it's a bunch of gobbledygook that makes no sense. They're multi-syllabic words run together in a new formation that no one's ever really heard of, but because they have the name doctor on their last name, they're able to posit it and push it out for consumption.

I took this one quote and threw it in a Grammarly. I don't know if you guys know the software Grammarly. You throw this in a Grammarly, all the bells and whistles go off. They don't know what the subject is, what the verb is, none of that.

It absolutely makes no sense. And here's the thing, that's the point. That's the point. The point is to so confuse your mind that you're off kilter a bit while they move forward with an idea that they have in a direction that they want to go.

It's never anchored in scripture. It's never anchored in anything historic or orthodox with regard to our faith. It's always something crazy, and this is the same here. What Butler is actually arguing in this particular paragraph, sentence, is she's arguing if we can say that gender is separate from sex, maybe this sex thing is now malleable.

You see how she's moving the goalpost? We know that if the immutable characteristics of sex is contested, if we push back against this, perhaps this construction called sex is actually as culturally constructed as gender.

She's saying we already know the works of Firestone. She's already separated gender and sex. Maybe the issue of sex is something we can play around with now. We can switch to the biology is what she's saying.

Recalling the works of others, Butler writes this, quote, if there's something right in Beauvoir's claim, now look, she's in 1990. She's pointing back 40 years to Beauvoir. She says if there's something right in Beauvoir's claim that one is born but rather becomes a woman, it then follows that woman itself is a term in process, a becoming, a constructing that cannot rightfully be said to originate or to end.

It's an ongoing, discursive practice that is open to intervention and resignification. She's trying to restructure a woman. All of what she did in 1990 helps to make sense of what you saw with Katonji Brown Jackson, who is now unable to define what a woman is.

Why?

Well, she's imbibed the information from feminists of old. In her mind, she can't put her finger on it.

Why?

Because it's ever-changing, it's ever-evolving, it's transforming, it's shifting. Now, why all of this information with regard to a biblical theology of man? Well, because it's important to understand where we currently are today and what's actually taking place today and then pull back the pages of Scripture.

One last thing, as I kind of wrap up this section, from Bavar in 1949 to Butler in 1990, their ideas intersect, and what they've done is they've set the framework for the gender-confused world that we're currently in.

I wanna read this to you because there was a commentator who had written on Butler's work, and he said this. He said, for Butler, gender itself is an imposition. It's an act of pseudo-violence integrated in our language and expectations, all the way down to language.

This is why the gender pronouns are important, all the way down to language. It's imperative that folks who have these ideas and thoughts are affirmed. Let me continue reading. There's really no real natural gender for Butler, nor is there any natural or proper expression of sexuality.

Listen closely to this. Gender and sexuality are performances arising from and constituting common life. One's identity is never fully real or fully known until and unless it is endorsed by and through public authorities and recognized by one's fellow citizens.

That's critical because it's not sufficient for them to get these ideas, fill their minds with the logic or illogic of the writers that they're reading and settle in, right? No, it's critical for their well-being that you and I affirm whatever they've decided they're going to be on a given day at a given hour.

It's critical. That's why the push is on for these kinds of things to be pushed into law, to be codified into law so that when you say something that's not in line with how they think about themselves, you're penalized for it.

That's why the example that I gave you earlier of the young man who was at school and got called out of school, Braden, that's why Miss Radenbough got the call she did.

Why?

Well, she's not, that student wasn't affirmed. You didn't use the proper pronoun. And in their world, that makes sense. That's why, because they're reading these kinds of things, these folks who are saying these kinds of things.

I'm hoping that that's helpful for you to see kind of the direction of what's taking place.

The truth is this.

The confusion being demonstrated within these false ideologies stem from one fact, one fact that you and I as believers in Christ know is true. And that is this, that sinful men and women have desired to suppress the truth that they know of God in unrighteousness, Romans 1, 18 through 23.

As Simone de Beauvoir bent the ideologies toward surrounding, bent the ideological boundaries rather surrounding biology and gender in 1949, the writings of Judith Butler would ensure that these ideas were broken by 1990.

Now, again, I share the names with you on purpose. I want you not to believe me, but go back and read these authors yourself and be equipped and knowledgeable about these issues so that when you run into this, you can say that what you're saying, A, is not new.

This is a Judith Butler thing, and she was a wackadoo. I've read her book, and I know what you're going to say and how you're going to say it and where you're going. It's important that you're, you know, this is the Equipped Conference.

This is where you come to get equipped. So I'm providing you some nuggets so along the way you can be equipped. Now, let's open up the Word of God to see what God has to say about these issues. While all of this cultural confusion has taken place over the course of the last 70 years, one thing is absolutely true, and that is this, that regardless of all the confusion that's out there, God never changed his mind about what he created.

As I'm listening to this, I can't help but go back to Genesis 3, that what these thought leaders are doing is exactly what Eve did, right? When the serpent shows up and says, did God really say, right?

That's the whisper that you hear in what's being said. The truth of the matter is that the issue of identity, gender, marriage, and mankind has already been decided, and the God of the Bible has never wavered on this issue.

So important is this issue that he puts it on the first pages of the book. You don't have to wait till 1949. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Go down and look at verse 26 of Genesis chapter one.

And then God said, let us make man in our image and after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, of the heavens, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God. He created him male and female. He created them. As I mentioned at the beginning of my talk, I would love to camp out right here, and for the course of the next few hours, really unpack all the truth that's here.

I'm not going to be able to do that. I only have two hours left. So what I wanna do is I wanna hit a couple of highlights in this particular text, because you gotta remember, I still have to cover the ground for racism and the church.

So now you kinda see I was serious about the time frame, but let me, I digress. Let me keep walking. The text begins with, then God said. Then God said. I've gotta stop there. Like, we've gotta stop there.