Tisby's Color of Compromise is Great!

All right, well, today we're going to cover a topic that I think is important. We've got Jordan Smith on the channel.

Thank you for coming on the channel, Jordan. Jordan is, he wrote a very interesting article that's, right now it's on John Harris's website, socialjusticegoestochurch .com.

I'll link to it in the description of this video, probably. I might not, and I'll get reminded to do it later, but it's a really good article.

It's a long article and it covers Jamar Tisby's book, The Color of Compromise. And so, Jordan, thanks for coming on the channel.

I'm looking forward to this conversation. Thank you so much for having me.

I feel really blessed and excited to be here. It's a testimony to God's providence that I could be here with you.

I'm a really big fan of your program and your stuff, and I really love the way that you are, you're doing the work of changing the narrative, which

I think is really an important thing. Yeah. I feel like, probably as excited as Russell Moore would have been had

CNN not rejected him. Oh man, that's a little weird, but hey,

I'll take it. Listen, so let's talk about this because, you know, Jamar Tisby's book, you know, came out a while ago, a couple of years ago or something like that.

And so it's a little bit strange, okay, we're going to do a review or kind of a video about it two years later.

And so I wanted to ask you, so how did you get involved with this book in particular?

Why did you decide to write this long article about it? Why do you think it was important? Why don't you just give me a summary about how you got involved in this?

Sure. So this goes a little bit back to 2013. And that's why

I say it was a testimony to the providence of God that I'm here right now because in 2013,

I started the school of education at the University of Michigan. And there's a little bit more critical race theory than normal in colleges there, because in education schools, that's where the birthplace of this stuff was.

So we got saturated with critical race theory and the whole ideology.

But I wasn't aware of it at the time. And because of that,

I started to get really passionate about wanting to even out the playing field for people who we were told are marginalized today.

And so I started watching, I got interested because I was taking a class in the history of Detroit.

And there was, we talked a lot about preachers and the preacher's influence on the politics of Detroit and the civil rights movement.

And at the same time, there was a show that came out in 2014 called Preachers of Detroit. There was a pastor there who was really passionate about the same things

I was, wanting to help the marginalized and the downtrodden and so forth. And he is a really charismatic guy.

So I decided to go check out his church. And for two years, I was the only white member of his church.

And I was really naive at the time. And I didn't understand that he actually hated white people.

And he didn't, you know, a lot of people in that congregation did not like me because of my skin color.

And I found out that later. But you know, so many people had been so nice to me there that I didn't even know.

But so even before I became a Christian, I knew that this ideology comes from a very hateful place.

Then in 2016, I got saved. I realized that the preacher was racist against whites.

He was influenced by Jesse Jackson and James Cone. And then so I left that church.

And now I'm in the current church I'm going to now, which is a bit more of a biblical reform church.

And I thought that I was done with this stuff for good. And then in May, the

George Floyd incident happened. And they came out with a book list.

My church came out with this book list. And it looks like they got it straight from the Gospel Coalition. And I found out that I'd been a little bit naive about my own church because my own church is pretty much gets their marching orders from the

Gospel Coalition. And then around the same time, when

I first joined, I asked my pastor, is being woke a good thing or a bad thing? Because I wanted to know where he stood.

And he said, I don't know. And I think it's just because he is so focused on making sure he's properly dividing the word that he didn't notice what was happening.

And so I wanted to write this for my pastor to make him aware of what's going on.

And then... So let me just stop you there for a second because your church was by no means alone in recommending this book.

In fact, my intention was always, I think I may have told you this, that I was going to read this book eventually, but I didn't want to buy it.

I wanted to buy it secondary market. You know what I mean? I wanted to buy it cheaper and I wanted to buy it in a way that didn't directly benefit

Jim Artisby. But I couldn't find it because it was so recommended.

It was sold out everywhere from the secondary market. And even I think in many places online were sold out.

And so this was a book that was recommended by, like you said, Gospel Coalition folks and lots of people.

I can't tell you how many Instagram type photos that I've seen of someone got my book list and there it is,

Color of Compromise. They're so excited to read it. So this is a very popular book.

There's just no question about it. It's extremely popular. Your church was by no means alone in recommending this book.

And so a response to it can be very helpful for that exact reason. You know what I mean?

Your story is not unique in that way. Yeah, yeah. My church is a really big satellite church and it has kind of a,

I wouldn't say a monopoly, but it has a pretty big chunk of the

Reformed Christianity scene in Southeast Michigan. So it has a pretty big reach in and of itself as well.

So let me ask you this. So we'll talk more in depth in a minute. But if you could summarize your thoughts on the book.

So like I said, we see it recommended all over the place. It's very, very popular. Is this book helpful?

Is it a good book? Just give me your summary. No. Good. That's the end of the video.

We'll talk to you later, Jordan. Yeah. So, yeah.

So I think that the book could be helpful if you're looking to know what people on the social justice side are saying and what they believe about history.

If you're not very knowledgeable about history in general, I would recommend reading a little bit of America's Ethnic History by Thomas Sowell or Patriot's History of the

United States to kind of balance it out because it's a very imbalanced history.

And it'll tell you kind of what they're saying and what their arguments actually are.

One thing I've learned from Dr. James White is that people respect when you can actually know what the person believes before you refute it.

It's tough to do that if you don't do your homework. So I think it's helpful in that regard.

But if you're looking to get any theological insight or an accurate history of the

United States, you're not going to get it from this. Got it. Got it. Now, so let's talk a little bit about the historical value of the book because I'll be honest,

Jordan, I'm not a historian. You know what I mean? It's very, it's not, I wouldn't say it's more difficult for me to decipher good history versus bad history, but it's not something that I'm great at.

So tell me, from a historical perspective, you obviously had some issues with this book. What do you attribute the problems that Jamar has with his history?

Because isn't that his, that's his training, right? He's a historian. Yeah. So there are a number of problems, but I think that it pretty much stems from,

I don't know exactly who were the people who influenced his thinking about history, but it seems like his view about history is very much influenced by post -colonial theory, which is the first of the branches of critical theory that adopted post -modernism right away.

But so basically his view of the United States is that pretty much

America from the beginning sucked and it still sucks. And it basically, like from 1619, when the first slave entered our shores to the time when slavery became a huge market in the 17 and 1800s, all the way down to the civil rights movement, the 1960s, all the way to today, racism is still there.

And just as bad as it has always been. And America is still just as bad as it has always been.

But the racism has shapeshifted like a chameleon. It's kind of like changed forms into this kind of hidden systemic racism that's baked under the system that we live in today.

And so his view of the United States is very cynical and does not give any, there's nothing in the book that says, you know,

I'm grateful for the freedoms that I enjoy, or I'm grateful for the immense amount of prosperity that the

United States has acquired over the centuries. I'm grateful, you know, not even grateful for the founding philosophy, you know, that assumes that people have rights that pre -exist government and that the government is there only to protect those rights.

Because I don't know if he believes those things. I don't think he does. Yeah. So is this idea that, sorry to interrupt you, but is his idea that America, like you said, sucks, is it because of slavery and racism or are there other reasons why

America is no good in this book? Yeah, I mean, I would say that that is why.

It's basically, it goes along the lines of Howard Zinn or the 1619 Project that basically assumes that America's founding was basically racism and evil and bigotry and that that has continuously perpetuated by the system that we find ourselves in today.

I find that kind of argument so interesting because, you know, and I don't know if Jamar does this because I haven't read the book and maybe you can fill me in, but so often when

I hear that kind of stuff, yeah, America's the worst, you know, slaves and racism, you know, all that stuff, it's just so, it's artificial because it arbitrarily is looking at America in a vacuum, like as if slavery was invented by Americans and racism was invented by Americans.

And it's like, even if you take their worst narrative and you just accept it all, right, you would think that it would equally apply to many of the, you know, tribes in Africa or many of the places in Asia or wherever.

I mean, does it like, like slavery is nothing new. Ethnic discrimination is nothing new.

Like it just, but, but, but often when you get this, these presentations, it's like, no, no, America invented that.

You know what I mean? Yeah. It just seems arbitrary. That's a real issue.

You know, James Lindsay talked about that in the Trojan horse video with Michael O 'Fallon where, you know, they're not, they're not worried about Chinese imperialism.

They're not worried about, you know, imperialism that happened in Africa or even tribal, tribal imperialism that happened in the

United States where Native American tribes were conquering one another before we even got here.

They're only, they're only, the only one thing is bad. That is oppression based on identity and the bad identities are white, cis, hetero, male,

Christian, and so forth. Right. Right. And, and it's just, you know, it just seems very arbitrary.

And like I think you said in the beginning, it's just, it's very hate filled because it's, it's hateful to, to treat one set of people with a different standard than you would treat other sets of people.

I mean, that's a textbook partiality. The Bible doesn't allow that. Yeah, absolutely. And it's also, it's, it's, it's, so Tisby doesn't lie usually in the book by just saying something that's false.

What he does is he only tells half the story. So like, let's say that, you know, this is kind of a dumb example, but if I go to my, if I go like walk to the ice cream store with my brother and my brother, you know, pushes me down and punches me and, and, you know,

I'm, we're kids in this scenario and I'm crying and he picks me up and says, you know, I'm sorry, I'm sorry about that.

You know, I just got angry. Let's, let me buy you an ice cream. He buys me the ice cream. Well, then

I come home and I'm still a little upset. So I go, I go tattle on my brother, but I don't tell them the part where he apologized and got me the ice cream.

I only tell the part where I got, I got knocked over. So I, that's kind of what's happening here where he only focuses on those, those specific oppressions based on identity that he wants to highlight.

And he leaves out all the other details about people bleeding and dying in order to make good on the promises that were embedded in the constitution.

Yeah. Yeah. That's interesting. That's interesting because it's not, that's not unique to like a historical treatment.

People do this in real time all day long. Like, like you, you started your article, which I, which I found, you know, very helpful to start this way in the wake of the tragic evil killings of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor.

Many in evangelicalism have been citing the color of compromise by Jamar Tisby as an excellent source of knowledge.

And then you continue. And what, what I find interesting about, about starting that way is, is, you know, if, if let's just say the only things you knew about American, American policing were

Breonna Taylor or, you know, one of these killings, let's just give them the whole narrative that there were evil killings, racist, racially motivated.

Like if that's all you knew about police work. Okay. Well, I could see, oh yeah, police are racist.

You know, Americans are racist, stuff like that. But the thing is like, that leaves out 99 .99

% of every interaction. And so it's just like, this is not something that's just done in hindsight with history.

This is done in real time by people all the time. It just, it seems like it's part and parcel of the whole idea of how you, how you, how you're an anti -racist or whatever they call it these days.

Yeah. Yeah. I think, I think the I can't remember the exact number, but it was they did, they actually did a study of, of police interactions in New York and they, and they had millions and millions of police interactions and only like, it was like less than a hundred were negative.

And, and so that I think there's, there's data to back that up, but it also goes to something that I learned when

I was watching this, this mini series called the people versus OJ Simpson.

And I wasn't, I wasn't around during that trial. I was, I was born a couple of years later, but when that, when that happened, the,

I learned something powerful, a narrative in the minds of many, especially people who don't think critically, a narrative is more powerful than evidence.

That's right. And, and so I think that in that sense, because of those little instances, swaying people over millions of interactions shows that right now in our society,

Johnny Cochran seems to be winning, but it, but we hopefully are gaining some ground.

Yeah. Yeah. You're, you're definitely right about that. You know, you get a good story going and people believe that story.

All of a sudden the evidence looks like trying to excuse evil because the story is evil.

It's just evil. And so now anything contrary to that is, is, is excusing evil.

This, this, this kind of narrative weaving it, it happens all the time. And I, you know, this year, more than any other year,

I've been aware of this, that, that there are just more stories that are being told to me every day that are just blatantly false, blatantly against the information.

You and I were talking just a moment ago before we recorded about having enjoying your Thanksgiving.

And I said that you were a rebel. Well, that is the story that we're being told. Like you're actually evil for enjoying

Thanksgiving with your family and stuff like that, without wearing a mask in between bites. And that's a story.

It's a very powerful story. Despite any of the evidence of the contrary, it's a very powerful narrative.

Interesting stuff, man. Interesting stuff. So let's, um, let's move on to, to, you know, some other things because you're, you know, you mentioned right off the bat in your article, something about the

Bible. Now, is this intended to be a Christian book or is this like, does he say, look,

I'm, I'm approaching this from a Christian perspective. Does he bring a lot of scripture to bear? Like, like, like help, help me understand it.

Is it, is it just a secular work of history and he's a happens to be a Christian or is it a Christian work of history?

Yeah. My answer would be, I'm confused. Okay. He's, he's a, so he's a

Christian. Um, he primarily, um, talks about Christians in the book.

He never specifically says who his audience is, but he doesn't, he doesn't talk about theology a lot.

And the only time he brings up Bible quotes is when he's talking about, he's trying to justify reparations. Interesting.

So, so he, it's about Christians, um, definitely. Um, and, but he doesn't bring a lot of theology into it except when he's trying to justify reparations.

That's interesting. Yeah. Yeah. And it seems, it seems like a, the, the book is written as an indictment against the

American church. It's, it's, uh, you've been failing people from, from your inception to now, and you continue to fail people and, um, do the stuff that I do, or you're complicit in, um, this systemic problem.

Okay. So, um, that's interesting. So, so the idea is that you, the Christian church was a failure back then, and it's a failure also today.

That's the point. Yeah. So his, um, he kind of does this shift when he goes from the, the 1800s and, um, and to the early 1900s to today after the civil rights movement, once he gets past the civil rights movement, um, he, he, he says, um, and he says throughout the book, he says to remember, he wants you to remember that, that racism does not go away.

It only changes forms. So his central argument is that racism has never gotten less or become less evil over time.

It's simply shapeshifted, um, in some mysterious way. And, um, he actually admits,

I didn't put this in my book review because Samuel say already did in his, um, he admits that he has no smoking gun evidence of racism today, but that it's changed form so that it's hidden underneath the surface.

You have to look. Stop, stop, stop. Jordan. So, okay. Okay. I hear what you're saying. So, so how, so how, why should

I believe then that, that racism doesn't go away? It just changes form.

Like is, does he give me any reason to believe that if he has no smoking gun? Yeah. So remember that smoking gun is just a, it's just a, it's just a phrase to mean

I don't have any evidence is what is essentially what he's saying, right? Yeah. So remember that back in, um, in the early chapters, he, he warned you that if you, if you try to come out and say that this comes from Marxist ideology, you're a racist.

Okay. So he's already prevented you from being able to, to bring that charge against. But in order to believe, um, that, that racism is hidden and change forms, you have to believe that, that, um, whites, blacks, people of color are in a zero sum conflict for the resources and opportunities of society.

That's conflict theory. That's Marxism. So, um, so he, that, that's what it is.

He, his evidences are all disparities and he gives no other explanation. He just assumes in advance that racism is the cause of the disparities.

You talk about this all the time. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. So, so you may have mentioned something that we talked about before we started recording.

So this idea that if you say that this is a Marxist idea, or if you try to try to counter this idea that that's racism.

So, so, so, so he kind of, so what you're saying then is he builds into this thing, a disclaimer that you, you basically cannot counter this or you're a racist.

Yeah. I mean, is that, is that, is that right? Yeah. So like, I'm, uh,

I know, I know it sounds like, uh, we're making this up, but if you, if you go in, um, and actually just, just read, read the quote, he says, quote, the same arguments that perpetuated racial inequalities in decades past get recycled in the present day.

Critics will assert that the ideas in the color of compromise should be disregarded because they are too liberal. They will claim that a

Marxist communist ideology underlies all the talk about racial equality. They will contend that such an extended discussion of racism reduces black people to a state of helplessness and victim mentality.

They will try to point to counterexamples and say that racists do not represent the real

American church. I find this next one hilarious. They will assert that the historical facts are wrong or have been misinterpreted.

They will charge that the discussion of race is somehow abandoning the gospel and replacing it with problematic calls for social justice.

After reading just a few chapters, these arguments will sound familiar. These arguments have been used throughout the

American church's history to deny or to fade or defend racism. Unquote.

Let's stop. So we're not stopping right there. Exactly what he said. Jordan, you need to stop right there. So are you, are you telling me that that quotation that you just said, that's in the book, the color of compromise that's, that's in the book, quoted word for word verbatim.

So let me just make sure that I've understood this. So basically in the color of compromise, he says that if you critique the ideas in this book, then, then basically you are using the same arguments as the racist in the past.

And so that, I mean, it doesn't really say, but, but essentially that would mean that they're invalid.

Yeah. So he doesn't actually invalidate them. He just says they're invalid because racists used to say the same thing.

Yeah. So basically he puts a cheat, he puts a cheat code in the book because it's like, it's like no matter what you say against it, you know, you, you get charged with, with racism, even if your argument is, is good or whatever, it doesn't matter.

You're complicit in, in a system which perpetuates white supremacy and therefore you're racist.

And, and that is, you know, one of those really dangerous, dangerous ideas.

You know, it's like the, I forget who said this, but James Lindsay quotes, it says the master's tools can't, can't dismantle the master's house.

You can't use evidence because, you know, white people, you know, invented modern philosophy and reason, but you can't use reason.

You can't use science. You can't, you know, these things, there are other ways of knowing, you know, you exclude emotion, you exclude, you know, uh, uh, you know,

African witchcraft and voodoo, you, you just, you, you exclude all these other ways of knowing, you know, and, uh, and so, so just, well,

I had a teacher from Howard university that said, even if I argue against the racist using

English, that's evidence that the racist idea I've bought into the racist ideology because I'm using the master's language.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You get that kind of stuff a lot. Yeah. This is amazing.

So, so, so the idea here is that this, I mean, this is basically like a book that, that it's kind of in, it's kind of imbibing the whole like white fragility idea that like, listen, like you, you're, if you don't like this book, well then that's just white fragility.

So that's more evidence that this book is, is so right. It's a cheat code. Like you said, this, this book uses a cheat code and it hopes to trap people within that cheat code because nobody wants to be compared, excuse me, to the racist of the past.

Like I don't, I don't want to be using the same arguments of the racist of the past. Right. Not, I mean, and, and to me, like,

I don't mind when people call me racist because it's just so preposterous, but like, but like I could see someone being concerned about that.

But, but the thing is though, that's not, I don't really care for racist in the past has used an argument. It's, it's, is the argument true or is it not true?

Like just because someone who was racist said that so -and -so was a communist. Okay. That's one thing.

Was he though a communist? Like if he was actually a communist, then what's the difference to who said it?

I heard that Hitler likes puppies as well. Does that mean puppies suck? I don't know. Right.

And notice how after he writes that, that really long paragraph, he makes no attempt to actually show how the arguments are somewhat, he just says,

I'm going to show you some somewhere in the book. And he never, never gets around to explicitly doing it. But what I think he's, he's doing is he's just, he's just leveling the charge.

And you know, there are actual like things that you see on the street, like with, with Jeff Durbin, when he's going out and he's, he's protesting abortion in front of these mills.

Like a lot of those people are actually using the same argument. That's right. It's as slavery is saying,

Oh, it's this, this baby is my property. I should be able to do with it. I want that.

That is the same argument as slavery, but I don't see people, you know, asking for evidence is not the same thing as saying it's my property.

You know what I mean? Right. But the difference of what you've just said is that yes, the racist did use that exact same argument and it was wrong then and it's wrong now.

And they were using that wrong argument to justify evil and they're still doing the same thing. So it's not like it was a right argument, but a racist was using it.

So it's wrong. It's actually, you know, it was wrong then at the time and it's still wrong. Let me, let me say this.

Cause I don't, this one, this is the part that you mentioned that the funniest one was about the historical facts are wrong or been misinterpreted.

How dare they say that? But like the funniest one to me was, was this one. He says they will try to point to counter examples and say that racists do not represent the quote, real

American church. And so does he make any attempts to, to, I don't know, maybe it's just more or like preponderance of the evidence.

Like why would one set of, of, of facts represent the real American church, but the other doesn't like, is there any reason why, why a counterexample, would it be a good reason to think, well, maybe it's not the real

American church. Like does he give any, any reason to think that? No, no, he, he, he basically, um, so it's just assumed.

He just goes on. He kind of talks a little bit about George Whitfield, um, his flaws,

Jonathan Edwards, his flaws. Um, you know, and he, he does, he does this, um, you know, he kind of, he talks about some racist, um, uh, pastors, um, who wanted churches to be segregated and so forth.

And that stuff was bad. Like nobody is saying that that stuff wasn't, that wasn't bad.

And I have no problem with somebody bringing those facts to bear. We need to have honest discussions about what really happened in history, um, lest we repeat it.

But, um, that's like I'm, like I've been saying, that's, that's all, that's all he talks about.

And, um, counter, he, he doesn't attempt to bring in any, any counterexamples to show why they're wrong.

He's just, he just says that that counterexamples are, you know, examples of, of, of racist, um, people trying to perpetuate racism today, just like they did during the slave times.

Here's a quotation that you, you pulled out in your article. I don't know if this is from the book or somewhere else, cause it sounds very similar to something that he said somewhere else.

He says this, he's talking about the statement of social justice and the gospel. Yeah, this was,

I got this from Twitter. Okay. Yeah. That's okay. That's okay. Good. I was comparing it. I was comparing it to, to the, the thing we were just talking about because instead of actually engaging the arguments, he just dismissed them.

Well, that's exactly why I brought it up because, because you know, a lot of people will buy this book. Oh, it's so helpful. Like why don't you just follow us?

If it's so helpful, follow us, Twitter feed, cause he does the same exact thing. Like I'm, here's what it says. I'm tempted to refute the recent statement on the gospel and social justice point by point showing how it falls short of the

Bible's call for justice. But I think our time would be better spent on other pursuits. There's too much work to be done work that will be delayed by endless debate.

Here's my advice. Many of the people who authored and signed the statement have large ministries and platforms avoid them.

And it's like, to me, it's like, okay, so, so, so what he does with this, and I think he does the same thing.

Like you said, in his book is essentially, he's saying, look, there are lots of people who pretend like they don't understand these things, but really they're just evil, racist bigots.

Forget about them. We've got too much to do. I could, of course I could refute it in two minutes, but it's just too, it's just too much time.

Two minutes is too much. It's stupid. It's easy to refute, but I'm not going to, it's just too much time. It would be wasting time.

And it's, it's, it's the same idea. It's just like you want to brand them.

And this is what this, honestly, I'm going to get it fired up here for a minute. This is often what gets accused to people like myself and probably you,

I don't know, Jordan, but, but people will say, well, you just use critical race theory as a pejorative. You're evil.

You, I, how dare you say that? And it's like, yes, I do do that, but, but I've also made like 700 videos, millions of words explaining why.

So it's not, so, so like, I actually do take the time to read your stupid blogs and watch your stupid videos and refute them.

Yes. So I do use it as a pejorative. I am intending to insult you, but it's, but I actually take the time, but, but, but Tisby is just like, well, no, no, no, it's just, that would be too much time.

They're just racists, avoid them. And so it's just like, I mean, listen, liberals do this kind of thing all the time where they just, they're projecting, but, but you know, it's,

I just find that ridiculous. And the fact that that's baked into a book length treatment of the topic is preposterous to me.

I mean, that, that's, that, that should be enough to say, this book is on it.

This book shouldn't be on anyone's recommended reading list. Yeah. I know they've got, cause the thing is,

Jordan, I think you said this a second ago and forgive me if you haven't, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it's like, he knows the arguments against them.

He's put the time to know what people would say, but he's not going to refute them.

He's just going to say, well, they're racist. That's that's pretty twisted because I read something that someone, maybe they don't know the argument.

That's one thing. That's, that's an honest, he knows the arguments though. He won't engage. Right. Yeah.

It's just, it's a really, it's a really strange thing that, that, that he won't do that. And I watched your video on, on John Piper.

It was really heartbreaking because I do also love John Piper. Yeah, man. Yeah. And so I, I would also say that critical race theory deserves the title of a pejorative because like I'm saying, it's, it's number one assumption is that the races in the

United States are in a zero sum conflict for the resources and opportunities in society.

When it's zero sum, I mean that we can't all rise together. It has to be somebody gets, gets cheated if one person succeeds.

And so there's no, there's no winning in that, in that type of thinking.

And it's a, it's a, it's a real sinful kind of, kind of envy.

And then yeah, there was something, what was the last thing you just said?

I don't remember. Something about maybe, maybe projection? No. Oh yeah.

So going with that, I also wanted to bring up an issue. There's an issue in this book where Jamar Tisby has this really strange thing that is some, it's very ubiquitous in critical race theory, which is that they think they can read your mind.

I don't know where they're getting this thing from, but like, I can't even understand my own heart.

So I don't, I don't know where he gets these, these things from, but like he quotes from this

Republican Lee Atwater who says that, you know, we don't want to say the

N word anymore because that's racist. So instead let's, let's talk about capitalism and, and you know, cutting taxes and these things will disproportionately hurt black people.

And he uses that and he says that, that now Republicans and what he calls the new right, what they do is they don't say the

N word anymore. They don't, they don't say racist things anymore. What they do is they, they just talk about, you know, cutting taxes and good policies and so forth.

And these things disproportionately hurt black people. And so they're really doing the same thing as staying the

N word when they are trying to perpetuate these, these types of policies. So he thinks he knows what's in your heart.

If you're a conservative, he thinks, and I don't know where, like, how do you, how could you possibly know like what's in someone's heart when they just believe a policy?

Sure. Yeah. Well, I have a, I have a theory on this and this might be the first time

I've ever talked about this cause it's really just a theory. I've got no evidence of it. But, um, I think that oftentimes when people accuse you of something preposterous and such, so preposterous that they would have to be in your mind to know it, what they're doing is actually revealing how their mind works.

And so, so what I think is happening a lot of the time is they know that they do this kind of stuff.

They have dog whistles that they use where they literally are talking about Marxism, for example, but they don't say it.

Instead they say equality. I think that they do this knowingly and they just assume everybody's doing the same thing.

I think that's really where it comes from. That's just an opinion. This is just a wild theory that I'm working with, but I, but I apply this to lots of people like, like my, my new, my new, you know, way that I'm going to be hearing people is you often hear like a woke white person say, well,

I'm a racist. And then he says, we're just all racists because you know, whatever, we're, we're benefiting from a system.

And, but I honestly think that they're, they're, they're actually revealing to you, they actually are a racist and they think that everybody else is as well.

And it's like, well, don't put that voodoo on me, man. I'm not a racist. You know what I mean? I got, I have your skin color, but let's not, let's not make excuses for your sins based on how

God created you. Like that's not good. I don't have that. I don't share that with you. Um, so I don't know, this isn't theory.

Hey, let's talk about something because you mentioned that the one time he does like bring

Bible verses to bear or stories or something, it's about reparations and you say he does it to justify reparations and that's like the primary way he uses the

Bible. How does he do that? What, what is it? What is his justification? Yeah.

So, um, what he does is he, he kind of does the same thing that, that Eric Mason did in his sermon on the topic of reparation.

So what he does is he, he weaves in a couple of quotes from the

Bible and then says that to people, to like people as a corporate, to Christians as a corporate body, um, when in reality, if you just read the text, it's, it's talking about individuals.

So he first brings up, um, numbers five, seven. Um, so Tisby says, quote, reparation is not a matter of vengeance or charity.

It's a matter of justice. The concept of reparation has biblical precedence. Under old

Testament law, if a person brings, if a person wrongs another person, the wrongdoer should confess the sin.

But saying I'm sorry is not enough. The law goes on to state that the wrongdoer must make full restitution for the wrong they have done and add a fifth of the value to it and give it all to the person they have wronged.

So he takes this, um, but he leaves out the part where it says that when a man or woman commits any of the sins, so it's an, he's talking about individuals.

Um, but he wants to, he wants to not only, um, have it be about all Christians, um, but he wants it to be about Christians in this time, um, making reparations for what

Christians did hundreds of years ago before any of us were alive and did wrongs against people that don't, that are not even alive today.

Right. Um, what Thomas Sowell calls pre -packaged grievances against people who aren't even alive today.

Um, and he does the same thing with Daniel nine, eight, we can get into that. Well, the thing is, and I think you mentioned this in your article, which again,

I recommend people read it. Um, it's, you know, God actually anticipates this idea of pre -packaged grievances and stuff like this.

And, you know, because God understands how a sinful heart works, right? Like you're always going to try to make an excuse for something.

And so he actually anticipates this and, and, and he says, well, you're not allowed.

The son shall not die for the sins of the father. In other words, the son is not responsible for the sins of the father because he knows how our vengeance, our revenge, you know, driven hearts work.

And so it's like, well, if the father's not around, well, his sons have to pay. You know what I mean? Um, and, and, and this is, this is something that it's basic to biblical law that each man dies for his own sin.

Each man is punished for his own sin. Um, not someone else is not responsible for it. Um, this is basic.

And yet every presentation on reparations that I've ever seen just refuses to even acknowledge that that verse is even in the

Bible. And I, you know, I'd have to assume that he knows that people would bring that verse up, but he would probably say, well, that's just racism.

Yeah. Well, it's funny that the first part of the quote says it's not a matter of vengeance or charity.

It's a matter of justice when in, in reality it is a, it is a matter of vengeance.

It is, you know, it's, um, because you're trying to get, bring justice to bear on people who are no longer here, which is not possible.

And like you say, in Ezekiel 18, scripture doesn't allow it. Right. That's exactly right. That's exactly right.

And, and, you know, again, when the Bible talks about, you know, uh, the government being an avenger of God, it's actually talking about the government taking vengeance on behalf of God.

And so it only makes sense for that to be on the people that actually did the wrong. Otherwise it wouldn't be right.

It wouldn't be just. And so it's just preposterous that, that he wouldn't see that. I think he does see that, but it just doesn't, it doesn't fit the story that he wants to tell.

So I don't know, man. But okay. Okay. So, so, so that's, that's the primary time he uses the

Bible to justify something. Let me ask you this. So, you know, you mentioned, you mentioned at the beginning of this,

I don't think we were recording at the time, but something about a tweet that you saw from Shilin and you mentioned that you really liked, uh, you really do like Shilin very much, but it almost like encapsulated like the whole premise of this book or something like that.

Yeah. So maybe, maybe you can explain better. Sure. So yeah, like, like I was saying, um,

I actually got into a little bit of, um, uh, a back and forth with Shilin on this, um, and, uh, before I got rid of my

Twitter, but, um, I love Shilin a lot. I, um, before I got saved,

I was really, um, I was really into rap music and I had a,

I still have a very deep appreciation for good lyrics and, um, Shilin not only brought good lyrics, but he brought good theology in with the lyrics and, and, uh,

I just really appreciate him for that and, uh, love him a lot. And, uh, to hear him say this was like a dagger of my heart, but he wrote, um, he wrote on Twitter, uh, quote,

I used to wonder how so many of my beloved reformed theological ancestors could be so blind in the face of racial injustice of slavery, seeing the responses of many of their descendants in the face of Jim Crow, civil rights, and present day racial injustice.

I wonder no more. And, um, that is the central,

I mean, if you wanted to sum up the color of compromise in one sentence, that's exactly what the color of compromise is saying.

And, um, and you know, it just, it's strange because when you read his gospel coalition article that thank you for making that video.

Um, when you read his gospel coalition article, um, he seemed a lot more reasonable than, than he does in this tweet.

And so I w I was really, uh, I was really taken aback that, that he has taken this argument, um, that we're using the same rhetoric that we use in slavery times.

He just believes that hook, line, and sinker. And I don't really know why he believes it. Yeah. You know,

I, I think that's really, that's really, you know, the, the big thing about this book and it's, it's just sort of this, this idea that look, if you're not just, just buying everything that Jamar is saying, um, then you're at some, at some level, either more or less, you're, you're just like the slavers.

You're just like the slave masters, the slave ship owners. You're just like them. You're in their line. It just morphed into something that is a little bit more palatable for most people today.

You know, yeah, you, you sure you're against slavery, but like, you're still, it's the same sin. That's essentially the premise.

And it's, I think that that, you know, it scares a lot of, you know, well -meaning people into submission essentially, because nobody wants to be associated with that.

And I get it. I get it. Like, I wouldn't want to be associated with that stuff too. And I always thank

God, you know, you know, when I'm praying about my content and the stuff that I do online, I always thank God for making me the way that I made me because I'm impervious to those accusations.

But I know that very well -meaning white people are not impervious to those accusations and many are very affected by those accusations.

And so it's a very, it's a very insidious thing to do, to just accuse someone of like a very serious sin without really any evidence.

In fact, he admits that he has no smoking gun. Let me ask you this. What, what, what would you recommend to someone who was, who was, who was given a book list that included color of compromise on it?

If they're going to read it, how, what would you recommend they do? You know, as they're reading it, what, what should they think about?

Like how, how should they approach it? Yeah. So, um, aspirin is, uh, um, no, uh,

I would just read it with an open mind, um, you know, um, try to, try to, uh, detach yourself emotionally, um, from, from, uh, you know, just, just reacting.

Um, because at the end of the day, like Jamar Tisby is, um, you know, he, he could be in, he could be in serious danger.

We need to pray for him. You know what I mean? And, and, um, but, but really, um, engage the ideas and, and if you're, if you are like unsure about, about something, you're like, is this true?

Did this really happen? Or is this the way it happened? Or is there something more to it? Go investigate, go.

I mean, we have Google. Like you could just, you know, like investigate and see if what, um, what he's saying is true.

Um, if he references the Bible, I'm pretty sure he only references it those two times about reparations.

But if he represents, if he references the Bible, go, go read, you know, the whole, the whole chapter, the whole paragraph, and just see if it's, if it's correct in context, um, you know, and, and just, and just do it, do it that way.

You know, God calls us to, um, be Bereans, you know? And to, um, to compare everything against the objective standard of the word of God.

Amen. So that would be my recommendation. And also the last thing, like I, just to reiterate, um, if you read

Color of Compromise and you're not well versed in history, um, I would recommend reading, um, uh, debunking

Howard Zinn by Mary Grabar. Um, she, she does a refutation of the, um, negative, uh, history of the

United States, but it's a very honest, uh, look at it. That's great. You know, you know, after this conversation and, and I kind of assume this going in because I'm familiar with DeMar Tisby's style, you know, and, um, and, and others like him, um,

I mentioned in the beginning of this, this video, I'm not a historian, right? I, I'm not, that's not my thing. I'm not, you know, qualified really to tell the difference between good history and bad history.

It's just, I can have my opinions, but I don't really know. Um, but one of the things that I've, I've often done and, and, and anyone who wants to debate me on, on, on these topics,

I'm going to reveal my whole playbook here. Like chances are, I'm just going to say for argument's sake,

I will accept the entire story that you're telling me, knowing that you lie a lot, knowing that you stretch the truth, knowing that often it's a one -sided view of things.

Like you said about your brother, you know, buying you the ice cream cone and like you can, you can not technically lie, but still lie in that story.

You know, like, like there's ways to do that except at all, except the worst case scenario.

And then ask yourself, looking at the scripture and what the scripture says, love requires and what the script, what, what

God commanded the Israelites to do in their situation. Like, do any of the ideas as far as far as how to fix it make sense morally or ethically, even if you give them the worst case scenario, is

Jamar's solution valid in any way? And I, I'm willing to bet that almost a hundred percent of the time, the answer is no to that.

The answer is no to that. So even if the Christians of the past were the most evil people in the world, I think that that's insane to think that way, but let's just say that they were.

Does it now say that you can actually hate your brother in your heart? Well, actually no, because God specifically tells the

Israelites, you shall not hate an Egyptian in your heart because you were a sojourner in their land.

And you say, God, what are you talking about a sojourner in their land? We were slaves in their land. And God says, no, you cannot hate them.

Even though they treated you in this way, that in such a way that I destroyed them. Like, this is what's so amazing to me about that verse.

Like, God, you destroyed the Egyptians for what they did to us. And he's like, that's right.

Now you can't hate them in your heart. It doesn't matter. That's to me is so unbelievably amazing.

It doesn't matter what white people did to you. You can't hate white people.

It's just, that's it. That's the end of the social justice movement. You can have the whole history. I'm not qualified to judge you,

Jamar, on the history. I'm sure it's preposterous because a lot of things are preposterous. But let's just say you get it all.

It doesn't matter. The things that you're proposing are evil. And that's the end of it. Yeah.

Amen. Two things. One is, you don't have to be like an expert historian to know that in a country where, um, in a country of millions of people that's been around for hundreds of years, there have been good things that have happened as well as bad.

And if somebody says that only bad things have happened, then that's probably wrong. And if people say only good things have happened, that's probably wrong.

And also, um, uh, just, you don't have, you also don't have to be a historian to read the constitution and compare that to scripture and see how closely, um, the constitution compares to scripture.

And it, and it compares really well. It's a beautiful, this country is worth fighting for. Um, and, uh, the last thing, um, just to go off of your point, um, you know,

Ephesians two, um, it says that Jesus Christ himself is our peace who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh, the dividing wall of hostility.

And, uh, like Bodie Bauckham says, if he could break down the dividing wall of hostility by a God ordained difference of Jew and Gentile, how much more could he break down a dividing wall of some arbitrary division of how much melanin we have in our skin?

Brother, that was so good. That's a great place to end. I don't think we're going to top that. That last piece of advice though, is so critical to me.

And this is kind of what I dedicate my old channel to like, you don't have to be like a college educated

PhD and to no nonsense when you see it. And I think that,

I think that you're, you're, you're, you, what you said was so perfect there. Like if somebody is coming to you and saying nothing but good things have happened here, you, you, you know, that's preposterous, nothing but bad things.

It's preposterous. And so you can know that there's shenanigans going on. Maybe you don't know exactly what they are, but, but you, but you get your guard up right away, brother.

Thank you so much for that. I appreciate you being on the channel and, and doing this for us.

And maybe if people want to find out more about the book, we can do this, do, do more because your article is very long and very detailed and there's a lot of stuff we didn't cover.

So guys, if you like this, if you found this helpful, message me, you know, comment on it, share it, all that kind of stuff.

And we'll do another one, Jordan. Well, actually I shouldn't volunteer Jordan for something that I didn't ask him about ahead of time, but maybe, maybe we can convince him to do another one.

It was a blessing to be here. I'm really grateful. I was really grateful for the opportunity and yeah, I would,

I would love to, to come on and talk to you. Like I said, I'm, I'm a big fan and I love you a lot and I'm grateful for everything you do.