A Year of Contradictions

Welcome to the Conversations That Matter podcast. My name is John Harris. We are going to reflect in this episode on the last year, a year of contradictions.

We're gonna talk about Dr. Fauci. We're gonna talk about just everything that's happened. We've had travel ban, lockdowns, what was it, 15 days?

I think it was, to stop the spread. We've had masks, now double masks.

We've had the quote unquote vaccine. There's just been a lot going on.

And that's only on, I mean, I'm not even talking about all the social justice stuff that accompanied the

BLM's movement, but this is just the lockdown virus

COVID stuff. And I remember when we were still in that, it might've even been before the 15 days to stop the spread, but it was right on the cusp of that whole situation.

For those who were listening at that time, you know that I was arguing against locking down churches and businesses almost in every episode.

I mean, I just really came out strong and I saw it as a threat to civil liberties, a threat to religious liberty.

I saw it as not a fair application of Romans 13, which is the argument that really we were hearing ad nauseum at that time and evangelicalism.

It's loving your neighbor to put on the mask, lock down the church, not sing at church as the case may be.

We were hearing Romans 13 used all the time that we have to submit, this is our duty. And I was pretty alone at first.

I remember feeling that loneliness. I think it was, there was a few other voices. It was not many.

James White was one of them. I think one of the things, it's not the only thing, but I think one of the big things that separated those who were early on against this stuff and those who were, let's give it a try.

Let's submit to the government. And then they woke up kind of later. John MacArthur might be a good example of someone like that, where I remember,

I distinctly remember, because I was discouraged by it. He had done a podcast with Phil Johnson or an interview.

And he did use Romans 13 as the reason that Grace Community Church had to shut down. And then it was like three months later, he's saying, nope,

Romans 13 doesn't allow the government to shut down our church. This is something God's called us to do. And he opened up and this was a big, it was a rallying cry.

And it really did change a lot in reformed evangelicalism. People who previously felt like they couldn't say much or they were afraid to say something, or maybe they didn't have the courage to open up.

They followed that example and they opened up. And of course, before him, you had the Calvary Chapel. Pastors, a lot of them had already started that direction.

There was a number of Pentecostal churches that were doing the same thing. And so there were though that group of people of which

I was a part that like at first were like, this isn't good. And I think the thing that separated me and others from the group that kind of later on realized what was happening, part of it was,

I think just a basic awareness of geopolitics. I knew about the

Great Reset. I knew about what the World Economic Forum was saying. I was on their website before the 15 days to stop the spread.

I was on their website in 2020 looking at their plans. I was watching them execute really what was the precursor to everything that we've seen in the last year.

And it just, it ran like clockwork. Nothing that happened in the last year, whether it's the

BLM stuff or the COVID stuff, none of it was, as far as on a geopolitical level, was unavoidable.

It was most of the economic collapse that has resulted, the property destruction, et cetera.

These were all promoted by governments in a sense, making bad decisions. And would people have died?

Yeah, people would have died from the COVID. So it would have been a bad flu season really is what would have happened.

And that's what did happen. But we prolonged it, some cures are worse than their diseases.

And we learned that over and over. And government seems to be the biggest proof for that proverb.

I think more people are aware now. You might even be listening to this podcast and you were one of those early pastors or businessmen or laymen who just thought, yeah, we should just submit to the government.

Romans 13 says this. And you realized into it, it might've been a month, two months, three months, four months.

You just realized at some point, maybe it was a week. You said, wait, something isn't adding up here. We're getting mixed signals.

I can't trust what they're saying. And wait, does the government really have the authority to supersede the law of God?

God calls us to worship. Does, and you can understand, perhaps like a snowstorm or something temporary where the roads need to be shut down.

Okay, the government, taxes are what fund the roads. And you kind of get that, but then you realize the principle isn't really applying to this situation of no end in sight, lockdown.

Canada's dealing with this now, as we know. Pastors in jail because they wanna meet. No end in sight.

Government becomes the authority that tells you what you can do with your own property, your private property, your church property.

And I don't wanna rehash everything I've said. I've done, I did so many episodes on this when this whole thing was going on.

And I've watched some people kind of act like they were, since then act like they were on, they were against it the whole time and knowing that they really weren't.

But it's almost become popular now to be against Dr. Fauci, to be against, on the conservative, political conservative side, to be against lockdowns and masks and quote unquote vaccines, et cetera.

That's almost become a statement of whether or not you are someone who loves other people, quote unquote, whether you put a mask on or not.

And it's more than that. It's become a political designation. You're progressive if you have the mask on in some cases.

At least some people seem to think that way. And I found it interesting. So I have been everywhere from, let's see,

I'll give you a few. I don't travel usually this much in this short a period of time, but over the last two weeks I've been in Atlanta, Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, Portland, Oregon.

I've been in, let's see, Seattle, Washington, Charleston, South Carolina, and Savannah, Georgia.

So I've been in the Southeast quite a bit and then I've been in the Northwest. And the way that the masks are used especially is fascinating to me, especially in the

Southeast where you hardly see them. Even you walk around Charleston on a busy day with tourists, you hardly see any masks.

There was even a few times I have a, sometimes I'll carry one with me. I don't think I had one for most of the time, but I have one in my pocket one day and it sort of almost by force of habit,

I took it out because I thought I'd have to put it on to go into like a coffee shop. And no one was, the baristas weren't wearing them.

Contrast that with Portland and Seattle where everyone is wearing a mask. I mean, everyone, just about.

Even if you're outside, I saw most of the people it seemed like, or a good chunk of them were wearing masks outside in parks, public parks.

So this is the big difference. It is such a cultural divide and it does, that there is a line dividing the political persuasions of people and the mask is a good indicator of it, interestingly enough.

And it's maybe regional, but I think that dovetails with the political philosophy there.

So we're gonna talk about the last year and I wanna read a part of Romans 13 again as well through kind of not new eyes, but through having gone through what we just went through over the past year.

You tell me if your interpretation or your view of the application in our current context has changed on Romans 13.

I wanna go through that. Cause I'm old enough to remember a year ago when these battles were happening and how much that was used by so many people.

And I take, do a little self -reflection too. Has this helped you maybe understand its application better today?

And what would you do differently going forward? So before we get to all that, a few minor items that I wanna just highlight as well that I sometimes will snapshot things that people send me and I will just do episodes where I'll cover them or if they're just small,

I'll just call attention to them briefly. And I wanna call attention to a few things before we get to the main topic. I was on the fence about whether I would even show this, but I thought, you know what?

Yeah, I will. Because for those in the PCA, I do a lot more coverage of SBC stuff than PCA stuff, but I figured

I would mention this. Lincoln Duncan tweeted this out. I'm very much looking forward to the release of Jarvis Williams.

Jarvis Williams being the, you can go look at the video I did, Jarvis Williams gospel. He's the professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who is unashamingly advocates critical race theory and incorporates it into his theology and is well -documented.

But he says, I'm very much looking forward to the release of Jarvis Williams redemptive kingdom diversity book.

Yeah. Dr. Williams is one of the transcendent voices on this important subject.

Glad to count him as a friend. Transcendent voices. I thought that was an interesting phrase. He's the one, you know,

I've asked before, whenever I talk about standpoint theory, I say, okay, so who are these people? Who are these angels? Who are these divine entities that are able to adjudicate between the quote unquote, what they deem as oppressed perspective and oppressor perspective?

Because they have to transcend those. They can't be part of those categories because then they're biased. They have to be able to be unbiased.

And here we have Lincoln Duncan saying, you know what, who's a transcendent voice on this subject?

Dr. Jarvis Williams. It's just, it's fascinating to me to see what's happened to Lincoln Duncan.

And it may be for a future episode, if I get the time, I'll do some research and we'll talk about it because he has really changed, it seems like.

I also wanted to point this out. Gentleman by the name of Timon Klein pointed this out.

I thought it was a fascinating observation. The Christian nationalism narrative, that seemed to come out of nowhere.

At the end of last year, all of a sudden Christian nationalism was the big boogeyman, right? And, you know,

I kind of thought they wanted to say white nationalism. They wanted to say racism, but they couldn't because there are so many ethnic minorities who are part of this

Trump coalition. So what do they call it? Well, we call it Christian nationalism. And Timon Klein though, he made a good observation.

There was a tweet here by Jason Stanley. And he says the attack on critical, and I think he might've been the author of that religion news service hit piece on James Lindsay.

But he says the attack on critical race theory is to a large extent, a front for white Christian nationalism.

And Timon Klein says, do you see what's happening here? The two narratives are converging. And I think this was the design from the beginning.

It was a hedge. Those who are attacking critical race theory for its postmodernism, for its

Marxism, now are suspect, they are white

Christian nationalists. They are being, or they're adjacent to white

Christian nationalists. They're helping white Christian nationalism. James Lindsay's an atheist, right? But he is on the side of the white

Christian nationalists. I mean, read Ku Klux Klan there. That's what they want you to think. It's if you attack critical race theory, you're a

Klansman. I mean, this is where, this is the group think that many of these academics and journalists live in, and it's normal to them.

This is just what, this is just the way it is. That's how they see the world. And so when you're accused of being a

Christian nationalist, or when you attack critical race theory, it's kind of, you know, it's the same thing.

That's, it's just interesting how they're weaponizing this boogeyman, and then using it against people who would attack critical race theory.

I wanted to also talk about this briefly, because this was a fascinating thing that also someone pointed out.

Kevin Max, Kevin Max is an ex -evangelical, and he said so.

He was the formerly band member in DC Talk, popular

Christian band years ago. And he says, hello, my name is Kevin Max, and I'm an ex -evangelical on May 15th.

And then he posted lyrics to a song to kind of explain that. And he says he believes in the universal

Jesus, right? Which is, of course, anyone who knows anything about theology knows, when you talk about the universal

Jesus, you have left Orthodox Christianity, and we're in ecumenical land, at the very least, at that point.

But he's saying he's not evangelical anymore. And I'm not gonna read all his lyrics now.

You can go read them if you want. But here's the fascinating thing to me, right? There were a number of comments like this all over the

Roy's report. Now, Julie Roy is a, I think a blogger. I'm not sure exactly. I think she's just a blogger.

But she's done many pieces on scandals in the church, she's,

I think she's known for going after, I forget which pastor it was, in Chicago, I think.

It'll come to me in a minute. I think James McDonald was the name of the pastor. But anyway, she does a lot of takedowns.

And sometimes, some of her stuff, I haven't read all of it. Some of her stuff seems like it's decent.

I remember she did one on FBC Naples, which I happen to know something about, just because I was arranging, and therefore, the little mini doc that took place about that situation.

And she did a good job with that, as I remember, at least.

There's been other ones she's done where I'm just like, it just seems like there's an ax to grind, and you're grasping at straws a little here.

But I'm not overly familiar with her. But here's the thing. Here's the thing that was, someone texted this to me.

And it's more of an insight into the kind of people that read the Roy's report, because there are so many comments like this.

I'm gonna read you one. And because she had taken this article about Kevin Macks and put it on her,

I guess, aggregated it onto her website. One of the comments here by someone named

Lauren Martin, "'In describing himself as pro -Jesus, "'I don't see any indication he's leaving

Christianity. "'I wouldn't compare this to Abraham Piper or Joshua Harris.'"

Kathy Curran. "'I agree. "'I'm reading it as he is distancing himself "'from the legalistic evangelical blanket "'now used to cover a multitude of sins.

"'I get it.'" There were a lot of comments like this, which it just tells you kind of the, I guess, the kind of crowd that reads the

Roy's report. But I think it's, broadly speaking, it tells you more, because the

Roy's report focuses so much on evangelicals and taking them down, evangelical leaders.

So you think that those reading it, that my assumption was, okay, there are other evangelicals. They wanna root out the bad guys.

That's at least, at the very least, their motivation. But there's people that are interested in that kind of thing.

So they're interested in the evangelical world. There probably were or are evangelicals or consider themselves to be, at least.

In their mind, their own definition of evangelicalism is, now, it's basically what fundamentalism was in the late 40s, 50s.

The way that fundamentalism was viewed in the 1950s is the way neo -evangelicalism is viewed now.

You could almost write, for those who understand the history of this, Carl Henry's book, 1947

Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. You could almost write the uneasy conscience of modern evangelicalism right now and have kind of the same effect.

And I find this fascinating. The very people who are trying to break from fundamentalism, because it was too stuffy and they weren't engaging culture, quote -unquote, and they weren't raising up leaders for the next generation.

And we needed these international leaders. And this is where Fuller Seminary came out of and Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary.

And to some extent, Wheaton College very much got on board with this vision as well.

And those kinds of people who were thought to be like Ockenga and Henry and Fuller, the people that were the pioneers of what was to come next are now, what they built is viewed as bad as the fundamentalism that they were reacting to.

And I find that fascinating. And what are the lessons here? I challenge you to think about what are the lessons here? Are there lessons here?

The lessons seem to be that you're never gonna please some, you can never win maybe, you can never please the world.

We know that. And I'm talking about the world flesh and the devil, that kind of world. But at the same time, if you try to do a halfway measure and what new evangelicals try to do with this cultural engagement, which compromised

Fuller Seminary out of the gate, you try to say, we're gonna do psychology and raise up the best psychologists and the best

Christians are gonna have the best political theorists and the best this or that. And you make that part of the

Great Commission or at the very least, the mission of Christianity and the church. I think what

I've seen is a mission drift that's happened over the last few decades, several decades really.

If you do that, you don't actually complete the objective you started out to complete. And you find yourself in the same place that you were 50, 60, 70 years ago.

I find that fascinating. And maybe the best thing, honestly, is

I know the fundamentalists had their Bible Institute model, is you train people in the word of God, especially with accountability to local churches.

You do ministry training through the local church, whatever that happens to be, it could be a seminary, it could be a

Bible Institute, but there's accountability there. And the

Christians that are around you, they don't need to go necessarily to a Christian bubble to do a

Christian thing and make their Christian mark on the world. If they wanna be a good plumber, they go and become the best plumber that they can be.

And they're a Christian as they're doing their job. If they wanna be a good lawyer, they go to a good law school.

Now knowing, being prepared for, hopefully by their parents, by their local church, for the challenges that await them, because there are gonna be many.

And some law schools you may not wanna go to, but the goal is to be the best you can be and to invest the talents and abilities

God's given to have the greatest effect you can possibly have.

Just be a good investor, a good steward of what God's given you. And it doesn't have to have the word over it that this is ministry in the sense of a church ministry.

It's important. It should be something that you are motivated by because of a love for God's law in some respects, but it's the function that you have on earth.

Adam naming the animals was a good thing. That was something that God wanted him to do.

And there's things like that. Being a janitor is a good thing, but it doesn't mean that the church is going to now, we need to produce, the church's job is to produce the best janitors, right?

That kind of thing. I'm probably being a little unclear here because I wasn't expecting to talk about this, but I just, I had the thought when

I was going over this material. So long story short, the lesson that I, one of the lessons at least

I see in this is that when you try to use the church as an instrument of social engineering, which is gospel coalitions, just an extension of this new evangelical impulse, you end up right back at the same spot you started at.

And you're constantly going to be running from your shadow. And it's just no way to live. It's no way to do ministry. Let's keep going here.

We're going to talk about, I think this is where we're going to start the main topic here.

So former FDA chief says, circumstantial evidence suggesting coronavirus lab leak theory continues to grow.

I want to talk about this. May 24th, 2021, former FDA commissioner,

Scott Gutlieb, I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing that right. He said, we haven't found the intermediate host.

We found no evidence of this virus in an animal anywhere, which is important.

Because he says, we haven't found the true source of the virus. And with MERS and SARS at this point, with those outbreaks, those epidemics, we had found the intermediate host.

And it's not for lack of trying. There's been an exhaustive search he added. What this means, I just want to break this down and explain to you what's going on.

What he's saying is that if this came from a bat, we don't know, we can't find a bat that's sick with COVID.

It's just, it's popping up in humans. We can't find the host. Where did it come from? And he's saying it's weird because we're able to do that with other viruses that did come from animals.

Dr. Fauci backed funding for the controversial Wuhan lab studying origin of coronavirus.

This has been sort of for the last month been a topic of controversy and conversation.

Dr. Fauci, a member of the Coronavirus Task Force has previously backed funding for a controversial lab in Wuhan, China that has been studying the coronavirus in bats.

Fauci's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has shelled out 7 .4 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which has become the focus of theories about the origin of COVID -19.

The National Institute of Health, which oversees NIAID shut down all funding to the lab last week.

At this time, the National Institute of Health does not believe the current project outcomes align with the program goals and agency priorities.

There is an increasing confidence among officials in the Trump administration that the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab is the original site of the virus.

A report by Fox News said embassy officials warned in 2018 about inadequate safety there.

National Institute of Health defended its funding of the lab in a statement to Newsweek. Most emerging human viruses come from wildlife and these represent a significant threat to public health and biosecurity in the

US and globally. The statement read, scientific research indicates that there is no evidence that suggests the virus was created in a laboratory.

Now, here's the thing. This is from a year ago, more than a year ago, April 29th, 2020. And this controversy was going on then.

A year later, in the last few weeks, this has reemerged. And the

Wuhan lab theory, this idea that the virus broke out in a lab, that it came out of a lab, it was not naturally occurring.

This now is, more people are believing this. And this was a quote unquote, kooky conspiracy theory.

It was shut down when this was brought up over a year ago. Well, now it seems like there's more evidence possibly suggesting this.

President Trump contradicts the US Intel community by claiming he's seen evidence that the coronavirus originated in a

Chinese lab, May 1st, 2020. So this is what was happening. Hey, Trump is just off his rocker. The US Intel community, they don't believe that nonsense.

It wasn't started in a lab, didn't come from a lab. We have now though, Biden team shut down,

State Department inquiry probing possible lab link to COVID, May 25th, 2020.

A little over a year later, they feel the need to shut it down. Now look, if the State Department looking into this is, if that's such a, if there is no link there, then it shouldn't be a problem.

So why is the Biden team shutting it down? I mean, that could vindicate the idea that it didn't start in the lab. Here's from the last year,

Dr. Fauci backed controversial Wuhan lab with US dollars for risky coronavirus research. So what lo and behold,

Dr. Fauci might have an interest, an investment in this

Wuhan lab. A decade ago, during a controversy over gain of function research on bird flu viruses,

Dr. Fauci played an important role in promoting the work. He argued that the research was worth the risk it entailed because it enabled scientists to make preparations such as investigating possible antiviral medications that could be used if and when a pandemic occurred.

The work in question was a type of gain of function research that involved taking wild viruses and passing them through lived animals until they mutate into a form that could pose a pandemic threat.

Scientists used it to take a virus that was poorly transmitted among humans and make it into one that was highly transmittable, a hallmark of a pandemic virus.

This work was done by infecting a series of ferrets, allowing the virus to mutate until a ferret that hadn't been deliberately infected contracted the disease.

The work entailed risks that worried even seasoned researchers. More than 200 scientists called for a work to be halted.

The problem they said is that it increased the likelihood that a pandemic would occur through a laboratory accident. Now, look, here's the thing.

This gain of function research is also the way you make bioweapons. And the concern is that a bioweapon could get out from doing this from a lab.

Here's what happened. Dr. Fauci defended the work, determining the molecular Achilles heel of these viruses can allow scientists to identify novel antiviral drug targets that could be used to prevent infection in those at risk or to better treat those who become infected, wrote

Fauci and two coauthors in the Washington Post in December 30th, 2011. Decades of experience tell us that disseminating information gains through biomedical research to legitimate scientists and health officials provides a critical foundation for generating appropriate countermeasures and ultimately protecting the public health.

So here's the thing. Well, if something like this were to happen, we would already have the antidote. We would know what to do.

Yeah, and that would also make someone really rich if they were going to unleash a bioweapon that they already knew the cure for, or they had an idea of what you could do because this was already something that was controlled and they knew what it was.

So you can tell why this is becoming controversial and why really a year ago, this was controversial, but it's been,

I mean, it was blacklisted. You couldn't talk about this. Social media would crack down on you. Nevertheless, in 2014, under the pressure from the

Obama administration, the National of Institutes of Health instituted a moratorium on the works of spending 21 studies.

So they stopped doing the study because look, there's a risk involved. So why was this gain of function research going on in China?

Why not in the United States? Why in a Wuhan lab? Because it's away from the

National Institute of Health moratorium. That would be the logical guess in my mind that you could do it in China and you get away with it.

You could still do it. And here you have Fauci backed the controversial Wuhan lab with US dollars.

I hope things are starting to make sense. Now, I want to play this for you.

And if you are a patron, you'll have this in the, what I uploaded today. I will, you know what

I'll do? I'll make this a freebie for everyone. I'll put the link in the info section. Even if you're not a patron, you can go and you can download the

PowerPoint slideshow. And maybe I'll put a link to this, but you'll get it either way.

If you want to share this video, here is a video that I made just cataloging Dr. Fauci's contradictions.

Here we go. But this is not a major threat for the people in the United States. And this is not something that the citizens of the

United States right now should be worried about. I don't think this is something that the United States public should be worried or frightened about.

I think the risk is very low right now for the United States. Should we be changing our habits?

And if so, how? No, right now at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you're doing on a day -by -day basis.

Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks. You're sure of it?

Because people are listening really closely to this. Right now, people should not be walking, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask.

When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.

And often there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.

And can you get some schmutz sort of staying inside there? Of course, of course. But when you think masks, you should think of healthcare providers needing them and people who are ill.

If you have a physical covering with one layer, you put another layer on, it just makes common sense that it likely would be more effective.

Maybe I should put two masks on. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no data that indicates that that is gonna make a difference.

You're telling everybody to wear a mask, whether they've had an infection or a vaccine. What I'm saying is they have immunity and everybody agrees they have immunity.

What studies do you have that people that have had the vaccine or have had the infection are spreading the infection?

If we're not spreading the infection, isn't it just theater? No, it's not. You've had the vaccine and you're wearing two masks.

Isn't that theater? No, that's not. Here we go again with the theater. I am now much more comfortable in people seeing me indoors without a mask.

I mean, before the CDC made the recommendation change, I didn't wanna look like I was giving mixed signals.

But being a fully vaccinated person, the chances of my getting infected in an indoor setting is extremely low.

And that's the reason why in indoor settings now, I feel comfortable about not wearing a mask because I'm fully vaccinated.

This morning, Dr. Anthony Fauci is shooting down theories that the coronavirus was man -made.

He tells National Geographic, everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that this virus evolved in nature and then jumped species.

Fauci added he does not believe another theory that the virus occurred naturally but was accidentally released into the public from a lab in China.

Telling NatGeo, that means it was in the wild to begin with. That's why I don't get what they're talking about.

It comes after both President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo linked the virus to a lab in Wuhan without providing evidence.

Will you in front of this group categorically say that the COVID -19 could not have occurred through serial passage in a laboratory?

I do not have any accounting of what the Chinese may have done and I'm fully in favor of any further investigation of what went on in China.

Unless I am convinced by scripture and by plain reason and not by popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves,

I will not recant. And there you have it.

If you were keeping score, Dr. Fauci said not to worry about the coronavirus and not to wear masks.

Of course, he flipped that. You should worry and you should wear a mask. Then of course, you should wear two masks.

It's better to wear two masks. And then no, actually you don't have to wear two masks. And then immunization, even if you have an immunization, you still need to wear a mask.

And then of course, actually no, you don't have to wear a mask if you're immunized. And then it did not come from a lab.

And then, well, it might've come from a lab. This is the person who is supposed to be the ultimate authority on this issue.

He's America's doctor. He's the one that's supposed to be calling the shots, giving the directives, informing the public, informing state governments, informing the federal government on how to approach this issue of the

COVID virus and how to react to it. And as you can see, it doesn't pass the smell test for Martin Luther, at least.

So I had to put that in there because I kept thinking that. And I had other clips that I was thinking of putting in, like from the

World Health Organization where they're basically saying how great China's done early on and they've contained it.

We don't have to worry about it and not to wear a mask. I mean, I could have given you a lot of other clips.

I decided to just focus on Fauci. And because you know there's others that are also contradicting themselves, but Fauci has done it so much.

And you have to wonder, what's the angle here? We're only talking about a year of time.

And on some of these contradictions, it's a matter of weeks of time that he has completely changed a position on something.

And it's a position that will change the way that people act and react. I mean, is he just being careless?

Is he, no, I think there's something more going on here. I think there's probably some more interests at play.

At the very least though, even if you wanna give him the benefit of the doubt, he's someone that seems to not know what he's talking about.

Not well enough to be giving all this public advice. And I understand, information changes on some things.

Sometimes you're going to, hey, you know what? I was wrong before, now I'm, but he doesn't do that.

He doesn't admit when he's wrong. Or he doesn't, and there's so many of these things that it just, it makes you wonder that what's actually driving this.

Is it science or is it something else? The science should not have changed on this.

More data has come in, but that should not be changing whether or not two masks, one mask, immunization plus mask, or just immunization.

I mean, this stuff should, for someone who knows what they're talking about, there shouldn't be a question on this.

And if there is, he shouldn't be talking about it, giving advice to the public when he doesn't know.

So I would say, this is my position. I take the Luther position on this because Fauci is being treated like a

Pope, like a priest at the very least. And so are others. And it's like, if they have a

DR on their name, and now it's not just enough to have a DR as the frontline doctors have found out.

If you have a DR and you're well -liked by the government, then you are to be listened to. And I'm sorry, no, you don't get to create a priesthood because of some position, some fashion.

So I thought that was somewhat effective. I wanted to share that with you. And it made me think, and I just attached this on at the end.

It made me think of something, because I thought the Wuhan lab is the subject of controversy now. We may have gotten a bioweapon, it's possible, released on the public from China, from a lab in China that had not only

Chinese scientists, but Americans helping fund this Wuhan lab. And I started thinking, well, who else funded the

Wuhan lab? Immediately, I remembered something. Harvard University professor accused of covering up ties to Chinese school research program, published

January 28th, 2020. Charles Lieber, who chairs the prestigious school's chemistry and chemical biology department, was taken into custody at his office.

He's charged with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement, and was set to appear

Tuesday in federal court in Boston, unbeknownst to Harvard University, beginning in 2011,

Lieber became a strategic scientist at Wuhan University of Technology in China. Yes, the

Wuhan lab. That's the same Wuhan University of Technology, and was a contractual participant in China's Thousand Talents Plan from in or about 2012 to 2017, a statement from the office says.

This is the Harvard University, this is the

Chan School of Public Health. And someone from there went to China, was involved with the

Wuhan University of Technology lab, and lied about it. This happened in January 28th, 2020, when the story broke.

This was before there was a large scare about COVID. This is the same, this individual is from the same

Chan School of Public Health that published the report that was, some of you remember, got controversial where two plus two could be five,

I don't know if you remember that, is this postmodern math thing. And now we're dealing with this all over the place with lowering math standards, but this was from the same

Harvard Chan School of Public Health. Racism also is a public health crisis, statement from the, an op -ed

I should say, from the Chan School of Public Health, October 3rd, 2020.

So the Chan School of Public Health, an individual that was the, let's see, involved with them, chaired the prestigious school's chemistry and chemical biology department, was linked to the

Wuhan lab. Now you have them pushing this postmodern stuff at this school, and this is on American soil.

Now here's another interesting thing, China uses money to seduce, divide geopolitical rivals, published by Capstone Report, October 21st, 2020.

In 2014, Harvard received its largest ever donation, 350 million, to support its school of public health. It would rename the school as a consequence.

An excellent column published Monday by the Harvard Crimson examines the links that money to not only

Gerald Chan, but his brother Ronnie Chan. Both appear to be involved in a large donation to Harvard. Ronnie Chan said, you have two or three other things that have turned some of the elites in America.

One, there were people who were convinced that when China opens up economically, we'll also open up politically.

That didn't happen. And now they are realizing, this is key guys, that there is a system that in certain circumstances can be more efficient than the

Western system. He's saying, this individual, Ronnie Chan, who funds the Harvard School of Public Health, which has pushed postmodernism, which has ties to the

Wuhan lab, says that there is a better system, a more efficient system, it's the

Chinese system, than the Western system. And the question, the interviewer says, you mean the autocratic system?

And he says, yes, and America cannot accept that. I don't think that has much to do with Trump. He may not even be able to think all that clearly.

But the influential think tanks have that kind of thinking. $350 million to support the

School of Public Health. Here's another, and this is the thing that'll really get you.

Billionaire link to Chinese Communist Party has given extensively to Americans, including to evangelical Christians. December 16th, 2020,

Capstone Report. As early as 2009, TAC records show the Christian Research Institute received a $200 ,000 grant from the

Morningside Foundation. Christian Research Institute received another grant worth $425 ,000 in 2010.

Morningside Foundation is a charitable organization of Ronnie Chan and his brother, Gerald Chan. I was debating whether even to include that in this, because I thought, is that really related?

It is related. It is related. There's connections running all over the place.

Someone who's part of, an agent for, in favor of,

I'll put it this way. Someone who, said the quote that I just read for you, who's in favor, at least on some level, of what the

Chinese Communist Party advocates, or the system that they have, is funding universities and organizations in the

United States, including the evangelical quote -unquote organization. And there's ties to the

Wuhan lab. Now, I'm not accusing, I'm not saying that the, well,

I'm certainly not saying that the Harvard School of Public Health was the one that really wanted to release this

COVID virus from a lab. I don't know if that's the case. What I do know is, there's a lot of suspicious things going on right now as to where this virus originated from, and who was funding that Wuhan lab.

And there are lines going in different directions. One of them goes back to Fauci.

And I wanna read Romans 13 for you again, now that you've seen those contradictions, and they're probably not the only ones, over the past year, and you've reflected on what's gone on this past year.

Let me read for you once again, Romans 13, and ask yourself, do you apply this the same way that you did a year ago?

Let's start with verse one.

Every person is to be subject. Actually, you know what? Let's start with Romans 12, 21.

I really like to get the context of Romans 12 before, and we can't get the full context, but let's start at least with 12, 21, because obviously there weren't chapter and verse designations originally.

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Is what's going on right now evil?

The coverups, the lies, the contradictions. Every person is to be subject in subjection to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

Therefore, whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God, and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority?

Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For it is a minister of God to you for good, but if you do what is evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword for nothing.

For it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore, it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience sake.

For because of this, you also pay taxes. For rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

Render to all what is due them, tax to whom tax, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, and honor to whom honor.

Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another, for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

And I'm gonna keep going. Actually, no, I'm not. I'm gonna end it there. This is the section that's usually brought up.

Well, it says you gotta submit. Is Dr. Fauci and those who are influenced by this man and have enacted policies because of what this man has said, are they doing good?

Are they a minister of God to us, to you, for good or for evil?

Are they bringing wrath on those who practice evil or are they bringing wrath on those who practice good?

I think the issue with Romans 13 comes down to the nature of the authority and the channel that authority is given, and the lane that that authority is given to function, to apply its function.

And if you don't understand that the function is to be a minister for good, and if you don't understand the lane is within the narrow distinctions of the law of God and what the magistrate is supposed to, the responsibilities the magistrate is supposed to have, being a public servant, punishing evil, promoting good, then you're going to get this wrong.

And I think a lot of people got it wrong a year ago. And I think a lot of people are not going to make the same mistake again.

And that is an encouraging thing. I think about other authorities, structures that have been given to us in scripture.

You think about parents and children, husbands and wives, even the slave master relationship that you see, which you could say employer, employee.

I think of church government and shepherd sheep. And in each of these cases, there is a function that that authority has.

It's not an absolute function. It's not an absolute authority. They're functioning on a delegated authority for a specific purpose.

They're not to go aside that purpose. They're not to infringe on someone else's authority and jurisdiction. And they are to be servants for good.

And it's spelled out specifically and applied to government that that's who they're supposed to be. And I ask you, is

Dr. Fauci that kind of man? Are those who promote him and listen to him, the kind of people now that we are looking at this from with a year to more than a year of experience, are these people that have your, are they servants for good to you and your family?

Do they have your best interest in mind? If the answer is no, that actually what they're doing is they're trying to serve themselves or they're using you.

They're lying to you. They're not telling you what's actually safe and what's not, then you're gonna have to exercise your own judgment.

And you're gonna have to protect yourself and your own family and make good decisions. And they've lost their credibility.

And that's the tragedy of this because it's not good when we lose faith in our institutions in some ways, but it's necessary if they are betraying us.

So I'm gonna leave that there. I hope that was helpful in some way. Again, if you wanna see that montage, you can go to the link in the info section and it'll be right there for you.