Woke Church Being Kept in Check - Good Faith Part 3

All right then. All right. Welcome back to the channel. God bless you. I hope all is well. I hope you had a great weekend. I hope you had a great Lord's Day. I hope you had a great everything. I got to be honest with you.

We had a great weekend. We had a great weekend. So on Friday, we went to a local baseball game and it was Star Wars night and there was going to be a costume competition and my three kids won the Star Wars costume competition.

It was amazing. Absolutely amazing. It was a crowd applause kind of rating system and our kids just completely dominated. They were very into it too. They opposed right when it was our turn, things like that.

Although there is some controversy in the competition because what you're supposed to do is go out and separate by family. But then there were two kids that their mom, I guess for whatever reason, didn't want to come out with the kids and they just kind of stuck with our family even though they were told not to.

They came with us. So the crowd thought we were all together. And they had good costumes too. Let's just face it. One of them was Chewbacca and the other one was like a storm trooper. But I think we would have won anyway.

We had an X-Wing pilot. We had Luke Skywalker with an epic lightsaber and Boba Fett. But hey, even with the controversy, I'll take it. We'll take it. We'll take the victory. In any case, we are going to do more of this racial reconciliation good faith debate.

This debate is something, man. I was kind of mean to this Yancey guy, but honestly, he deserved it. He was making no sense at all. It's almost like he has no public speaking experience whatsoever, which maybe that's the case.

And so maybe it's not his fault. When I first started doing public speaking, I probably sounded awful. But I think it's a combination of he's not very good at public speaking. And also his thinking on these issues is just haphazard and it's just nonsense anyway.

So I guess you have to be extra good at public speaking to present nonsense in a way that makes sense. Does that make sense? If you're going to present nonsense, you have to be really smart to make it sound like it makes sense.

And unfortunately, he's just not very good at it. So his nonsense sounds even worse because he can barely shrink two sentences together. This guy was also talking a bunch of nonsense, but he was definitely sharper.

So far, this guy over here with the Adidas shoes is winning. Now we've got, of course, this white guy in the middle. He's going to come in and he's going to provide a little bit of pushback. Yeah, right.

Unbelievable. Unbelievable. Anyway, let's continue. This should be very interesting. Specifically, reconciliation and justice. For justice, you used Shalom, which I hear making the world the way it ought to be.

Is that a fair definition?

The way it was created to be. I think there is a way the world is intended to be, which has not been set aside fully by the fall. And so I don't think that Shalom in that sense begin entails perfection.

It's not a return to Eden or anything like that. It simply is an art for humanity in this age. I think it's fair for us to call that. I think that's a form.

Of Shalom. Okay. How would you define reconciliation? So I think reconciliation.

Is an interesting one, and I think it needs to occur contextually. And so for me, that means, and I think reconciliation can be a bridge to justice. I think they occur together. Reconciliation is a convergence upon the truth.

And so reconciliation is not a relationship personality. It's not us sitting down and feeling good about each other. We can talk without screaming. That's not reconciliation. One reason why I think that's not is because there are power dynamics in those relationships.

And so reconciliation is a shared understanding of the truth. And so I think justice is always one. There's God's justice. It's not justice based on my experience or justice based on someone else's experience.

It's really our trying to find God's perspective. We are reconciled.

So that's pretty good. In fact, that's a complete repudiation of what the other guy said. Because the other guy said, well, you can't just have true justice if we all have a seat at the table. That's absolutely false.

And we talked about that last time. And this guy's saying justice is defined by God. God gets to determine what justice is. That's very true. And God has determined what justice is. And he gives us lots of information.

It's not like you've got to dig through a bunch of stuff to get to the justice. No, it's everywhere. There's a huge book of law. It's actually called the law, the Torah. It's there. And there's so much there.

And the minutia, it's not as much as it could be, but there's a lot of detail. And it gives us different examples of what to do in different cases. And we can apply those cases to our context, to our situation.

And that's what we should be trying to do. And so very good. Very good.

We have arrived at a shared understanding as to what has happened and how we might meaningfully go forward. Not meaning that in a thematic sense, not in a particular, not in a programmatic sense, but we realize the nature of what it means to go forward.

For example, you've been disenfranchised. Enfranchising you is a part of the forward narrative that connects to a historical narrative. If we can't get to that, we're talking about detente. And I don't think it's what we mean when we say reconciliation.

So I think we need to push into a shared understanding of the truth. When we have that, then we can be, and I would say we are at the, really at the,.

The gateway to reconciliation. Okay. How do you feel about this? So he's talking about some kind of a historic injustice and affirmative action or something. I honestly don't even know what he's talking about and I don't care.

So we're going to stop thinking about it. Definitions of justice and.

Reconciliation. Do you agree? Yeah. I probably come at it a little bit more sociologically because it's who I am. When I define justice...

So that's why he doesn't make any sense, because he's a sociologist.

I define justice as fair. And I agree that God's the ultimate justice. And justice, while things are contextualized, ultimately there's a God and God's above all. But, you know, that people are treated fairly so that if, you know, the guilty are punished and the innocent are set free.

You know, so I think that in a more generalized sense, when you think about groups, it's, you know, it's a little bit different because if we're talking about justice in light of our historical racism and structural racism, it's not, you know, it's not like you go up to white people and say, well, you're guilty and you need to be punished.

But what we want to do is we want to try to create a fair society because for that white person, because they live in a society like this one, there have been certain things that have happened that are unfair that we want to correct.

Well, so at least he gives up the game here. I mean, this guy is being honest. I mean, he's an idiot, obviously. Well, I shouldn't say that. He sounds like an idiot in this whole thing. But at least he's given up the game here.

Did you notice what he said? And this is where you run into trouble. Sure, God defines justice and God's overall, but, and that's where he inserts his nonsense, right? Because what he wants to say is, sure, sure, sure.

God defines what justice is, but it's different when you're talking about people and historical injustices and the difference between, you know, disenfranchised people and historical racism, it's different.

Justice has to be different. Now we've got to add all of this stuff that's allegedly supposed to even Stephen's everything out and everyone's going to have the same opportunity and everything like that.

And that's not, it has nothing to do with justice. That's, that's, that's man's schemes. And, and oftentimes, I would say pretty much every single time when you get to the nitty gritty of it, it's a scheme that actually overturns the law of God.

And so you say, yeah, you don't just walk up to white people and be like, yo, you know, you, you, you guilty dog, nah, you don't do that, but you treat them as if they're guilty. In other words, you take away their stuff and give it to somebody else, uh, because racial injustice of the past or some, whatever you want to say, you know, he could be sexual injustice of the past or gender injustice of the past or whatever it is.

You can just insert whichever, whatever's the flavor of the day kind of thing. That's what you do. And so he gave up the game. I mean, he, he understands full well, this is not something that we can let the Bible address.

It's yeah, sure. God's there. He's overall and he defines justice. But when we're talking about groups is different, man, males may be different. And of course he wants to, and this is the same thing, what the Pharisees always used to do.

They would come up with things and they would give it a veneer of holiness, but really it would overturn the law of God. The Corbin law is the famous example. Why do you overturn the law of God for the sake of your traditions?

And it's like, you know, you, you say that you love me, but your hearts are very far from me, Philip Yancy or whatever his name is. So whatever Yancy he is, this man right here, he presents a system that it's sure has a lot of flowery kind of, you know, lovey dovey type words for Jesus, but they actually, their hearts are very far from Jesus.

They actually really don't care what he says justice is because group is different with groups. When you be a sociologist, it'd be different. You know, it'd be different though. Why is it different? I don't know why it's different, but it just is.

It just is. And so that's the situation he's given up the game. Again, I just have to point out, and this is something that I predicted before I realized it happened. And I'm not like, I'm not a super genius or anything.

This is very easy to predict, but why are they bringing two people that essentially agree on the fundamentals of racial reconciliation? Why are they bringing in them into debate? It just doesn't make any sense.

Sure. There's some nuances here and there's some things I might want to quibble down a little bit with sociologists, of course, but these people agree. Does Gospel Coalition even know what a debate is?

Yes, they do know what a debate is. They're just very subversive. If you ever needed evidence of the subversive nature of Gospel Coalition, just look at the true racial reconciliation debate that they put out for good faith debates.

It's not a debate and it's not in good faith. In fact, all of these debates, they're not debates and they're not in good faith. Maybe with the exception of that one about abortion, but even that one just had its moments where, you know, the conservative gives up everything and the liberal just stands tough and whatever.

It's just so subversive. Gospel Coalition is the single most subversive Christian ministry in reform circles that exists. And that's saying a lot. That's quite a trophy because there are quite a few subversive Christian conservative organizations out there.

I think Gospel Coalition takes the cake, if you can believe it. Gospel think the most subversive organization in conservative, sort of like reformed-ish Christianity? I think Gospel Coalition just might be it.

It's just everything they tell you, it's essentially the opposite of what they're actually doing. Good faith debate. My goodness gracious. It's Orwellian. It's Orwellian. Anyway, look at this picture here.

I got to screen cap this one. This is good stuff right here. Anyway, let's just continue.

That person, I think that's a misconception that some people have that when people talk about justice, it's about, oh, you want to punish white people? No, no. Once again,.

No, no, I don't want to punish white people, though, but I do want to create a situation for black people that's going to require that I take away from the white people. Yeah, you could call it whatever you want.

Punishment, equity, whatever. It's the same thing, though. It's the same thing. If you're taking stuff from white people to give it to black people, then you're punishing white people. I don't care if you want to describe it as that.

That's what it is. If you're taking opportunities, actively taking them away from white people in order to provide some kind of equity, then you are actually punishing white people despite what you want to call it.

You can use different semantics, but that's what it is. It's open season on white people now. I know that doesn't make you look good, but it's the fact. It's the truth. It's the absolute truth. It's open season on white people because of people like you.

You're the ones that make it open season on white people, and so this is your fault. I know you've got a lot of a guilty conscience. We're trying to walk back from that. It doesn't matter, though. No matter how much you walk back from it, your conscience is going to stay guilty because you're guilty.

That's a gift from the Lord. That feeling that makes you want to step back from, I'm not punishing white people. That feeling that you have, that's a sign that the Lord is still working on you because the people that are giving over, they don't care about this.

They don't have to walk back those kinds of statements. The fact is, you can walk back from what you call it, but you're still doing it. That guilty conscience, you need to embrace that guilt and repent from your wicked ways.

We focus so much on that that we forget.

That you can go overboard in trying to make corrections. Overcorrections can be made, and I gave a couple examples of things I think we would agree are not justice, even though that didn't happen beforehand when it was not good.

When it ultimately happened, it was not good.

Yeah, he gave you examples, all right. With who? With white people? No, no, no. He gave it like in The Godfather. That was his example, The Godfather, and some Latin American history from the past. That's his examples.

No examples of going overboard with white people these days,.

Though, you know? When I think about retro-reconciliation, I think about retro-reconciliation, you know, there's the ultra-reconciliation that happens. Retro-reconciliation. Okay. That's a goal, but it's not something that we're going to have in this lifetime.

On this side of the grave, I think what we're trying to do is we're trying to do the best we can to love other image-bearers in a way that is right. That means different things for different people. That's a very broad definition, because I don't think that what it means to love other image-bearers is the same thing for individuals in the same context.

There are some principles that are the same, you know, but when you get to the specifics, especially given our history in the United States, it's not going to be exactly the same.

This guy's a mess, and obviously I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm only hearing him for a few seconds, but no, actually love is defined also by God. God is there, and he has spoken, and he has spoken on justice.

He has spoken on love, and so love should be the same in every context. Now, that might not mean you don't receive it as love, but it still could be love, and we're actually going through this right now in the SPC.

In the SPC, they're thinking about kicking out the churches that have women pastors, and someone noticed, well, that's going to be a lot of black churches. Maybe we shouldn't do that because that would be kind of racist, and of course they should do that.

Every single black church that has a female pastor should be kicked out unceremoniously. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. That's what should happen. That's what justice is. That's what love is, but then they're like, well, the black people don't feel love.

They don't feel seen because of that. Maybe that's not nice, and of course, we're going to—let me know in the comments, too, if you want me to go over J .D. Greer's article, because I did a video about this topic, and I said I predicted that the SPC would absolutely cave.

They would not go through with this because they're afraid. They're more afraid of being called a racist than they are of fearing the Lord. They don't fear the Lord as much as they fear public opinion and being called a racist.

J .D. Greer, the very next day, came out with a letter pretty much saying exactly that. Yes, it's the right thing to do, but we shouldn't kick him out because—and he's got a whole explanation. If you want me to go into that, addressing his article, I'd be glad to do it because it was very quickly that my prediction seems to be coming true, because I think what J .D. Greer wants is what J .D. Greer is going to get in the SPC, unless you guys fight it.

You gotta fight it. Anyway, but no, just because you don't receive the—listen, if you're black and you're very upset because the ancestors of your time were, you know, I don't know, they weren't allowed in this neighborhood and things like that, and you're promoting some kind of a scheme to take funds away from white people and give it to black people to make up for the injustices of the past or reparation—oh, you mean reparation?

We're talking about reparations over here! If you're doing that and I say, no, you're in sin, repent, what I'm doing is loving. I'm loving you because I don't want you to cave into your sin. I don't want you to give in to covetousness.

I don't want you to give in to stealing. I don't want you to do that. You might not receive it as love, though, and it doesn't matter what your context is, and it doesn't matter what the American context is, and it doesn't matter what my context is.

It is love because what you're doing when you promote things like reparations and things like that is you are promoting covetousness in the name of the Lord, and that is very evil. That also breaks the commandment not to take the Lord's name in vain as well, and so it's multiple different commandments that these woke pastors break every single day, and they might not receive it as love because it doesn't give you the right to dismiss my concerns.

No, maybe not. I don't have to dismiss your concerns, but I do very readily and easily and gleefully dismiss your cockamamie schemes to overturn the law of God to get your way. I dismiss them absolutely because I fear God more than I fear you.

I fear God more than I fear the anger of black people or the anger of woke white people. I don't fear that. They can call me any name in the book, and they have, and I laugh at them. That's the thing.

That's the difference between me and J .D. Greer because me and J .D. Greer, we both know the right thing to do, right? J .D. Greer knows what's right. He said so in his article, and I know what's right, but the difference between J .D. Greer and myself is I don't care if someone writes an article in a newspaper and says A .D. Robles is a radical anti-semitic racist.

If that happened to me, I would fire up the video camera and laugh my way through the article, and I would have a great time. I might even light up a cigar and just really enjoy it because that would be an opportunity to thank God for the opportunity to be slandered for his name.

But J .D. Greer, because he doesn't fear God as much as he fears public opinion, the minute someone wrote an article like that, he would be out there backtracking saying sorry, I apologize, and he wrote a whole article just to kind of end around that.

So I'm not racist. I'm not racist. That's the thing. That's the thing. And so, you know, if you want to know who loves guys like Yancey, it's the guys that are actually standing up to Yancey and saying no, you know, the fact that you're black and you have black ancestors and your black ancestors were oppressed, and I'm sure they were, does not give you the right to promote nonsense and cockamamie schemes that overturned the law of God in 2023.

None of that does. And so if you don't like it, you need tough luck. Tough luck. That's it. Tough luck. That's cute. Look who loves you. It's this guy. I'm the guy. I'm the guy who's got your best interest in mind.

I don't know about these other guys because this guy's about to say what you just said was helpful. I'm pretty sure it wasn't. That guy doesn't have your best interest in mind. He.

Wants to look good. You have to. I don't want George Yancey to say here's what needs to be done because George Yancey is biased. George Yancey needs to be held in check by other people and hearing other concerns so that hopefully together we can work.

What that really looks like.

I think that, and I don't disagree. That's the first thing I have not disagreed with George Yancey on. Yes, George Yancey needs to be kept in check. And you know who's going to do it? It's not going to be this guy over here.

That's for sure. It's not going to be this little white guy with the lovely suit and pant combo with the matching shoes. It's not going to be that guy. It's going to be a guy like me, a regular Joe like me.

I'm the guy that'll keep you in check. And so if you're actually interested in being kept in check, go ahead and reach out to me, ad at adroblez .com. You can hit me up on Twitter as well, adroblezmedia.

You could also hit me up on gab .com, adroblez there as well. Yeah, I'll tell you. I'll tell you what's what. I'll tell you what's wrong with what you've promoted. And you can tell me all about everything that I'm doing wrong.

We can have a nice conversation. If you're interested in being kept in check, I don't think you actually are. And that's why you're on the good faith debate.

I do disagree with some things, I think, but it's minor. But I do think that we can often find that justice, we believe that justice is something programmatic, that it's a policy thing. And policies flow out of justice, but I don't think that is justice.

And so what we can share is a narrative. What we can share, there is an American narrative or idea that despite the various political perspectives that we've seen historically, but that was shared about American Republican democracy.

No one was coming along and suggesting that we have a monarch. No one come along and suggest that we eliminate the presidency. And so there was a shared narrative. I think we need a shared narrative about our racial history and about our like what it looks like to see that resolved in the future.

It needs to be somewhat inspirational. And so we get too quickly into these programmatic discussions and we've not resolved our differing convictions. And I do think there's some facts, there's some history, some measurables to help us to build that narrative.

But there is not about precision. Narrative is about direction. So where are we trying to go? What does it mean for us to go together? And how do we go together recognizing how it's gone down in the past?

If you think about black and white kind of experiences of racialization in this country, it has not been like in balance. And so we have to deal with it, acknowledge that imbalance, and recognize that without a shared narrative, some people will feel aggrieved even when it's simply being required, say, to make certain concessions or compromises to rectify the situation.

And we need to be able to deal with that is that not all perceived grievances are perhaps, I don't want to use the term objective, but those grievances may be situational to me and what I want, but they need to fit better with our understanding as to what actually happened.

And I think that we need to push toward a shared understanding of that. That doesn't mean 100 unanimity. It just means there's a strong consensus. I think especially within the church, we ought to have, because this is an ethical issue, we should share the same ethical narrative.

If we have a different ethical narrative, that's a real problem. That's a theological problem. And so I think we need to push into that and see if we can get to a consensus to what that narrative is.

I mean, you know, it's hard to follow a lot of this because a lot of this is not a logical train of thought. And I think that's intentional. He even kind of said there, it's not about, you know, it's not a, he didn't say logic.

What did he say? It's not about precision. It's just about this kind of shared story. It's the shared narrative. And if we don't agree on the narrative, then we have a theological problem. And the thing is, it's like very hard to follow because I don't have the freaking clue what he's talking about.

Because I know from my childhood that I've gotten indoctrinated heavily with the shared narrative about what happened in the past. And everybody acknowledges this. Everybody acknowledges this. Obviously not literally everybody, but this is part of our DNA as a culture.

We've all been taught how hard blacks had and how bad white people were. We've been taught that for a long time. And by the way, have you noticed, the more we talk about it, the more it's in every movie, it's in every show, it's in every everything, every class that you take.

The more we talk about it, the more problems we have. Have you noticed that? I can't be the only one who noticed that. Because back in the 90s when I was in school, we talked about this stuff. But we didn't have that many problems.

I mean, of course we had problems, but we didn't have as many as we do right now. It's almost like the more you focus on the other's faults, the more problems you have. Because there's always something you could find.

That's the thing. When you're in a marriage relationship, there's always some kind of fault you could find with your spouse. Always. But the trick is to not focus on that stuff. Not dwell on that stuff.

And if you've got a real serious issue, of course you can talk about it as a couple. But there are things that your wife or your husband does that annoy you that you just choose to overlook because you love them.

There's always something. You could always find fault. Fault finders always find fault. That is just there. If you look for something long enough, you're going to find it. But obviously, love doesn't hold...

Listen, do I have to pull up the verse? Here you go. This is the theological problem, man. This is a theological problem. You don't get this. Charity suffereth long and is kind. Charity envieth not. Charity vaunteth not.

Itself is not puffed up. Doth not behave itself unseemly. Seeketh not her own. Is not easily provoked. Thinketh no evil. Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth. Let's read it in non-King James. I wanted to pull it into King James because I wanted to be cool.

But hey, love is patient. Love is kind. It does not envy. It does not boast. It is not proud. It does not dishonor others. It is not self-seeking. It is not easily angered. It keeps no record of wrongs.

Love keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but it rejoices with truth. It always protects. It always trusts. Always hope. Always perseveres. In the church, my friends, you talk about the church and how we have to have this shared narrative or things like that.

The imprecision of it is the point. They want it to be imprecise because if you bring the law of God into it, you know that this man scams and the other man's scams are unbiblical. They overturn the law of God for the sake of their own group.

That's what they do. They overturn the law of God all the time. So you don't want to bring precision of the law into it. You want to bring this idea of this narrative. And the other point of the imprecision is that there's always something because these people are fault finders.

These people are fault finders. So you don't want to say racism will be over if X happens because once X gets accomplished, you still want to be able to talk about racism because you're covetous. Because you hate your neighbor.

And so you never want to put any precision on it because you always want it to be an option to continue your grift, to continue your scam. That is not what love does. In the church, if we cannot keep no record of wrongs in the church amongst groups of people that their grandpappy might have done something to your grandpappy, but you don't really know because it's just a narrative.

If we can't get over this and look beyond the faults of others, then we have no love. And that's a theological problem. It's not this thing. There's no verse in the Bible that says if we don't share a narrative of the collective economic disparities and like none of that.

There's no verse in the Bible that talks about that. That's just something he made up on his own. He's saying if we don't have a narrative, we got a theological problem. No. But I'll tell you what the Bible does say.

The Bible does say love does not keep a record of wrongs. And that's it. You can defeat this. My book, by the way, is all about how you can defeat the woke church movement with simple verses, simple truths from the Bible.

This is not complicated. These people make a career out of pretending it's complicated, but it's not complicated. I'm here to tell you that this is what love requires. This is what the Lord requires. To not keep a record of wrongs.

There's not a shared narrative, nonsense, or any of that. In any case, we've been at this for half an hour. This has gone over time. I hope you found this video helpful.