Since Resolution 9: Criticizing Marxism 1.0 While Importing Marxism 2.0

Welcome to the Conversations That Matter podcast. My name is John Harris. If you look behind me, you'll notice that these are not the surroundings that I'm usually in when

I do a recording. I am traveling this weekend, and I'm going to a wedding, which I'm excited about.

I'm going to be with family and friends, and I usually don't do a video when

I'm traveling like this. In fact, I don't even have all my equipment with me, but there are some things that happened in this last week that I just think they need to be said, and I don't hear anyone else saying them.

They're really, I think, key insights that we need to be paying attention to moving forward in the social justice debate.

It's hard. You can't keep track of everything. You had the Democratic debates this week, PCA voting on accepting the

Nashville Statement, which I'm thankful for, although it sounds like the young guys are not going to keep the

Nashville Statement if the trajectory continues over the long haul. I've had so many conversations at the upper levels of the

SBC this week, 10 % I can't even talk about. I mean, it's just that much information, not because I can't talk about them, just because there's just post -Resolution 9,

SBC is an interesting organization, and I'm going to get into a little bit of that in this, but there's some really key things that we can't miss.

So, I trust it will be very helpful to you. I want to start off with some encouragement, though.

I've been thinking about this, 1 Kings 19, verse 18. This is when

Elijah has defeated the prophets of Baal, and he's afraid that no one is with him.

No one sees things the way he sees them, and the Lord says, Yet I will leave 7 ,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him.

And, without getting into the details of the story, the application that I pull out of that, just the encouragement, is that we know that the

Lord protects his church, and I don't know what the purpose of this whole social justice movement is, but we can tell that the lens is becoming more clear, and it's less foggy.

Lines are being drawn, and we're starting to see people line up on either one side or the other, and maybe the

Lord's using this to purify his church. But don't feel alone in this. That's why we created the

Enemies Within Launch Team group on Facebook, and hopefully you're getting this at your local church, but talk to people who see the problem, who see that, okay, this is another religion coming in, this neo -Marxist stuff.

This isn't Christianity, it can't be wedded to Christianity. Be around some of those people, because if you don't, you just start getting depressed.

You'll think, every organization is just adopting this at lightning speed, and yeah, that's true, but the Lord will make sure that his true sheep hear his voice, and his church will not be compromised.

There are some people out there, compromisers, I think, that are going to have to make some decisions here really soon.

So, be encouraged by that. Now, let's get into the nitty -gritty here, shall we? I noticed this over the last two weeks, well, since Resolution 9,

Russell Moore put out a video about socialism, Bruce Ashford, through the Life Way, which is the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, put out a video, or an article, rather, about Marxism.

The Intersect Project at Southeastern put out something critical of Socialist Cuba, and this is all stuff that we can applaud, in a way, we can say, yeah, right on, we agree.

I would have quibbled with some of the things, especially, Russell Moore said, but look, in general, we don't agree with socialism, right?

We're Christians, and we see these things as false religions, and that's all fine and good. Here's the thing, though, post -Resolution 9

SBC does not want to make it look like they are Marxists, and they're tired of being called that, some of the key players.

I don't know if other outlets in the SBC have put things like this out, but it doesn't seem like a coincidence that it's right after the passage of that, that all of a sudden, hey, just to make sure, guys, you know that we're against Marxism.

The thing is, Marxism 1 .0, which is what these guys are critiquing, is much different than Marxism 2 .0.

Marxism 1 .0 is the Soviet -style Marxism, it's modernist Marxism, it's materialistic

Marxism, it's class warfare Marxism. Marxism 2 .0

is not that, and you can criticize Marxism 1 .0

all day, and not make a dent in criticizing what's actually being imported into Southern Baptist seminaries.

And so, I'm going to talk about this, and I think this is really, really key, so I'm sure it'll be helpful to you.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about, this is Bruce Ashford from his article in LifeWay, he's talking about Karl Marx, he's talking about class struggle, says

Marx's system, material equality, is elevated to the level of God, he's right about that, we agree, and I was on the phone actually this week, one of the conversations of many that I've had was with Danny Akin, president of this seminary, and Bruce Ashford is the provost there, and I tried to warn

Danny Akin, I said, look, this is what's happening at your seminary. Look at the books in your library. Right now, there's nothing contradicting what they're saying.

You don't have any books that are conservative, you have a bunch of neo -Marxist books, some of them even,

I mean, they're just bad, and I'm going to show you them in a minute. How did it get to this point? How did, you know, publicly promoting these books, not just in a library, we would expect bad books to be in any library, but for educational purposes, but these are actually being promoted on the display shelf.

First thing you see when you walk in to the books area, and there's nothing critiquing any of them.

It's all intersectionality, it's feminism, it's critical race theory, and you don't have any books by Thomas Sowell, for instance, there's nothing against that narrative.

So you're saying to future pastors, hey, you know, drink deeply from the well of neo -Marxism, and we're not going to give you the tools to fight it.

I mean, that's the message that's coming across. And so I warned him about this, and one of the things he said to me is, well, haven't you seen

Bruce Ashford's article about Marxism? I said, yeah, I mean, he said stuff when I was there about it, but this is

Marxism 1 .0, and I pointed this out. Soviet style modernist Marxism is not the same. And so I don't know if this is,

I don't know what the motives are. I mean, it could be trying to, I mean, it could be deceptive that, hey, we're doing this stuff and we don't want people to critique us anymore.

So we're going to just say that we're against Marxism and show you, and it's a deception tool, or it could just be ignorance.

They don't know the difference between neo -Marxism and Marxism, which is frightening if PhD professors who teach this don't know the difference.

But that's what's going on. And so I want to show you some of the things going on. This is from Southeastern, and this is their library.

These pictures that I'm going to show you were taken a week ago today, and Dr.

Aiken, to his credit, said he would look into this. And I'm going to show you what they say, and then

I'm going to show you what this means. So here's what they say. This first book is called Atone, and it's called

Religion, subtitled Religion, Conflict and Reconciliation by Brandon Lundy. It's about religion as a driver of peaceful social change.

It's written by, compiled by Lundy, who's a professor of anthropology at Kennesaw State University, and then two others who are also workers there, one of history, professor of history, and one of the director of School of Conflict Management.

So this is not a Christian book, right? Which is okay. You can have books that aren't Christian. I'm not saying you have to have. But this is not coming.

This is coming from the world. All right? Now, here's one of the excerpts. This is from an article by a man named

Galtung, and the chapter is chapter 16, A Pope, A Patriarchy, Spiritual Revolution.

And here's what he says. This is in this book, being promoted for pastors to read at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Pope Francis, at the US border on rich countries to open their gates to the poor, invoking the biblical story of Nineveh, and God's messenger,

Jonah, to wake up a people intoxicated with itself. The king listened, and Nineveh was saved. John Paul II broke down the

West -East Iron Curtain, while Francis' walls are between the north and south of the world. But what is this positive economic message?

In the Argentinian tradition, neither capitalist nor Marxist, private ownership of goods is justified by the need to protect and increase them, so that they can better serve the common good.

For that reason, solidarity must be lived as the decision to restore to the poor what belongs to them.

I'm going to stop right there for a moment and explain something to you. This is liberation theology.

That's what the Argentinian tradition is, and he says, well, it's neither capitalist nor Marxist.

I mean, that's what John Paul is saying. It's neither one. We're doing this middle road thing, and private ownership of goods is justified, you know.

But you know, we got to serve the common good here. And so here's an interesting thing. I'm going to get into the other books, but I wanted to start here to just kind of lay a foundation and show you, this is what's being said.

How does this connect with Marxism? He just said, it's not Marxism. John Paul's not advocating Marxism. Well, actually he is.

It's just, it's a neo -Marxism. It's liberation theology. It's critical theory. It's from that family. And what is that family?

You know, what am I talking about? I'm talking about something that traces all the way back to folks like Herbert Marcuse from the

Frankfurt School. And the Frankfurt School essentially believed that Marxism, so we're talking about Marxism 1 .0,

just so you know, Marxism 1 .0, no, not so good. Capitalism not so good. We need, we need something else.

And so they borrowed from Marxism. They took the Marxist stuff, they're Marxist still. But it's not the modernist style,

Soviet style stuff. It's a different thing altogether. And this is where we get intersectionality and critical theory and all this stuff.

Let me give you a quote from Marcuse. The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped.

Small and powerless minorities. We're not talking anymore about Marxism 1 .0, which was about the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the haves and the have -nots and redistributing wealth.

This is about the small and powerless minorities. These are oppressed classes. So now it's oppressed versus oppressor.

It's not along economic lines. It's along social lines and it's different.

How is it different? Well, they have a struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries.

So this is what Marcuse is saying. Small and powerless minorities are struggling against false consciousness and its beneficiaries and we got to help them.

They must be helped is what Marcuse says. It's no longer about materialism.

You can critique materialism all day you want. Bruce Ashford can say materialism is a false God. Yeah, it is. This isn't about materialism.

This is about the beneficiaries of a false consciousness. Now what kind of false consciousness? I mean, this is conceptual, right?

Well their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abuse rights and liberties which grant constitutional powers to those who oppress these minorities.

Constitutional powers. This is about a legal system. I've read other critical theorists who say this is also about a system of thought, even the laws of logic.

This is about the way history is done, the way even religion is done. All of this stuff must be decentered from the oppressed culture and we must help those who are not being benefited from this culture.

So this means, let's take history for an example. The majority culture, the white men

Christians, have been telling their story for far too long. So we need to do history by telling the story of the aggrieved social classes.

Now it doesn't matter if it's accurate or not. Truth doesn't matter. That's why this is postmodern. This is modernist. This is not modernist

Marxism. This is postmodernist Marxism. Truth no longer matters, only power. So Marxism supplies the power, the emphasis on power, and postmodernism supplies the ideas.

So the idea that the social groups in and of themselves have a lens that they look through to interpret the world.

It's about epistemology, interpretation, and that lens must be centered.

It must be given a voice. And the cultures that are oppressive, so like myself,

I'm a Christian white man, my voice must be diminished. I shouldn't say anything. And that's how history is done now.

Truth doesn't really matter as much. What matters is telling the story from the oppressed cultures.

And what are the oppressed cultures? Well, they're not biologically determined. I'll give you an example of this.

Let's say the black culture has a viewpoint. If you live in black culture in this country, then you have a certain way of looking at things.

That's what they assume at least. And Clarence Thomas doesn't look at things that way. Well, who, what is he? He's an Uncle Tom. He's all, they call him names and he's not part of the black culture because he does not believe something.

His skin is black, but he does not believe something. So that's where the postmodernism comes in. It's about a group consciousness.

It's not about truth. It's about power. And it's about a group getting power. He's ousted because of the way he thinks.

So group solidarity is about a oppressor way of thinking, oppressed way of thinking.

If you're thinking in terms of the oppressed group and what forwards the oppressed group, you're part of the group. And if you're not, if you're, you know, a

Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams, you're just not part of it. You're not part of the club. And this is postmodernism 101.

And let me ask you this. Have you ever gone to a church or an institution? I know of many churches like this.

This was rampant at the Southern Baptist Convention this year too. And they say things like, well, you know, Revelation chapter six says that every tribe, tongue and nation is one in Christ.

And so therefore they use that to then say that we prescribe that we need to be pursuing as an end in and of itself, diversity.

And we need a multi -ethnic church. And we need to listen to the voices of other minorities.

And we need to, we need to just listen. We shouldn't say anything if we're a part of the majority culture and we need to start doing church differently.

Not because they can't speak our language or anything like that, but because we want to appeal to them and we're going to start speaking the language of oppressed, oppressor relating to them and the struggle that they're in and looking at things through their lens in order to make this multi -ethnic church.

And they abuse Revelation six. I mean, this happens at Southeastern quite a bit revelation, the admission school. So they use Revelation six all the time.

But then it is abused to say that instead of the gospel being this being a result of the gospel, because it is all the multi -ethnic churches, if you live in a multi -ethnic community,

I grew up in a multi -ethnic church, then God has sheep that hear his voice in all different cultures and they will come.

And it's a result of preaching the gospel. That's all we ever did. Preach the gospel. They all speak, you know, English. And we actually even have

Spanish translation at the church that I grew up at. For those who couldn't, they could put on headphones, they could hear it in Spanish.

So we realized there's language barriers, but it was, we weren't doing anything extra. It was just preaching the gospel and we weren't pursuing multi -ethnicity.

It's just whoever came, we ministered to them, but that's not what's going on now. It is pursuing as an end in and of itself, multi -ethnicity.

That is not a new Testament model for ministry and has not advocated in Revelation six. It's not, John 17 gets abused a lot too.

It's not advocated there. That unity is not a multi -ethnic unity. And so that is part of critical theory.

That's a soft part. There's guys that think they're not woke, but they're half -woke because they buy into that. But they don't buy into other things.

Like they'll say that, well, yeah, you know, George Whitefield's obviously a Christian. Those guys who say he's not are crazy, but we should pursue a multi -ethnic church.

That's being half -woke a little bit. You're letting something in and it's about the de -centering of majority oppressor culture and listening to the voice of these.

Why is their voice so important? Isn't truth important? Voice shouldn't be important, but it is because postmodernism destroys the idea of truth.

So now you're just left with social groups who have different ways of looking at things. And it's just opinions. And the ethic of critical theory, intersectionality, is to grandstand, to promote those who are in the oppressed minority.

So hopefully things are starting to click. That's what we're dealing with. That's the kind of Marxism we're dealing with. It's a redistribution of privilege, not wealth.

Yeah, wealth could be part of it, but it's about giving away your voice if you're an oppressor.

It's about giving away, you know, getting rid of the laws that supposedly your ancestors enacted to benefit you.

It's about getting rid of your literature. So we're not going to talk about the Western literature as much.

It's about getting rid of everything, even religious tradition, 2 ,000 years of Christian tradition. And we're going to get rid of some of that.

We got to critique that through the lens of these oppressed minorities. And it's happening.

And it's happening at Southeastern. And I know of other places I haven't revealed yet where it's happening, but I'll tell you one of the main ones right now is the library.

And that's why I bring this up. This is not Marxism 1 .0 we're dealing with. This is Marxism 2 .0.

So back to the book for a moment. The book is advocating the

Argentinian tradition. That's neither capitalist nor Marxist. Well, that's exactly what the Frankfurt School said. We're not capitalists.

We're not Marxists. Even though they were Marxists, they borrowed from Marx. And so Pope Francis argues in favor of taxation and regulation to distribute.

But his key argument is spiritual solidarity, loving your neighbors like yourself and brother and sister in Christ. Now, remember, neo -Marxism is about concepts.

It's about patterns of thought. It's about ways of thinking. It's not about the redistribution of wealth. And that's exactly what this is saying.

Now, here's the major problem says we sense a major problem. Only a minor part of the world, 1 .2 billion Catholics live in the United States. The country is evangelical.

Christianity is compatible with the rising inequality. The road to dignity is paved with the individual hard work, not social solidarity.

Even remember social solidarity. I mean, this is straight out of critical theory. The road to dignity is paved with the individual hard work, not social solidarity.

Even the World Council of Churches in Geneva supporting Francis message might not impress the true believers in the

United States. So what they're saying is the United States is a problem and it's evangelicals because they don't care about inequality.

That's exactly what this is saying. And what then? Pope Francis sees the United States self -destruction from its failure to follow

Nineveh and wake up. The key message again comes from Cuba. Whenever the message is coming from Cuba, you should probably perk up and listen.

This is not going to be Christianity. At the crossroads between North and South, East and West, where dialogue has begun to heal the

Christian East -West schism through the spiritual revolution. So here's the deal. Here's the deal. This is liberation theology.

That Pope Francis, he's a liberation theologian. He just is. And he wants to advocate for this across the world.

His problem is his hang up is evangelicals in the United States. They're just those pesky evangelicals or they're free market guys.

They're capitalism guys. And they see it as compatible with Christianity. So there's got to be a way to change this.

It's a problem. And that's what this book is saying on the shelf at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

And there's no, again, no voices counteracting it. And that's one of the main problems. I mean, you can have a book in your library.

A lot of error in libraries. But to have nothing contradicting this and have this be the display shelf that your pastors need to be looking at this for their ministry.

I mean, that's nuts. But it gets way nuttier. And I'm going to show you this.

Revolution of Values. The Origins of Martin Luther King Jr.'s Moral and Political Philosophy. This is, again, it's not bad to have this in a library.

We need to know about Martin Luther King Jr. and what he said. He's an important figure. So this book is about his political philosophy.

And here's one of the key things that I found in it. He's talking about Hegel's theories and how

Marx borrowed from Hegel. And he says, well, Martin Luther King, he wasn't a

Marxist guy. He didn't take it to where Marx took Hegel's philosophy. But he accommodated

Hegelian philosophy to his Gandhian moment of nonviolent strategy. And he reinterpreted Hegel's dialectic of master and slave in order to make it fit with Jesus' principle of gape love.

Now, here's the thing. You cannot do this with Hegel. You can't wed Hegel with Jesus. But that's what

Martin Luther King Jr. tried to do. And I would suggest that's exactly what a lot of these guys in evangelicalism are trying to do.

It's the MLK 50. I mean, this is, it's not good stuff. But here's the thing I wanted to bring up that I thought was a little more important.

Look at who endorses this book. Noam Chomsky. He's a communist. There's a good website, keywiki .org,

I believe is the website. Keywiki, if you just Google that. But Trevor Loudon has gone through thousands of communist operatives.

Noam Chomsky is a communist. Look up his profile there. Nadar Hashemi also loves this book,

Another Communist. And I'll show you, here's the keywiki entries. Nadar Hashemi, listed as the endorser of the

Campaign for Peace and Democracy, which is a communist group. And then Noam Chomsky, of course, there's a lot of stuff about him. So both of these figures love this book.

And it's just strange to me, like, okay, so this is being promoted. This is what future pastors should be reading.

With no book there that shows you the errors in what you're reading. That's a problem.

But it gets worse. It gets worse. Look at this picture. This is from a book called Feminist Manifesto. It's a picture of a woman, if you're listening, who's crumpling up a sheet of paper.

Now, what's in paper? Ideas are conveyed on paper. She's crumpling up these ideas. And in the background, you can see people with flags.

And it's a mob. They're raising their fists. Feminist Manifesto. Here's the Amazon synopsis.

It's feminist organizations, 150 documents, over 50 countries. And it's a compilation.

And they're covering issues from political stuff, education, religion, work, violence, racism, environmentalism.

And it's manifestos. And it expands and involves our understanding of feminism through self -described agendas of women from every ethnic group, religion, region in the world.

And I'm starting to suspect, well, maybe there's some intersectionality going on here. Well, it turns out that's exactly what's going on.

The author is the chair of Women's and Gender Studies at St. Louis University.

Since when did Southern Baptist start listening to Women's and Gender Studies department chairs?

Here's the quote, though. She's talking about, I'm going to skip through some of this. You can read it if you want to screenshot it.

But here's the key thing. She says, further, an intersectional understanding of the different effects of domination on various populations is apparent across the globe.

The only limit, as the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan cautions, is that we should never make ceasefires or deal with this or that faction of fundamentalists.

And so I kind of jumped in there in the middle. I have the full quote here. But she's talking about feminists who are

Vietnamese and Puerto Rican and different feminists. And then she invokes an intersectional understanding.

This is in a book on the shelf displayed, and there's a picture of it displayed, for future pastors in the

Southern Baptist Convention. With nothing counteracting it. Here's another one. Women Assassin Talkback, Social Injustice, Intersectionality, and Biblical Interpretation.

I mean, this is a giveaway. And on the cover, you have women of different ethnicities who have bullhorns and signs, and there are protests.

And it says intersectionality in the title. Now, listen to this. This is at least a Christian author, right?

But she's a professor of New Testament. Or this individual is a professor of New Testament at Ashland Theological Seminary.

So now we're importing what the Methodists think. And you can see there that Valerie Breidman and another professor there endorse this book.

And Valerie, who's a professor at a Methodist theological school, says, if you're a pastor, educator in a local congregation, it will serve you just as well.

And then this other professor, Bruton, says, Smith demonstrates the practical value of intersectionality, post -colonial, and other critical theories.

Hmm, not just system, you know, tools of analysis, right? Just that's all they are. Well, here's the synopsis.

Systematic or structural oppression and injustice, police profiling and brutality, oppressive pedagogy and gendered violence are placed in dialogue with sacred contexts.

This book provides fresh intersectional readings of sacred contexts that are accessible to both scholars and non -scholars.

Womanist sass and talkback is for readers interested in critical interpretations of sacred contexts and in propagating the justice and love of God while engaging those contexts.

That is straight up critical theory, guys. It's critical race theory. It's critical. It's feminism.

It's critical theory. I don't know what else to say. There's neo -Marxism right here. All the language is there.

This is oppressor oppressed. This is oppressive pedagogy. I mean, again, guys, you know, I can't emphasize this enough.

It's not about Marxism 1 .0 and the redistribution of wealth. This is a little part of it, but you can critique that all day long.

You're not coming close to critiquing what we're actually dealing with and what's being imported, in this case, at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

And I told Danny Akin about this stuff, by the way, in a phone call, and he said he'd check into it. But, you know, here's the deal.

How did it get here in the first place? This is public. He didn't seem to know when I was on the phone with him that these books were there, and he said he'd check into it.

No one's alerted him to this. There's no concern. The guys running the library there are just, this is what they think they ought to promote.

How did they get into the positions they're in? And again, when I was there over a year ago, this was the kind of stuff that was on the bookshelf even then.

It's still there. And there were some thoughts earlier this week, because the Kingdom Diversity website, I guess,

I don't know what's going on there. They're transitioning articles over to a new web host or whatever, but like 90 % of the articles are gone.

And some of these articles, you know, I had put in a, helped, others helped me, but put in a document that talked about the acceptance of critical theory at Southeastern.

And all of a sudden, boom, you know, the website's down. A lot of that evidence is gone. And I'm not questioning motives, because I don't know.

But, you know, the hope was that, well, maybe they're turning over a new leaf. Since Resolution 9, they just, they don't, they don't want to be part of this anymore.

Well, this is what's in their library. This was taken, these pictures were taken a week ago, and hopefully they're down now. I don't know, but it's not enough to take these books down.

It's not enough. And I'll tell you why when I'm done talking about all this. Let's keep going though for a moment.

So this is the book. Here's some of this stuff in the book. This is shocking. The dichotomies of beautiful, ugly women and good, bad women and virtuous or chaste, promiscuous women must be challenged as a bankrupt system for classifying women.

Now, again, this is what I told you before. This neo -Marxist stuff is about ideas, patterns of thought, ways of behavior.

This is not about wealth redistribution. They're trying to rip down these systems of thought.

So if you classify a woman as either, let's say, virtuous or promiscuous, that is wrong.

So you can't label someone promiscuous anymore. Just can't do it. I mean, this, that's a biblical label.

So you're ripping down now the hierarchy, or not hierarchy, but language that's in the Bible. And then they use

Jesus here. From Mark 7, where the Syrophoenician woman, he says, should I give my food to the dogs?

Aren't they for the children? And they say, Jesus is a quote. Jesus responded to her in a way that betrayed his

Jewish male bias. Now, let me ask you something very, very straight up.

Did Jesus have Jewish male bias? Think with me. He was God. He was man. Does God have

Jewish male bias? This is critical theory. I mean, there's no two ways about it.

There's no way around this. And it will fundamentally destroy the idea that Jesus was God. It erodes the deity of Jesus.

Because Jesus is now trapped in a lens of Jewish male privilege.

And he can't get outside of it. He was blinded by it. Jesus, somehow there's something Jesus didn't know.

Because he's limited by this. That's not, God's not limited by those things. And I would like to suggest that objectivity exists.

We can arrive at truth, no matter what kind of culture we grew up in. That's kind of the point. I mean, that just destroys scripture.

If you think you need some lens to look at it through. But this destroys the deity of Christ. So you have a book on the shelf there that is using critical theory to destroy the deity of Christ.

And so that's a problem. Now it goes on and says, in Jesus' reasoning, to give the bread to the dogs requires taking it from the children and blah, blah, blah.

Because it says, in other words, this is what Jesus is saying, all lives matter. And then the author goes on to talk about how actually that's the slogan, all lives matter, is dismissal of the impact of racism on people of color.

And so we should use black lives matter. We shouldn't use the phrase all lives matter. So she's accusing Jesus of doing something she thinks is wrong.

Which is basically saying all lives matter. Wow. Wow, guys, this is where this is going.

Can you not see that has complete... You cannot use that passage to forward that narrative.

There's not exegetical interpretation. And it's fundamentally opposed to the

God that we love. It's denying his deity in this case. And so you think these can be used as tools.

This is what happens when they're used as tools, guys. There is no neutrality here. If the

Lord God be God, serve him. But if it be humanist wisdom, then serve that. But you got to choose. So let's keep going here.

Because that's not the only book. There were more than just that. There was this book, To Whom Belongs the

Land? Living Against 25 in an African Liberationist Reading. Oh boy. Now here, this is key, guys.

This is what destroys the hermeneutics. If reread... Okay, so the main question of the book, which focuses on the role of the

Old Testament in the South African context, is if reread from an African Liberationist perspective in the context of land redistribution and socioeconomic injustice, there we go, in South Africa, could the

Israelite Jubilee legislation of Leviticus 25 offer liberating and empowering possibilities for the poor in South Africa?

The exegesis of Leviticus 25 in which the historical critical method is employed lays the foundation for the contextualization of the issues.

And here, arising from the exegesis. So here's the deal. Historical critical method is being used, not grammatical historical method, historical critical method.

This is the hermeneutic that is destroying everything. This is... Now, Southeastern does not teach hermeneutics anymore as a requirement for an

MDiv. They have classes in hermeneutics, and I've heard some things about those classes. Let's just say there's some hermeneutics professors who believe in this approach.

And at the very least, though, you can see that here's the proof that it's at the library. It is, you know...

I mean, the other... Me saying that there's professors who believe in that, that's from students who have... Multiple students who have told me what's going on in some classrooms.

But actual hard evidence that you can sink your teeth in, it's right here. This is a book at Southeastern. It's a display shelf and there's nothing opposing it.

No books that would teach you that that's wrong. It's historical critical approach. So if you happen to take as an elected, let's say in your

MDiv, you happen to want to take hermeneutics because it's not required. You may get that perspective and you're certainly going to get it from the library if you pick up that book.

That's dangerous stuff right there. Now, moving on. Furthermore, within the

African liberationist framework, South African context serves as a lens to interpret Leviticus 25.

That's the deal, guys. That's the main point. That's what I've told you from the beginning. It's all about the lens of interpretation.

You interpret according to the social group you're in. And this stuff can't unite anyone. I mean, once intersectionality gets applied to it,

I mean, a single homosexual left -handed introvert Asian woman can't relate to the single left -handed introverted

Asian man. I mean, because they're two different genders and society's oppressing them in different ways and they need different representation to help them get equality in the society that they're at.

There's no way of unifying around any of this. Only the gospel can unify. And this stuff,

I mean, there's other worldly things that I guess you could unify people around, but this isn't even that. You can't unify at all.

And this is what's being important. And it'll be fundamentally destructive to the church. There's no two bones about it.

No two ways about it. So Leviticus 25 can contribute positively to the redress of inequality and consequently to poverty alleviation.

That's what the book says. Here's another picture of some stuff on the shelf. We got a book called

Ziochania and Gender Perspective, which is, oh boy, here. The academic context of this publication is thus not gender studies per se, but an interdisciplinary approach where diaconal, there we go, theory is deepened through the lenses of gender perspective.

So there, those lenses of gender perspective again, you can see. Here's a book called

One in Christ, which is on the shelf there. And it's by David Ireland. And he's a pastor of a multiracial megachurch in New Jersey and a diversity consultant for the

MBA. And so here's the interesting thing. He uses the Great Commission. So the Great Commission is about proclaiming gospel to the nations.

And so basically you gotta pursue that multi -ethnic church. And this is, those who don't buy into the stuff

I just showed you, a lot of them buy into this. This is kind of like in the water at places like Southeastern that we just gotta pursue this multi -ethnicity.

And here's where this leads. This is in the book. He talks about Peter and before the Jerusalem Council, how he was eating with the

Jews and forsaking the Gentiles. And it says the mindless choice of Peter had its repercussions.

The mindless choice of Peter. And then he quotes Galatians 2. And he always says, apparently at the juncture in history,

Peter's multicultural footing and commitment were weak. Was that the problem at the Jerusalem Council, guys?

Was it his, was the problem that Peter had his multicultural footing and commitment? It's a

Judaizer heresy. It's a theological issue, but it's being packaged as a, it is not a theological issue, but as a cultural issue.

This is critical theory, guys. The Antioch church became a multicultural expression of the body of Christ because a number of the believers showed courage in crossing cultures.

Wow, wow. This is a complete misreading of that entire deal. So that's where we are.

And here's Walter Rauschenbusch, again, a father of the social gospel being promoted there.

And I wanna bring this kind of to a cap here. The concern is that we who see this for what it is, and I told

Dr. Aitken this, we aren't satisfied until we see that these horribly anti -biblical perspectives that are acid on core doctrines of the

Christian faith are opposed. That means library talks, lectures, blog posts, chapel talks, in the classroom, outside the classroom, through all the publications necessary, there becomes a new culture of opposing this and promoting biblical justice instead.

Until we see that, it's woke. I don't know what to tell you. It's not enough to just take these books down from the library.

You've gotta put up books that oppose them and show their futility. And I don't mind if you have these books in your library, they must be in your library, but to put them on display, so hey, seminary students, you should read this.

It'll help you in your church. And then not to put books that contradict them is wrong.

Absolutely wrong. And so it's not enough to take the blogs down off the website.

It's not enough to take the books down unless this stuff is actively opposed, it will make its way in because it's in vigiva.

It's all over the place. It will seep into your church. And so you must actively oppose it or else, frankly, your church will be destroyed.

And I know churches who have been. So that is a warning. That is a very serious warning.

And I'm still encouraged that God is doing a work. I don't know what it is exactly. He's purifying his church.

I know he's interested in doing those kinds of things and lines are being drawn and I'm happy about that. And his church will go forward, but we need to be vigilant because even the elect can be deceived and not forever, for a time.

I mean, you can't accept critical theory full. You can't drink from that well and still remain a

Christian for too long because you're gonna realize the contradictions and you're gonna have to cast.

If you're truly a Christian, you'll cast critical theory away. And we're gonna be seeing that, I think, in the coming months and years.

We're gonna be seeing some people cast it away and other people embrace it and there will be a line drawn at some point.

So one final thing I just got to address real quick. Addison Garner sent me a message.

She is the, she was the, I guess the president of the

Young Americans for Liberty at, let's see here.

This is Liberty University. And they had a protest. This was a couple months ago.

I did a video. I interviewed her on LGBT and Me Too and opposing what Falwell and Donald Trump Jr.

had said. I'll be brief about this. I told her I'd include it though. So I wanna do this. She wrote me a little while ago.

It was maybe over a month ago and I've just been busy. But she said that she saw my blog's coverage of that and she was disappointed in it because Young Americans for Liberty was not behind the event.

And I insinuated that they were. I assumed they were, she says. And that Yerba Mate was not associated with Young Americans for Liberty.

They were, I had said that it was interesting. I saw these guys without, I didn't see any like logos on their shirts and on a very cold day, and I never see this at Liberty, but they're outside by this protest handing out soft drinks.

Students are stopping, getting the drink and then listening to the protest. And I was like, is there some kind of coordination there? And apparently she's saying, no, this is just what they do.

It's weird to me. I've never seen that before on a day that cold. Usually they would, you'd think they'd go inside or something, but okay.

You know, I'll just, fine. I'll give her that. That's perfectly reasonable. And I never said that they were necessarily coordinating, but I did say that, hey, you know, this looks suspicious.

And it was really suspicious. And it does. But she says every candidate that Young Americans for Liberty has supported is a

Republican candidate. They're not involved in LGBT issues. And here's, I wanna talk about this just for a moment. Young Americans for Liberty is a libertarian organization.

And since that protest, I've asked two people that I know, I'm not gonna give away their names cause they wouldn't appreciate it, but they are both at major universities.

One of them is the advisor for the Young Americans for Liberty group. And I asked him, I said, look, there's some suspicious things that happened at this protest, in my opinion.

And I'm not a hundred percent certain. I don't have evidence. That's a hundred percent that says Young Americans for Liberty hosted this, but here's, or sponsor this or was behind any of it.

But here's what I do have. The president of Young Americans for Liberty was the one that put out the poster and advertised that this

LGBT Me Too protest was happening. So, you know, she's being paid by Young Americans for Liberty and she's the one that's putting this out there.

It doesn't mean that she's doing it in her capacity as a worker for them, but the Young Americans for Liberty website at Liberty University says essentially that, you know,

Liberty University is not like those secular schools that, you know, they promote free speech. Liberty University has issues here. And I'm thinking

Liberty University, the only issue they have is if you go against their honor code. So if you're promoting free speech that is for affirming homosexuality or something, it's a private university, they have a right to association and they would say no, that's, we're not gonna have a club about that.

That's the only thing I could think of. And Young Americans for Liberty is saying Liberty University has this big problem. And I'm like, well, that's the only thing I can, comes to my mind.

And so it would make sense, it would be consistent with their mission if they did support this protest. Doesn't mean they did, it just would be consistent with what they say that they're promoting.

And furthermore, they are a libertarian organization and libertarians, there's all sorts of stripes, there's different libertarians out there.

But Young Americans for Liberty, from what I understand from the two sources that I talked to have gone leftward.

And Addison Gardner may be someone like this. I mean, you look at her Twitter, she's very much with the social justice movement and Christianity.

And, but yet she's also claiming that she's libertarian, she's for small government. And by the way, those two things can't really go together.

But, you know, she works for Amash now and Amash is one of these guys that, let's just put it this way, he is not for traditional marriage, he'd be for gay marriage.

So would Addison Gardner, it would be the government gets out of it, gay marriage is fine. And that's kind of like the libertarian position now.

And here's what I'm getting to, the two sources that I talked to said, yeah, absolutely Young Americans for Liberty is pro -LGBT.

Both of them said this. I should say it this way. One of them said, I would not be surprised in the least if Young Americans for Liberty did anything that was pro -LGBT.

The other one told me that, yes, in the state of California, one of them was California, one of them was, I'm not gonna say what state, but it's in the

South and they were an advisor. California that a lot of the leaders are homosexuals themselves.

And yeah, the Young Americans for Liberty has done some very pro -homosexual things. Now I did a little bit of research, about 10 minutes, 15 minutes maybe.

And I just Googled around to see what I could find. And I did find a few things of different chapters that were doing things that would be considered pro -LGBT.

I also found one thing from 2050 that could be considered anti -LGBT, but that was in 2015.

And from what these guys have told me, these sources, that there's been an evolution within or de -evolution within the organization.

So, all that to say, I wanted to acknowledge this because I told Addison that I would, but I still have my suspicions, honestly.

And I emailed Young Americans for Liberty to just say, look, did you guys sponsor this at all? There's no LGBT group.

There's no Me Too group. Your president's the one advertising this thing. And it looked pretty organized from the outside.

They had their posters and their flags and everything else. Like, did you organize this? Was this, I mean, media was there.

So they were contacted. So like what, I don't know, but what's going on?

I haven't received anything back from Young Americans for Liberty. Don't know what that means. But yeah, it is perfectly possible.

And I said this at the time, I wasn't 100 % sure. It is perfectly possible that this is all organic. But it could very well be that Young Americans for Liberty in some capacity without endorsing it, without coming out publicly, was encouraging it.

I don't know. I don't know. But I wanted to at least address that. And if I'm wrong on even having those suspicions, then

I'm sorry. I don't want to tarnish the good name of Young Americans for Liberty, but their name is already, apparently they've already been involved in some

LGBT type stuff. So it's not like I'm tarnishing anything. But yeah,

I don't want to spend long on that. That was just, that was for Addison because I said that I would address it. And I long to do those kinds of things.

If I get something wrong, you guys can certainly email me or contact me over social media.

And I will try to endeavor to address something if there's an inaccuracy somewhere. So this is my attempt.

I don't think that I was being inaccurate. So there you go. That is the episode for today.