The Woke-Free Controversy Explained

I'd like to bring an update on the Woke Free controversy, which in my mind is really two controversies, not one.

The first is theological. It is about wokeness coming into the Evangelical Free Church.

And the second is about the Evangelical Free Church taking on an increasingly authoritarian posture towards pastors within the movement.

We are to walk worthy of the call, and Ephesians 4, 1 -6 really should govern how each of us conducts ourselves in this controversy.

We need to be eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace. And I would fully affirm that all my brothers and sisters who name the name of Christ and truly believe in Him, we are one body.

We have the same Holy Spirit. We have the same hope. We're going to be in Heaven together. One day, all tears wiped away.

We will be in the presence of the Lamb. And these controversies and the struggles that we had in this world, we'll see the purpose of it and the reason why

God allowed us to go through this. And it was part of His decree. And we have one

Lord. We have one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

So Ephesians 4, 1 -6 is the passage of Scripture that I'm praying daily in this

EFCA controversy and praying for the Lord's will to be done. So the first issue, and I'll bring an update on it, regarding the woke -free controversy is theological.

There is a theological difference. And I think wokeness began to be introduced into the

EFCA as early as 2013. All EFCA pastors received this letter from Wesleyan Publishing House in which they say, you are receiving this complimentary copy of Bridging the

Diversity Gap by Alvin Sanders because the EFCA desires to put the book in the hands of every single

EFCA pastor and church planter. So this is the earliest place that I know of where the woke movement began to be introduced into our denomination.

The book is really terrible. It is chock -full with critical race theory and things of this nature.

Page 169 and page 170 refers to how when you begin to push the diversity, inclusion, equity agenda, and especially diversity with regard to ethnicity, he says that that movement will get watered down somewhat when people look for diversity in other areas like gender or sexuality or economics.

And he says his primary response is to frame the whole issue as an in -and -out group dynamic.

The other is the other, whether they are the other racial group, the other social class, or sexuality group, or the other in the forms of age or disability.

I have a training team whose primary function is to develop specific training for topics such as poverty, gender, and sexuality.

So his whole way of framing the issue is in the oppressor -oppressed -victim construct of a binary, the other, and then the majority that would be the oppressor.

So that's page 169 and 170, but it's all throughout the book as mentioned. So you get that, but not only that book, but Alvin Sanders then becomes hired as a sort of diversity officer for the free church.

And of course, that doesn't last too long because these fads, they come and go, as do the people who promote them.

After Sanders came Alex Mandes, and now he also has moved on.

So Sanders and Mandes and the doctrines of wokeness, of diversity, inclusion, equity as an emphasis for the free church.

Now, the questions of race and theology were directly addressed at the 2018

Theology Conference. This is when all of these things came to a head, and the

EFCA, Greg Strand, introduced Jarvis Williams. Jarvis Williams wrote this book.

It's called The Gospel in Color, and this is a primer for children to teach them not to be colorblind.

This is the point of this little book. He wrote it alongside Curtis Woods. So that similar perspective.

In the sermon that Jarvis Williams preaches in 2018, he says, he prays that the spirit would fall on us to do relentless anti -racism work, which of course is the language of Ibram X.

Kendi in his book, and relentless anti -racist work. And he says, every system, every structure, and our churches are built upon the backs in part of enslaved

Black people. You know, let me just pull up, see if I can share screen, and just show you these quotes so you don't think

I'm misrepresenting what he had to say. Okay.

That's not it. That was what I wrote yesterday to the church for my newsletter.

This, this is it. All right. Here's some quotes from Dr. Jarvis Williams in 2018 when the

EFCA taught on these matters. Relentless anti -racism work. And he says, this is going to stir it up.

This is going to stir the pot. We're going to arouse anger here. But he says, unfortunately, many

Christians espouse vague pieties about colorblind. So colorblindness comes into the crosshairs.

Now I've done other videos to, I actually did one on this particular presentation, so we won't belabor it, but on Jarvis Williams and interacting where these ideas of colorblindness come from and what is the nature of that argument.

But here he says, every system, every structure, and our churches was built upon the backs in part of enslaved

Black people because their Black skin was not white. Colorblindness actually perpetuates white supremacy.

And you can read the quote. I'll go quickly. You can pause it if you want to go into this in depth.

By the way, you have racism by intent and racism by consequence. It's a very important concept of critical race theory.

We inherited those consequences. Even if you don't have any hostility in your hearts towards Black people, you can't separate evangelicalism in this country from white supremacy.

Anti -racist, social justice work. Again, there's a whole presentation, the colonizing language.

And he equates the gospel in Luke to the social justice initiative. We, the people for whom

Jesus died, consist of some from every tribe, tongue, nation, people, red, white, and yellow, Black and white, all precious in his sight.

I would say that we're like answers in Genesis. Shades of gray from dark to light, each is precious in his sight.

Just go to the end here. There are Black folk who aren't woke. You can tweet that.

Well, we can use social media to tweet that. But unfortunately, that is woke ideology.

And it's deriding people like Vodie Bauckham, who wouldn't espouse the same doctrines, but would rather espouse vague pieties of colorblindness.

Bauckham wouldn't be woke like Jarvis Williams and Curtis Woods or the author of Woke Church, Eric Mason.

Okay, so after that book came out, I was,

I mean, after that presentation was given, I was on high alert. However, I didn't write a book until this theology refresher.

And I'm going to show a portion of it and interact with it, because this is what I interact with in my book,

Woke Free Church. I was accused of misrepresentation.

So what we need to do to establish the issue is see what was represented in the first place.

So here we go. One, four, six sessions that they've posted already.

D .A. Horton has posted a couple. Pat Sawyer has posted a couple. And there was an introductory session to it as well.

But here's what Pat Sawyer writes. And I thought it would be worthwhile. Pat Sawyer is white.

So we hear from Carl Ellis and then Pat Sawyer. He writes this. Critical race theory, a prominent critical social theory concerned about racial justice, has a place in my teaching, scholarship, and praxis.

I say this to underscore that while this series will be net critical of CRT, that doesn't mean that CRT has nothing to offer to social analysis, and that some of its insights aren't genuinely instructive when it comes to our racial history in the

U .S. and our current racial zeitgeist. Indeed, some aspects of CRT are notably discerning and percipient.

It is an injustice to truth to deny this or act otherwise. Before I move into an overview of CRT, I want to make a final point by way of introduction.

Where there is disagreement about CRT in the professed church, we should make every effort to ensure there is no hateful speech, no ad hominem attacks, and no slander.

The nuance and care needed with this topic should underscore the importance of sticking close to Christ's commands regarding our speech and how we communicate with one another.

In many respects, the enemy of souls is wreaking havoc in this regard. May we resist invective, let go of any vitriol, and do everything we can to abruptly halt our enemy's efforts.

And in his last post, he said this. While much more could be said about cautions regarding CRT, I must bring this to a close.

I want to conclude by making a final point about CRT. Part of CRT's allure, seduction even, is that it listens to Black people and all people of color and takes into full account their racial pain.

My dear friend William Deuce Branch, the ambassador, is quick to make this point.

He's also keen to emphasize the church's responsibility in this. Among other things, this is an indictment of the church, specifically white spaces in the church.

Racism is an abomination to God. It should not even be named among God's people. Yet much of the professing white church throughout its history in the

U .S. has been marked by either active engagement in racism, looking the other way, or acting as if it is no longer a concern.

Moreover, as historian and theologian Esau McCulley points out regarding historical evangelicalism, apexes of theological faithfulness coincided with nadirs of Black freedom.

Let that sink in. Well, with that in mind,

I invited Michael Rice, who has been in free church ministry since 2004 and is ordained with us and sits on the board of ministerial standing.

I've asked him to share his perspective as an

African American brother. And so, Michael, if you would join us. Okay, so he's quoting from Carl Ellis.

He also mentions Ed Stetzer, DA Horton, Pat Sawyer, Esau McCulley, Reading While Black, and William Deuce Branch, who happens to be a friend of mine.

And when I was an inner -city missionary in Kensington section of Philadelphia, inner -city Philly, we had a teen club of 70 to 100 teens would come out on a

Thursday night. And I would often invite William Deuce Branch to come and minister. He would rap and preach, and it was beautiful.

When things went wrong with the woke church over there, Eric Mason, where Deuce used to be a part of,

Deuce left that, and he was, I guess, looking for new opportunities. I was friends with him.

The pastor where I used to be in Florida retired, and he was looking to pass the baton.

So I contacted Deuce and tried to connect them that Deuce would become this pastor in St. Petersburg, Florida.

That did not work out. He didn't accept that, but he was gracious and thankful. So the point being, we have a friendship.

I'm surprised if the way Greg is representing Deuce is the case, but it could very well be.

The point is that concept that CRT is better at listening or so good at listening and we are not good at listening is the problem.

Because, you see, here, whether it's a friend or not, that idea, Esau McCulley's idea, is wrong.

You don't elevate Black voices. In fact, you should judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

Now, here, Greg Strand has said this is why he's called on Michael Rice. And as you listen, you'll see it's not because of a specific expertise, although he is a member of the board of ministerial standing.

So it's not like Jeff is picking on people who, you know, I shouldn't be or Greg, anybody like that.

This is the board of ministerial standing. They have that seat and they have that role in the free church to guard doctrine.

But sadly, they're not guarding doctrine against reading while Black. They're introducing reading while Black.

Now, we're going to listen to what Michael Rice says. And, you know, I'm just going to it'll become a bit of a longer video, but we need to listen to the whole thing in order to see if I have misrepresented him in the book,

Woke Free Church. Because that becomes a second issue, then rather than dealing with the controversy, the difference that we're having theologically, what the free church has tried to do is to in kind of an authoritarian way, just ostracize me, marginalize me, try to push me to the side in order to paint me as just a jerk, you know, rather than to engage the substance of the issue.

So let's listen to the actual teaching. I'll make comments if I choose to, you know, pause it for a moment, but we'll take the whole thing in one piece.

At this point, that would be great. Yeah. Great. Well, hopefully you can all hear me.

Greg asked me to give some of my thoughts on this earlier this week. And so this is obviously not comprehensive nor final.

It's a work in process. Just as Greg said himself, of himself, he's not an expert in this.

I am far less of an expert in this, but I wanted to just share with you some of my thoughts on it.

In light of this discussion on critical theory and its potential corrosiveness in the life of both the believer and the church,

I wanted to just talk about the better way to consider and begin to resolve issues of race and oppression and exclusion and things like that.

And that way is by relating to others according to the gospel, living gospel -shaped relationships with all people, letting the gospel shape our relationships with all people.

Now, I just want to say real quick why I called critical theory, critical race theory, that ideology potentially corrosive rather than absolutely corrosive.

And it was really gotten at in the last couple of posts that we had. We can't really simply dismiss all of critical theory out of hand, just like they tried to do with Martin Luther at the

Diet of Warts. They asked him to recant everything. And some of the things were just pure orthodox theology and commentary.

That's too rich. I can't help but comment here, because that's exactly what was done to me with my book.

Nobody would ever provide even one quote of anything I ever said or wrote at any point that was wrong or hurtful or anything.

But I was asked to just recant it in toto. So there were things that the church would have commended otherwise if they weren't so intent on entirely discrediting the man.

In the same way, it's critical that we consider the claims of critical theory critically.

So what is good about it? Well, critical theory, critical race theory does indeed alert us to persisting problems within power structures that continue to disadvantage people of certain demographics.

And they make it especially difficult for the majority of a given group to escape the stigmas and challenges imposed on it by generations of what we might call suppression or oppression.

Did we hear that? It does indeed alert us to systemic racism. So who are these power structures?

Well, I mean, of course, the first one would be the police. That's usually the charge given. Of course,

Votie Bauckham refutes that idea in his book, Fault Lines.

When I was studying in seminary, I had a speaker come address one of our groups, and he described it this way.

He says, to think that we're all on a level playing field now is to think of a foot race where some people were fitted with leg shackles at the starting line.

Now we're three laps out of four laps in and the leg cuffs are removed and you're told to finish the race.

Now all things are equal. The problem is the three laps that you ran with legs chained together put you at a nearly insurmountable disadvantage, put you nearly insurmountably behind those who began the race unencumbered.

It's true that some individuals will be able to overcome the deficit, but the majority will live and die never being able to catch up in a race that was rigged from the start.

You know where that quote actually came from? That was Lyndon Johnson when he was instituting his

New Deal, whatever, great leap forward kind of thing.

Shelby Steele writes about it in his book, White Guilt, and talks about how this is the point of affirmative action taking root and the destruction of the nuclear family.

This speech at Howard University given by Lyndon Johnson, which is where that was introduced.

So the one thing that critical theory has going for it is that it alerts us to structures of disadvantage.

And then the second thing is the corollary alerts us, if we let it, to corresponding structures of advantage for those who have always had privilege and have been able through generations to leverage that privilege into even more privilege and alerted to it.

It's the white privilege binary, the oppressor class, the victim class, and systemic racism, historical racism.

It is the narrative of social justice, period. It could motivate the justly inclined to look for ways to really see everyone lifted out of injustice.

So that's why I hedge it with the word potentially corrosive. But on the other hand, it is truly corrosive in the advocation of violence and in seeking reversal where the oppressed now get to be the oppressor and in seeking not simply to raise up the downtrodden, but also to destroy the ones who have previously benefited from the structure that enabled them to thrive thus far.

As well as corrosive in that it creates adversarial groups rather than seeking allies and alliances.

And in doing so, it fails to recognize individuals who truly seek to be part of the solution.

I don't know how we will change that, but I do want to offer some ways that we can be part of the solution by seeking to let the gospel shape how we relate to one another, how we relate to everyone.

So first of all, as I've been thinking about it, the gospel is always towards reconciliation, both vertically and horizontally.

You all know Second Corinthians where Paul declares that we have been given the ministry of reconciliation whereby we implore people to be reconciled to God.

And when we look at that in light of Ephesians 2, Ephesians 2 informs that reconciliation and shows that the reconciliation is not just man to God, but also man to man as well.

That where we were once divided, Christ himself by his sacrifice destroyed the barrier that stood between us, making the two now one, in order as one new people to be reconciled, all of them to God together.

Now clearly the direct application there is between Jew and Gentile, but I think that the extended application speaks to all relationships that are exchanged on the basis of bias and prejudice of any kind.

And it clearly prohibits any perpetuation of racial enmity or antagonism.

Moreover, being in Christ compels us to magnify the virtue of love in all relationships.

Relationships with brothers and sisters, relationships with those outside the fellowship of believers as well, and to condition our actions and practices on whether or not they exhibit

Christ's love. Jesus himself tells us in John 13 that the key way that we are going to be identified as belonging to him is in the love that we show for one another.

And John reminds us again in his first letter to the church, fourth chapter, that anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love

God, whom he has seen. I mean, who he's not seen. We are called to love our enemies.

We are called to love our neighbors, even if that neighbor is the hated Samaritan, as we see in Jesus' parable.

The one with whom we have the greatest division of all, because that love images

Christ's love and draws people to the solution for their greatest need,

Jesus himself. We need to be loving towards all people, regardless of what makes them different.

We need to be extending Christ's love to all people, regardless of whatever it is that may make us in our flesh not want to love them, so that our shortcomings do not become a hindrance to their seeing

Christ. This means living in obedience to the law of love, living love, doing good to all people, as it says in Galatians 6, especially, but it doesn't say explicitly, but especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

So we're supposed to be loving the believer and the unbeliever alike, doing good to the believer and the unbeliever alike.

And one of our national conferences, I think it was the one that was in Denver, President Hamill made just a profound comment that I always remember.

I paraphrase it, I don't remember exactly, but he was talking about the church's relationship to homosexuals and how they see

Christians as some of the meanest and most hateful people that they could ever come across, and how sad that was, because that view of us would keep them from seeing

Christ. And that's just tragedy. Rather, what we should be, should be the most loving people that they could ever meet.

And though they might clearly see our disagreement, they should never doubt our love.

We should never live in a way that might cause people to doubt our love.

That way, through our love, people might come to long for Christ's love and find their everything in Him.

If our lives are not loved, then people won't be drawn to their Savior through us. And that is true for every relationship by God's providence that we are given to be part of.

So first, we need to lead with love. Gospel -shaped relationships are loving relationships, loving everybody with the love that Christ has given us.

And then in addition, the gospel compels us to humility, where we lift others up, and where we serve others, and put the needs and even feelings of others before ourselves.

And I look there to Philippians 2, where the word commands us, do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility, consider others better than yourselves.

Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Gospel relationships means humbling ourselves and considering the needs of others above ourselves, above our own.

It means approaching others not with an air of superiority, as though you have all the answers, but entering into relationships, especially among those who have experienced systemic trauma, like racism and sexism and all the other isms that we might consider.

Approaching them in love and approaching as a learner, bringing

Christ into the relationship, but coming to serve, to show Christ compassion in their circumstance, to show

Christ compassion in their trauma, asking others how they're doing, how they're faring, and how you, as Christ's representative, can make things better for them.

Seeking to walk alongside others and lift them up, using whatever influence that you may have to help those with less influence, and recognizing that the greatest need of everyone, every one of us, is to be right with God through Jesus.

But that we are also called to minister not just to eternal needs, but temporal needs as well.

It means caring for others in need, those who would be described as victims, caring for others physically and spiritually and politically, those who are powerless, caring for those who are on the receiving end of injustice, receiving unfavorable treatment on the basis of attributes that they can't change.

So, the question I would ask is, how do we respond to those who are in trauma?

Trauma that has been built up over years, how do we respond to those who are in crisis or those who might see you with suspicion because you're part of the them group?

That's always been, at least in their perception, those who you want to be careful of because they'll stab you in the back.

We need to approach with compassion, we need to seek understanding, we need to be clear not to be patronizing and not making light of or belittling or de -emphasizing the reality of people's trauma that they've experienced.

Especially, and I see this in the circles that I travel in quite a bit, we need to be especially slow to jump to blame the injured for their own injury or assume that they were at fault in some way.

As a pastor, I think one of my greatest opportunities is to just be with people in their trauma.

I think about Job's friends. Job's friends were fantastic encouragers for a quarter of the book.

They opened their mouths and started saying foolish things, and they started blaming

Job for everything that was going on wrong in his life, and they ceased to be those whose message could be heard.

We need to not jump to blame the injured for their own injury or assume their fault.

We need to be recognizing that though we have made incredible strides, and I was talking with Greg about this earlier this week, though we have made incredible strides in areas of justice, inclusion, and all these other things, nevertheless, these injustices continue to persist, and we all need to strive together to see that prejudicial practices get removed from our regular way of doing life.

Prejudging thoughts are banished more and more from our instincts.

One of the things that I, again, was talking with Greg about is that years ago when

I came into Free Church Leadership, we had a conference of all the African American ministry leaders at that time, and one of our guys talked about how it's like we're on a road trip from Chicago to LA, and now we're in Denver, and some of our white brothers want to say, hey, look how far we've come, we're doing so well, and some of our

African American brothers want to say, but we're a long way from LA.

We're still a long way from LA, and I think that the thing is that we need to recognize and celebrate both and affirm both and realize that we have come a long way, and we do still have a long way to go.

But the other thing that I wanted to really key in on is as we think about this issue of critical theory that defines groups as oppressed and oppressor, we want to think about empathy, which the gospel demands in Romans 12.

It tells us to rejoice with those who rejoice, to weep with those who weep, and we need to really do that.

We need to get alongside those who have experienced trauma and get inside what they have experienced and understand the reality of it and minister to them in the midst of it.

I think as well of 1 Corinthians 12, where we talk about the church and the parts of the body and how if one part of the body is honored, the whole body rejoices with it, and when part of the body suffers, the whole body suffers with it.

I don't think that we do a great job of suffering with those who are suffering.

So I'll take you back to Article 8. It's all about really living out

Article 8, how we express the gospel in the way that we live with others. How do

I love sacrificially, really? What does it mean to love others sacrificially and to live out our faith with care for one another and compassion towards the poor and justice for the oppressed?

When we first proposed that article change or article addition, I was a little leery and skeptical and fearful because I think now we put it on paper and we can point to it and say, this is what we believe, irrespective of whether this is what we practice.

So it's got to be more than just words on a page. It's got to be what our lives look like.

So that's my thoughts on all of it. Michael, thank you so much for sharing that.

Let me transition just a little bit. John Beagle, looks like we can do a couple of things.

We can do seven minutes of Q &A if you would like, or we can just go to a break and give them seven minutes extra.

I know that Michael would be glad to answer all the questions. Anyway, I think, yeah, it'd be great if we could get a couple questions in.

Oh, by the way, you know, the other thing that I would say, and Michael, I just amen all that you shared.

It was a very fitting application to, you know, it seemed to me anyway, the many things that I had shared prior to that.

So thank you very much. The other thing I was going to mention is the notion of identity.

Michael had mentioned it. And just so you know, the identity politics with which we live today, that's a segue to the next session.

And just the notion of the polarization with identity politics too, but identity politics is rooted in intersectionality.

So, okay, John. All right. Well, if you have any questions, you are allowed to unmute yourself and ask.

Don't everybody jump at once. Hey, it's

Doug Tooman from Sparta Church. How are you? Hey, guys. Thank you for this today.

I was looking forward to this. And Greg, your time into it, it's on all our minds, obviously.

That's why we're here. And I have a thousand questions. I'm sure everybody else does. But just briefly, Mike, appreciate your words.

Thank you so much for taking the time to do this in front of this intimidating crowd. Can I just ask you an honest question,

Mike? How, and here I am where I, like, I know I'm missing things, perhaps. I just don't know what they are.

So when you say – I love your statement about the illustration of getting from Chicago to L .A. and we're in Denver as a free church.

So help me understand why we're not in L .A. What do I need to do to get to L .A.? I think the matter is that we still need to recognize that as a free church, we – yeah, that was the context.

It was in the context of how the free church was playing along.

And again, this was 2004 when I was coming in. And we're probably maybe in Carson City or something.

We're getting closer. But, you know, we look around, and number one, there are very few people like me in our denomination.

And maybe that's a function not of our denomination itself, but a wariness and skepticism of evangelicalism in general.

I know that, you know, we look at the last election cycle, and I don't want to be political in any way, but there was a really huge endorsement of Trump in terms of evangelicals.

And those who are skeptical of evangelicalism and see that as a power structure that needs to come down, they were kind of – they're scared and upset that people who they say claim to follow

Christ are also those who seem to excuse things that would otherwise be inexcusable.

There's issues on both sides where you don't necessarily want to endorse either side.

But that's one of the realities, is that we are largely doing things that continue to perpetuate the divide and looking the other way when we see things that could be still considered racially motivated, or we might look the other way where things are – in cases of abuse and things like that.

So, you know, I think it's really a large part of what Greg said, is that we need to own our sins historically and currently, and then repent of those to move forward.

Am I still on? Yeah, and I'll just – last statement, John, if that's okay. Yes. And Mike, that's not a test question.

That was an honest, hard question. I just want to hear your heart on that, so I appreciate that. And I'm sure there's so much more that I'd love to learn more about that as we keep talking.

Thank you, guys. That's a good question, Doug, and often

I think what happens is with social media today, and so many things we can say about that, but we live so much of life globally when life is lived embodied locally.

And so we need to build relationships where we are. And, you know, on the one hand, it's kind of simple, but then on the other hand, it's like, well, where do

I have the time to do that? Well, right. I mean, that gets to be sort of the rub to some degree.

But it's a great question, Doug. It's the right question, I think, for us to be asking. Greg Scharf wrote in a question.

Do we have a strategy for countering critical theory among youth and teens? They're being inundated with this stuff.

Okay, before Greg Strand gives book recommendations, just a comment here.

I let it just play in toto. And then my book is a reasoned response after careful consideration with direct quotes.

Let me just read from my book a few pages of how I responded to that presentation.

In the spring of 2021, this is from Woke Free Church. So this is the book that,

I guess, started the controversy as the free church would see it. Of course,

I see it as something that began in 2013 when the divisive doctrine was first introduced. Greg Strand addressed the pastors of the

Eastern District of the EFCA via Zoom to warn us about the dangers of critical race theory.

In his presentation, he spent an hour surveying the historical development of the theory and showing why it's bad.

The presentation was thoroughly researched and helpful, as would be expected based upon Greg's stellar body of work.

But then in a sudden twist in the plot, he halted the word of exhortation and called upon a novice to carry the final 30 minutes of the presentation.

First Timothy 620. This man began his segment by admitting his lack of expertise on the subject, acknowledging that while even

Greg does not claim to be an expert on the subject, he himself knows far less.

The testimony that followed was a 30 minute example of critical race theory. The pastors were told that rooting out racism in the church was like a journey from Chicago to Los Angeles.

From the 1960s to 2004, we made it as far as Denver. Most whites are content in Denver because they celebrate the fact that we're no longer in Chicago.

But most blacks are upset that we're not in L .A. That's the status of the race conversation in America.

We're at a stalemate because whites are too content. This is in quotes and blacks, quote, are too discontent with how racist or not racist

America is today. He went on to say that since 2004, we've progressed maybe as far as Carson City, but there's still a long way to go.

Now, that's just summarizing. Now, here's some of my commentary. Charging a group or in this case, an entire nation with something so horrible as racism would require evidence.

So this presenter asked the pastors to admit as evidence white evangelical support for Donald Trump.

That's a quote. This support, he says, left black people feeling skeptical, scared and upset.

Why is it that white evangelicals claim to follow Christ, yet they seem to excuse things that are otherwise inexcusable?

Again, a quote. Blacks can only assume racism. A second example was offered, but it actually didn't have anything whatsoever to do with race.

He cited the grievance of homosexuals. They say that evangelicals are the meanest and the most hateful of all people.

If that's how they see us, then we must be doing something wrong. Our approach keeps them from seeing

Christ. It is incumbent on us to change the way we're doing things and learn to lead with love.

No more evidence was offered, but evangelicals continue to be charged with causing systemic trauma like racism, sexism and all the isms.

Again, these are direct quotes from the Michael Rice presentation. We are hurting the victims and the powerless, quote unquote.

We treat, quote, people unfair, unfavorably based on attributes they can't change, end quote.

We approach people, quote, with suspicion. If they aren't one of us, quote, but are part of the, quote, them group.

So we add to their, quote, trauma and worsen the, quote, crisis. Here again, quoting, to think that we are all on an equal playing field now, end quote, is like forcing someone to run three laps of a four lap race with leg shackles, then taking them off for the final lap and saying the race is now fair.

Quote, a majority of people will live and die never being able to catch up in a race that was rigged from the start.

This is clearly a summary of what Michael has taught. That was his assessment.

So his representation, his assessment, his appraisal of the problem.

So my book says that was his assessment of the problem. Notice the vocabulary, hateful, systemic, trauma, racism, sexism, victims, powerless.

It is critical for every Christian to gain awareness of the theory from which this language springs.

We'll start there in chapter one. So we do definitions in chapter one. So almost done here.

And what was his solution? This is Michael Rice's solution. We must, quote, own our sins historically and currently.

So I summarize, we need to repent. Then, quote, prejudicial practices must be, quote, removed from our way of doing life and must be, quote, banished from our instincts.

But how? Well, critical race theory, quote, does indeed alert us to persisting problems that disadvantage by generations of supremacy, end quote.

Michael Rice's words at the beginning of his presentation. It can be a useful tool, even if not to be trusted on par with the

Bible. So I say the pastor giving the, quote, testimony actually recommended the very thing, critical race theory, that Greg Strand set out to denounce.

They went on to suggest we read some authors who can help us along. Now, here is where we pick up in the video with Greg.

He's going to recommend Rebecca McLaughlin. Rebecca McLaughlin, this last year, argued in the good faith debates put on by the

Gospel Coalition for the woke position. Let that sink in.

She hadn't done it yet when Greg recommended her, but she goes on to do that.

He'll also recommend Sam Albury and others. So let's listen to Greg recommend these people.

I expect you to have the answer. Well, Greg, you need to be doing this with your grandkids.

And yeah, honestly, I would say this issue, I would say the next issue we're going to address and a host of other things.

I would say. That that what's being manifested, I think, especially in the last year,

I think that this is another session, but there's a sifting that's happening with the church. I think all too often we have we have imbibed an

Americanized version of Christianity that borders a little bit almost on prosperity theology, which we don't imbibe.

But but there's sort of this idea, this notion of an Americanized version of Christianity. We can have our best life now.

What? Where's the cross? I've been crucified with Christ.

And so it's kind of absent. And I think that what this reveals, Greg, and I'm thinking about these things.

And in fact, I forwarded to a couple of pastors a statement from Ryan Anderson.

Some of you will know the name Ryan Anderson. His book was removed from Amazon when Harry became

Sally. Not Harry met Sally when Harry became Sally. And there was an interview with him and he said, what does the church need?

What sort of instruction? And he said what they need is being catechized on a theology of the body.

And he went through it, a whole host of different kinds of things. And I would say this. I think this session, next session, it reveals a fundamental flaw,

I think, in the catechizing in our local churches of God's people. I think there's a fundamental flaw, a gap, a weakness in what we're instructing them in the faith.

So that when there's pressure and we're now the minority, not a majority, and we're moving that way, there will be another sifting.

More I could say, but Greg, I see that you want to get a word in again. Just quickly, Greg, what book would you say

I could give to my 17 -year -old granddaughter that would not blow her away?

She's a thoughtful girl, but would help her navigate this. In other words, at a basic but accurate level.

Yeah, a couple of things come to mind. Sam Albury has written some very helpful things. A name you may well know.

Vaughn Roberts is another that you would be familiar with. Another would be

Rebecca McLaughlin. What do Sam Albury and Vaughn Roberts and Rebecca McLaughlin all have in common?

They all identify as same -sex attracted. Written her book two years ago on apologetic issues, was the book of the year at Christianity Today.

She's coming out with a new one. It's 10 questions that children should be confronting

Christianity. She's got a new one coming out in two weeks or so.

She's another one that I think would be good. Those are some, but I think that we need to catechize.

Keith, since you put that in there, do you have other suggestions, brother? Yes. Was Greg asking related to CRT?

No, no, no. Well, yes, I was. I was asking from critical theory in general and maybe specialized things on critical race theory.

But anything that would help kids get the lay of the land before they're deluged with a freshman indoctrination at a public university.

At that point, do it in utero. Because the social media, right?

Anyway, Keith. Thaddeus Williams, who I think is a

Talbot. Yep, he is. He has a book that came out with Zonderman not long ago called

Confronting Injustice Without Compromising Truth. And John Perkins does the foreword to that.

John Perkins also does the foreword to the book Woke Church by Eric Mason. I refute this

Thaddeus Williams approach of social justice A versus social justice B, which gets presented to the

EFCA at the next theology conference, the 2022 theology conference after this presentation.

John Perkins is the one who advocates for reconciliation, ministry, racial reconciliation, relocation and redistribution.

That's his famous three C's. He is into social justice. He is not the source that we ought to be recommending.

How about Votie Bauckham, John MacArthur, James White, Josh Bice, Tom Askell, somebody who helped to write the

Dallas Statement on Social Justice. That would be in the gospel. That would be a helpful recommendation. But to recommend the people who are on the wrong side is not a refutation of CRT.

Now, of course, this is the side that was supposed to be dismantling CRT, this part of Greg's presentation.

The second half was against Christian nationalism. And that's where Greg will go on to recommend

Samuel Perry and Andrew Whitehead, who are flaming social justice leftist liberals.

I've listened to their teachings at Georgetown University, a number of places. And it's outrageous that they would be the construct that that Greg would use for his

Christian nationalism debate. But this was the attempt of the FCA to show the dangers and to protect people from critical race theory, critical race theory.

If Greg Sharp's daughter is given a book by Rebecca McLaughlin, she's been given poison.

Not the antidote. That is one that I think could be helpful for someone that age.

Well, especially she's thoughtful. And I agree, Keith. I think he's done a good job.

I like how he's also enfolded other people to respond to the various issues.

The 12 key questions that he raises, right? Four different issues, three questions under each. It's quite good.

Very helpful, I think. But, you know, have a parent read it with her. Or maybe be grandpa, you know, honestly.

Thank you, Keith. John, I'm wanting to be sensitive. Yeah, sure. Well, maybe let's do one more.

And if you all want to stick around for that one more or if you want to start your break. Well, Keith then answers after this, this one more and gives an amazing point about how

Keith Plummer. This is the professor from Cairn about how we can't just accept stories of trauma and claims of systemic racism and things like that.

But we have to look for whether there was an actual sin or an actual violation of justice that precipitated the charge.

So Keith Plummer does not get criticized in this book because what he shared was absolutely helpful at that point.

And then it goes on from there into the next part of the presentation.

So my book then is a an answer to what I think is dangerous teaching.

OK, I think much of that teaching from Michael Rice was dangerous.

It's not an ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem attack on Greg Strand or on Michael Rice.

Here's what I actually say about Greg and Michael in the book 161. This is reading from Woke Free Church.

I don't believe Greg Strand is part of the woke intelligentsia. It's owed to the fact that Greg Strand helped to write one of the greatest documents in Christian history.

The EFCA statement of faith. It's just funny because the answer of the

EFCA to me writing this book was a letter that Cedric and Tony sent out to all the

EFCA East pastors in which I was. It was said that I don't I don't fully subscribe to the statement of faith, which

I love the EFCA statement of faith. I wrote a book on it and I basically published my ordination thesis in defense of it.

Love it. Back to what I said here that I believe he stands to be helped.

He clearly loves God in the Bible. I consider him a brother. I think Greg Strand is a beloved brother in Christ who has unwittingly imbibed elements of CRT.

So I expect he will receive my straightforward public rebuke like Peter listened to Paul.

Galatians 2 11 Proverbs 27 6 says faithful are the wounds of a friend.

Profuse are the kisses of an enemy. Because of the fundamental strength of the free church,

I am free to write without fear of reciprocity, concern for losing credentials or anxiety about being punished in any way.

Well, I was naive because we move on now to part two of this video.

And that is the authoritarian response of the EFCA toward me publicly interacting with public teaching.

This public teaching that's been pushed since at least 2013 and addressed in a national theology conference in 2018.

And by the way, that wasn't just the Jarvis Williams only. There were others there. I think Carl Ellis was one of them who might have spoken in 2018, if I'm not mistaken.

But it's been a persistent teaching. Just read everything that Alex Mendes wrote over the course of his tenure as essentially a diversity officer for the movement.

And there's no need for me to cite more evidence that that woke element has been taught elements of this diversity inclusion equity movement.

Well, here's the second part of this video. And that is there is an authoritarian impulse.

It's not totalitarian. Totalitarianism would start with the idea that the individual has no freedom and that the only freedoms they're granted are what the state or this institution confers upon them.

Authoritarianism might start from the basis of freedom, but it begins to take areas of authority over the individual, certain areas.

And that is certainly the case of what's happening with what was once a free church. The power is now being nationalized.

It's being centralized. And someone like me for writing Woke Free Church is being censored by the free church.

The first was that letter written by Tony and Cedric, which was a horrible letter, which alleged that I was writing this book,

Woke Free Church, while pursuing ordination. Of course, I pursued ordination and got my license in 2017 and then completed my full ordination in something like February of 2020.

I wrote this book in the summer. It was of 2021. In the summer, well after.

So that was just a slanderous libel, a lie. It needs to be retracted because it wasn't true.

Sent to the pastors and then saying that I should have gone privately to all of the 30 -some people named in the book.

However, this is a public dispute. When someone teaches publicly all of the free church and pushes information, if we're going to refute that, it needs to be public so that the people who were led astray can now be brought back to the truth.

So it's not a private personal offense. I've never even had a cup of coffee with Greg or never met

Michael Rice. Now, I did reach out to them and send them my email and my personal cell phone and said, contact me if there's any offense or any harm.

I love you, brother. I want to be reconciled towards you as a brother. So bring any offense. But no one ever did that kind of Matthew 18 thing with me.

So the letter from Tony and Cedric was sent to all the pastors. I responded to that with a video explaining what

I just now repeated here. Here is the response then of the free church.

In May of 2021, I received a letter from BOMBS saying that I would be stripped of my ordination.

Turns out it's more like a discipline of my ordination. It's not that I would be defrocked, but I'd have to send my certificate in to be held in trust by them until which time they see that I'm repentant.

And the charges that they bring are four. Four charges. One, actions.

Misrepresentation of Cedric Brown. When I didn't even criticize his book, I mean, his article,

The Unmuted Gospel, which is chock full of critical race theory. It's misrepresentation of him when it was his letter that I was responding to.

Michael Rice and Greg Strand, in your public communications and in an inaccurate, unwise, unhelpful, injurious manner of addressing your perceived disagreements with them.

So the first charge is misrepresentation. I think what they mean is wrong appraisal because they don't claim that I misquoted or misstated what they were saying.

It's that I'm appraising this as having elements of wokeness, whereas they don't appraise that to be the case.

But they call that misrepresentation. Number two, and this is this one. I was stunned when

I read it. Views holding to Christian nationalism. Confusing the mission of Christ and his church with specific political views, associations, and actions in contemporary

American political and social culture. Also holding to the misconstrued notion that any conversation, accusation or suggestion of racism or injustice, whether in society or in the church, is invalid and a form of critical race theory.

So allegedly, I think that there's no such thing as racism. It never happens that if it ever happens, that's critical race theory.

And then the third. And so now I'm charged with Christian nationalism.

Number three was attitude. A spirit of unteachable, unteachableness of failing to see any log in your own eye.

Matthew 7, 3 to 5. Of course, not quoting John 7, which also talks about stop judging by appearances, but judge, make a right judgment.

There is a time to make judgments when confronted by fellow five fellow pastors of the

EFCA East D bombs and an overall attitude of arrogance about your own views, combined with a lack of self -awareness about how your attitudes and actions have brought harm to individuals and churches.

So attitude of unteachableness. Now, of course, there are many more pastors who have contacted me saying this book is right and helpful from the

EFCA. Then there are these few that were either criticized in my book, many of them who have taught the same things.

And and I basically were impartial judges when they came to examine me.

So basically, attitude is unless you admit that you're wrong, you have a bad attitude.

You know, rather than addressing the substance. So it could be that I'm wrong. Right. I don't think that I'm infallible.

Right. The Bible says Paul, speaking of his own self, he says, my conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent.

It's the Lord that judges me. My conscience is clear. I don't know of a place where I've erred in what I've written or said.

But if I have show me so that I can correct that so that I can be correctable.

But actually, it's arrogant to just condemn like the diet of worms, the entire person, his whole body of work and just chuck that person out as being whatever.

So influence is the fourth one. Influence. These things have caused needless division among pastors and churches and have derailed constructive and incisive deliberations about legitimate disagreements that could have resulted in helpful progress all around within the

FCA relative to avoiding worldly snares and pressing ahead fruitfully in multiplying transfer transformational churches among all people.

So the problem here is influence. Well, guess what? When you write blogs and articles and send out books and do theology conferences, you're wanting to influence.

And when I write a book, I'm wanting to influence. The question is truth, not whether people are influenced this way or that by it.

What's true is what I'm writing and saying true or is it false? The influence would be what we're kind of after here.

We do want to influence towards good. So when I received this the same day, I wrote back to Dave Lind Lindy, who was the chair of board of ministerial standing.

And I said, listen, if I've misrepresented represented, you need to give me at least one quote, one page number of what you're saying is a misrepresentation.

You can't just charge me with misrepresentation without giving me what what it is specifically diet of worms.

And he flatly refused. And we went back and forth and he said, well, you just need to go talk to these people and then et cetera, et cetera.

So finally, on May 22nd, I wrote, you charged a Christian brother and an ordained EFCA pastor with misrepresentation.

To be clear, for the record, you are directly refusing my repeated pleas to provide even one example of this alleged misrepresentation.

Well, he did flatly refuse to provide. He never sent one page number, let alone a quote or anything that is unbiblical or wrong that I've said.

And I'm not claiming that I've always said everything right, but I need to be given the charge specifically.

So then he said in that correspondence, as we went on, that I claim to be a

Christian nationalist. So moving on to charge number two, they're charging me of Christian nationalism and I object.

In fact, this is a great irony. Chapter six of this book is entitled

Christian nationalism. I don't think they know that or have read have read that in any case.

So Paolo was one of the five Paolo Freer in that room who had examined me. And so I wrote to Paolo.

Will you please correct the record here? Dave Lindy has asserted, explain what you mean when you say, as you affirm to the

EFCA East DBOMS, District Board of Ministerial Standing, you are a

Christian nationalist. So I write to Paolo to say, can you please correct the record?

You were in the room. I never claimed to be a Christian nationalist. And they're saying that this is my own claim that I have to now defend because I claim he didn't respond to my email.

And I asked, hey, are you out there? You know, but he completely ghosted me and acted as if I never asked for this clarification whatsoever.

Instead, I get a letter from Dave Lindy, another email. Jeff, I conferred with Paolo, who confirmed that the conclusion of the

EFCA East DBOMS members who met with you was that you do subscribe to Christian nationalism.

This leaves open, of course, the question of what it is meant by Christian nationalism. Some versions of it are very acceptable in the

EFCA, while others are not. I mean, this is this is bizarre. It truly is.

They have Paolo just confirmed with Dave that he thinks I'm a Christian nationalist, but they won't even say what that is or whether that's acceptable or not.

So Dave writing to Jeff, that's to me as well. You have formally requested to meet with with bombs in person and your request is granted.

Because I was feeling like this this trial is a complete sham. It's there's no evidence or consideration of charges and a chance to defend myself.

So I asked for a trial or a chance to just talk to come in person, meet with bombs and sit down and talk this out.

He says the basis of granting your request is our bylaw related to credential pastors. Any pastor charged with doctrinal or moral error shall have the right to present his case at his own expense.

So that means traveling to the place at a regularly scheduled meeting or at the discretion of bombs at a special meeting.

The very next day I got an email saying they changed their mind. They would zoom me in in a couple of days and I could present my defense.

My case. So I don't get to go meet with them in person and talk brother to brother and see if we can work through this.

No, I have I have one hour to prevent it present a defense. So I say the purpose of the meeting you say the purpose of the meeting is to present your case.

Please allow me to hear anything that is presented in your case against me. I'm the defendant.

I have nothing to prove. I have a right to hear the allegations and whatever evidence you have against me so that I can craft a defense.

Prosecutors present cases against defendants. Defendants defend themselves. Well, he writes back and this is prior to our bombs meeting the one hours in Dave says to Jeff.

The evidence is views Christian nationalism politics racial issues interactions of the

EFCA East D bombs members with you and your book. That's the evidence for views this fragment of a sentence misrepresentation your book influence.

Influence the various pastors and churches who have been troubled by the method and insinuations of your book attitude and conduct your meeting with EFCA D bombs and this email thread going back to April.

Please share the email thread. I've read a few of what's in that thread all of it. I want the public to see in fact, please share the bombs one hour where I do defend myself against these charges.

Please do that. I want that public. I want none of that hidden. I know that you've asked for that to be kept private. So I'm not putting that video out where I sat and gave my one hour zoom defense.

But finally, then after my zoom defense, the authoritarian judgment comes forth and to Christian nationalism.

I was found. Boom, boom, boom, not guilty. In light of its ambiguous meaning.

So why did you charge me with it? Your denial of the characteristics of extreme and moderate

Christian nationalism and affirmations by the people who actually know me. It's a good thing.

They did allow those three witnesses to sit and listen to this because they they affirmed what nonsense it was.

But then as far as misrepresentation attitude and influence, I was found guilty on those charges.

Because they say I never actually tried to reach out to Greg and Michael, even though the email shows that I sent my personal cell phone number and I didn't hear anything from Michael.

I've never had his email address, never had any contact with him. But I sent him that email through Greg for him to call me if he'd like to talk about any personal things and work through it.

And he never called, which I'm sure would affirm. And then, Greg, I saw at a theology refresher the next year.

He hugged me in the hall. I went in, sat with him, and we all had our couple hours of theology, which was beautiful and glorious, which is, by the way, we are one body.

We have one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism. There's so much more that unites us than what divides us.

Afterwards, I spoke to Greg for about 15 minutes, a couple other people milling around, and he turned to me as I told him

I have to go because I wouldn't be able to be at day two of the refresher. He says, I'll give you a call. He never called.

He went on sabbatical. I left it at that. But now Paolo is saying, I never tried to deal with any of the personal matters with Greg.

I've been an open book the whole time. My cell phone number I've made available. I've reached out.

I don't have a personal offense or anything to press with these brothers.

But they're trying to take my credential and hold it in discipline, until which time

I were to repent. So here's where it stands. This is the conclusion of the matter. I appealed this process from BOMBS to the

National Conference. So to the pastors of the EFCA, I am making an appeal.

So in June of 2023, we have our pastor gathering.

And remember, the EFCA is not designed to be an authoritarian, top -down institution.

Just because there are people who want to push diversity, inclusion, equity, elevate Black voices, and all of that kind of thing.

Just because there are people who want to push that, that doesn't mean that that's the direction of our association.

We're a bottom -up, free organization. Let the pastors come together and decide these matters.

I would love to see discussion of the issues. I would love for someone at some point to open this book and talk about it.

Let's just work through it. If there's areas where I'm wrong, show that, and I can be corrected.

But if this is a book of correction to the EFCA for the wokeness that's been introduced, then let that correction be heeded.

So I'm appealing to the conference. Now, the appeal specifically is against bombs and the way that I was treated.

Therefore, I want the evidence, which is my meeting with bombs, which was recorded.

I demanded that it be recorded or else I wouldn't come. They've demanded that that now be kept private.

That needs to be made available to any pastor that wants to see it. Listen to it, because all they gave me was a recording, not the visual.

Any pastor that wants to hear that needs to be given it. Otherwise, how can they make a judgment?

Unless we're going to do like Congress, where you just vote on something and then later get to find out what's in it.

A judgment by bombs against me. The judgment was unjust because no evidence was provided except for those little fragmentary half sentences.

And they were refuted by scripture. If you'll listen to what was the interaction at bombs, everything

I said, I couched in scripture and here's why I believe what I believe. And I don't think anybody could deny that who listens to it.

So it really is a disagreement of truth on the first point, which is wokeness versus the woke free church position.

And then secondly, there's an issue of authoritarianism. When I raise my hand at an

EFCA East conference, because Bill Rydell has given a presentation on politics, where he pushes his political view of how the church should interact politically.

And how we shouldn't take a real strong stance on abortion, because on the right, we see life and the value of life.

But on the left, some people might think abortion is a needed option. Go listen to what he taught.

I raised my hand and instead of interacting with my question, where I said, at what point is a political party stepping beyond the point of acceptability?

For example, when the Nazi party was executing people and carrying out the

Holocaust, it would be wrong to support the Nazi party. In the same way, a party that's bent on the destruction of babies right up until the point of birth, and in some cases, 21 days after the

Democratic Party. How is that not out of bounds? Because I'm interacting with his presentation.

I was not yelling at him or anything, plenty of eyewitnesses to prove that. But instead of interacting with that, he said, are you

Jeff? And he said, I've emailed you. And then he admitted that he had never emailed me.

But in any case, he shamed me in front of everybody, you know, move on to the next questioner.

Who are you to question me is essentially the message I took from that. But then he went back to D -bombs,

I mean, back to bombs, the national bombs, and said that Jeff created quite a disturbance at the

Eastern District Conference. Because in his presentation, I raised my hand and asked a question of him.

Well, that's authoritarianism. And then bombs comes with this ruling against me without ever considering the substance of the book or interacting with it in any way, shape or form.

Well, here's the issue. One, wokeness. Two, authoritarian leadership at the national level.

So that's why it needs to come up at the conference in June. So I'd encourage all pastors to please come.

And let's just, as brothers, following Ephesians 4, 1 to 6, eager to maintain the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace, recognizing that we are brothers.

One hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one spirit, one church, one body, one

God and father who is overall. Let's come together and pursue the truth together.

I love you all, and I look forward to June in Fullerton, California, where we'll have a chance to hopefully get to the substance of these questions.