Juneteenth Follow Up and Four Woke Church Tactics

Welcome to Conversations That Matter Podcast. My name is John Harris. We're going to talk about four woke church tactics today, four strategies social justice advocates use to promote politically leftist ideas in the church under the banner of Christianity while precluding conservative political ideas from gaining a foot in the door.

How do they do it? Well, I'm going to show you four things I've noticed, irrespective of denomination, that are used to try to accomplish that end. If you can recognize them, then you can be ready for how to respond to these tactics.

Now, before we go there, I want to talk just briefly about yesterday's podcast, which was on Juneteenth, and some of my concerns surrounding the way that this has been handled, pushed through, what's associated with.

I spent almost an hour, so you can go watch that whole video. There's a lot of stuff that I could have Some people were saying, John, can't you have shorter videos? That's actually There's a lot of things I probably left out that I could have included.

You all really helped me think through things in a more complete fashion as well. I'm actually thankful for respectful dialogue. We don't get a lot of it today. It's name calling, et cetera, but some of you disagreed with what I said from all kinds of different angles.

I want to highlight some of those I've tried to summarize some of the points that.

Were made.

Let me just at least give these to you. Some people just thought, it's simple. Celebrate the end of slavery. John, you're overthinking this. I don't think I am. I think that social issues actually move the ball a lot more than fiscal things and changes even to our government structure.

These are things that are important, but I think symbols matter. I think it does drive culture in some ways when you are honoring certain things and not honoring other things. We have to make choices.

There's only so many things you can honor. We do have to create priorities and choices. When you're talking about a big country like the United States where human scale is so out of whack because there's so many people being governed by such a centralized authority in Washington.

It didn't used to be that way, obviously, during the founding of the country where you had about as many people as just exist probably in the state of, I don't know, probably Georgia or something or Alabama, something like that.

Now we have this huge government and you have regional things, regional concerns, different ethnic concerns, et cetera. It's not just There's all kinds of identities, wanting a seat at the table, wanting their things celebrated, et cetera.

I think there's an identity issue going on. I think that's part of it. Who are we as a people? This has been a crisis for a while. I don't want to spend a whole podcast on it, but I don't think it's quite as simple.

I don't think it's just simple celebrate the end of slavery, but I appreciate the commenters who said that because I think they're bringing out a point which is important to make. This is, as far as tactics are concerned, I mean who wants to be the one who says, yeah, we shouldn't celebrate the end of slavery?

No one does. No one's really saying that, but it can be portrayed that way. Even people can portray what I was saying that way because I'm taking some issue with some of what I consider to be the historical inaccuracies of the Emancipation Proclamation being the point of celebration for the ending of slavery and some of the things associated with the ending of slavery being perhaps not worthy of

Those particular things not being worthy of celebration to the point that you have to reduce everything down to we're all really glad that the state of affairs has changed, that the status of people who were slaves has changed to being that of free.

It's hard to celebrate a lot of the things that surrounded that. Over all the people who died as a result of being freed into the environment they were freed into, the hardship associated with it. It could have been done so much better, I think, in a gradual, in a way that many other countries did with compensation in a more natural way perhaps, but it was done in the aftermath of a war.

I made these points already. You can watch the video, but I appreciate the people who just say, look, don't overthink.

This.

Just celebrate the end of slavery however you want to do it. I disagree. I think it needs to be done in a way that's not going to give the left a hook to reach in and forward the narrative that, look, victims just need the government to step in and end their problems, which is the left is always looking to promote that narrative.

I think Juneteenth is no exception to that. I think that's exactly what Biden and the Democrats are thinking they can do to use this to their advantage. Another response, conservatives can define the narrative.

White people sacrificing to end slavery. This is, I think, what a lot of political conservatives are thinking when they support.

This.

They say, look, you have a bunch of white people from the North who came down South.

They fought. They died.

You had a war which over half a million people died. This was all in the name of freeing the slaves. We can then celebrate their sacrifice for a noble cause. There's something that I appreciate about it because there's not many noble causes left that we can come together nationally and celebrate, which is sad.

There should be a lot of them. I mean, even the Fourth of July now isn't really something that the left can even really participate in. But the thing is, I think it's a cartoonized version of that particular struggle.

I don't think that that's what it was. I don't think it was a primary motivation. We'll put it that way. Were there people certainly fighting for that cause?

I think there were.

It was not the primary motivation. You can read, like, For Cause and Comrades. Look at what the soldiers thought of it. Look at even politically, and I showed you the Emancipation Proclamation last time, what Lincoln was thinking, what the politicians in Washington, what the Republican Party was thinking about this.

They were not trying to primarily, and you can see this even in Reconstruction policy, they weren't trying to make the situation of black Americans, former slaves, et cetera,.

Better.

That wasn't really their purpose. That wasn't their cause. And I've gone through this in other videos. I've hinted at it before. Maybe we'll do some longer podcasts where I talk about why the Republican Party, I think even Eric Foner, who's kind of a communist, but I think he even wrote a book about this, Free, I can't remember the title, Free Soil, Free Men, something like that.

But a lot of the Republican Party's goal was to try to prevent black people from spreading. Keeping the spread of slavery from happening was about keeping the spread of black people into the Western territories.

Of course, they had laws, basically the initial Jim Crow laws, barring slaves from coming in their territory. Most of them wanted to just contain it in the South. And that's what they did. And that war-torn region, it led to a lot of problems.

And so I'm just thinking, historically, what happens when the left comes along? And they're starting to do this. This is the effort to even start to remove some Lincoln stuff. They're starting to catch on to this narrative.

And they're starting to show, in the historical record, hey, this wasn't this high and noble cause. That's not exactly true. And I don't want conservatives to be set up, once again, for cancellation. I just think what we need to do is probably focus on the things that are admirable.

We don't have to paint, we don't have to use inaccurate things to paint our leaders or heroes of the past in a certain way. Focus on the things that were true and valuable that we can come around today and honor.

And I think if we go this way, this very black and white, absolute way of looking at history, I think we're gonna end up setting ourselves up. That's my concern, mostly, with that. Here's another, and by the way, though, these are all good comments, worthy of thinking.

That's why I'm bringing them up. They're thought-provoking. Here's another comment. We have enough holidays. And this is actually very, this is a good one. We have enough holidays. This will open Pandora's box and devalue the status of national holiday as a category.

And I think there's some truth to this. What if now all sorts of other groups want their holiday for whatever reason, whatever date they wanna pick? And I'm gonna give you a hypothetical in a moment. Are we gonna be crowded with a bunch of holidays that are really more about this emancipation narrative, this narrative of how it was really a terrible place, but it's progressively getting better, which is not the most healthy narrative you want.

You wanna have some identity and pride in your country, who your country has always.

Been.

Of course, countries, people make mistakes. Of course there's sin. Of course there's correction. Of course there's continuing to be sin. The worst things that have ever happened in our country's history are happening now, and abortion being at the top of that list.

But anyway, that being said, we could end up with a crowded field here. And I think that is already happening. So we have to make very selective choices of what are the things that are valuable for the purpose of identity, for all Americans in this very huge country with different regional sympathies and values coming together.

And I think that slate is getting slimmer, but this is a thought-provoking idea. And then here's another one. Isn't emancipation without compensation wrong? This is probably something you haven't thought about, but someone wanted to make the point that, hold on, aren't you celebrating people freeing slaves, right?

Slaves being freed, but there was no compensation to those who held them. And before you say, wait, hold on, isn't that such a horrible idea that anyone would even advocate that? Of course, that's the right thing to do.

I remember the individual who made this comment brought up scripture and brought up Philemon, brought up even the Ten Commandments, just basic things about stealing and covening, et cetera. And what's listed in of the items that are listed there.

And this individual, I think, made a point that's at least worthy of consideration. Now, I responded and I said, look, I think the intention is to celebrate the changing of status here. That's at least kind of, this is what conservatives are trying to take Juneteenth to be.

This is what it's meant to be. And I think from the beginning, the way it was celebrated in Texas, which there doesn't seem to be a lot of that today. I know there's some people were commenting, they knew someone who knew someone who celebrated it in Texas, et cetera.

But it's certainly not a widespread holiday that's seems to be, it's nothing like the Fourth of July. We'll put it that way. But that being said, I think the celebration has something to do with just the fact that, hey, we're free now and our status has changed.

And I think there's, I think that's the kernel of truth that is driving most of this. And it's, there's some tunnel vision involved in that, I guess. You're ignoring things that are surrounding it. But I think that's the central thing.

And if that remains the central thing, I don't see a problem with that. Even if the way that it was done maybe doesn't match up to the way it could have been done. There are a lot of countries that did do compensation, that did have peaceable solutions, that didn't wind up with a quarter of the former slave population dying.

So I agree, America dropped the ball on this and we don't want to celebrate America dropping the ball on something. That's an oversimplification, by the way. It's not even America. I would say, you know, a small group of people making some centralized decisions at a certain point in history.

But I think this is a point worth at least chewing on if you were a Christian. It's a point worth chewing on. Now, here's another one. Black people need their own Independence Day. This was a comment that I thought was also worth chewing on because the argument is that Fourth of July is only for white people.

And my take on that is that, no, the Fourth of July applied to all the 13 colonies. And it was throwing off the civil relationship that we had with Great Britain. And that applied to everyone, no matter where you lined up in a hierarchy.

You could be also a female. You could be a child, not having many of the privileges that men would have had in that time. But yet you still can. They would they would have still joined in this celebration.

And so I think actually Independence Day does apply to everyone who is living in those regions. You know, maybe the best case you can make would be the Native Americans, indigenous people. They were, you know, some of them sided with the British and it didn't work out so well for them.

But other other than that, really, I mean, you're talking about people, you know, and also I should say in I don't want to get into the complexities of it, but there were many former slaves because of the I forget the name of the declaration.

But now off the top of my head, but because of the fact that the British were emancipating slaves to fight for the British army and making that part of their agenda, there were slaves who former slaves who did fight with the British, et cetera.

But there were many who did not. And this wouldn't have applied to the majority of them. So this is the traditionally the way that the celebration has gone on really from its inception has been something that's included everyone in those geographic boundaries.

And you can't say the same thing for Juneteenth. This is something that even people from Texas are kind of like, well, I think I know someone who might have celebrated that once. And they can't tell you the traditions.

They can't tell you what goes along with it necessarily. This is not something that was ever traditional on a national scale. And I think that's part of the pushback that some conservatives on a popular level are having.

They're saying, wait, hold on, this is you're foisting this on us. This feels like it's being rammed down our throats in a way, something that we all have to acknowledge. But yet this isn't something that we acknowledge first.

And the sequence probably does matter. Is it the job of the national government to acknowledge something that's already taking place in society, or is it their job to shape society through acknowledging things?

And that's a question that I think is going to determine kind of what you think of the job, at least of the central government in our particular context is. Here's some follow up thoughts. These are things I wrote last night as I was chewing on some of this.

I just got into it a little bit. I don't usually do this with a podcast, but I started getting into it. Here's some things I wrote. I said I find some of the conservatives on my recent video on Juneteenth interesting, some of the conversations, I should say, on my recent video, interesting, which is why I leave the comments open.

I think my point and the point of other conservatives such as Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk is that we want to celebrate the end of slavery, but we don't want to show up at a celebration hosted by the Democrats, who, by the way, have also poisoned the celebration punch.

This is why for a few years I've mentioned the idea of a Black Heroes Day as a way better alternative. Number one, it cannot be weaponized as much by the Democrats because virtues are timeless and everyone can participate in honoring great men.

And now, look, I realize the Democrats have a capacity to poison a lot of things. So this isn't foolproof, but I think it's at least there's a and I'm not advocating this, by the way, as a national holiday.

It's just I think that if you focus on well, I made the point in the last video. I'm not going to regurgitate all of it, but I don't think it presents the Democrats the opportunity as much to say, look, all the victims need is the federal government.

They're kind of like passively, you know, they just need us kind of thing. Number two, it also promotes the wonderful and unique things about the descendants of Black Americans who overcame barriers in creative and active ways, as opposed to treating them like passive and helpless victims in need of assistance, which plays right into leftist political policies.

Number three, it also it's also easier and more meaningful to celebrate heroes than it is abstractions. The Fourth of July was never about liberty in the abstract so much as it was about the founding fathers and who they were.

At least that's what it was made, made it special in my neck of the woods, where I lived, grew up, et cetera. According to Joe Biden, who signed the bill making Juneteenth a national holiday, it's not even really about the slaves being freed, which shouldn't come as a shock to anyone who understands the subversive nature of the progressives.

It's about a current political agenda. Biden stated we can't rest until the promise of equality is fulfilled for every one of us in every corner of this nation. That to me is the meaning of Juneteenth.

This is Biden saying this, guys. So this is what Juneteenth is about. It's a perversion of what the original intent behind the celebration was. It's not a way to look back and in gratitude consider what's been accomplished.

Rather, it's an opportunity to revolutionize the present according to egalitarian standards. That's the concern. That's a concern we have, guys. That's, I think, the central concern that most conservatives have.

And I followed up, I said, by the way, I would not push to make Black Heroes Day a national holiday. If it's something that catches on in an organic way, I think it would be positive. In the same way, there's a St. Patrick's Day and a Cinco de Mayo is celebrated in the United States.

I can see all sorts of nationalities having their celebrations that others can also share in. And this could be a regional thing. Black Americans don't have much that celebrates the actual achievements or traditions of themselves uniquely other than politically correct.

Aren't you so glad you have us progressives to help you stuff? Every culture and subculture needs real heroes and traditions. And and I stand by that. OK, and this is what I said this, I said, OK, and this is a thought experiment I want everyone to think about.

Legitimate question here. Think about this. Next year, there's a proposal to make June 4th a national holiday because on that day in 1919, women obtained the right to vote. It will be called Women's National Independence Day.

And and this is what I think a CNN anchor might say if someone opposed this, they say you want women to have the right to vote, don't you? Are you against women having the right to vote? So here's the deal.

Would you oppose this? And if so, what would your argument be? And you got to be careful here. And this is going back to the Pandora's box thing. We already have 4th of July as an Independence Day. This is the National Independence Day.

Right. But Juneteenth was also called National Independence Day in the way that it was adopted as a national holiday. What if there's a Women's National Independence Day? What do you do now? What if Obergefell comes into the equation later on and it's the LGBT or I guess it would just be the homosexual Independence Day, National Independence Day?

How many Independence Days are we going to have? And this is the real question. So think about this. Let this let let this be the thing that helps you consider whether or not even maybe Juneteenth is good to celebrate on a national level as an Independence Day, which is the way it is being advocated.

The left struggles smuggles in and this is the last thing I'll say on this smuggles in underneath their surface level throwaway symbolic gestures, the machinery by which they change society to conform to their ideological beliefs.

The left smuggles in underneath their surface level throwaway symbolic gestures, the machinery by which they change society to conform to their ideological beliefs. So I hope this is helpful for some of you as you're thinking about this, if you know, I'm like history a lot and maybe I'm more interested in this than some of you, but but we're moving on now.

Associating Left-Wing Causes With the Gospel

So those who aren't interested in Juneteenth, we're going to talk about four woke church tactics. Tactic number one, associate causes of the left with the gospel, associate causes of the left with the gospel.

Are we being a true gospel witness to our black and brown brothers and sisters if we don't get behind the Black Lives Matter movement somehow? Are we really ministering the gospel? To women, if we're not on board with the Me Too movement and rooting out abuse, by the way, in the way progressives think that it must be done.

Are we really about loving the foreigner and the immigrant and the sojourner if we think that there should be a wall on the southern border and people who come into the country illegally should be deported?

Is that really something that the gospel would be compatible with? Are we really promoting the gospel or do we need something else? We need the great requirement, let's say, to justice and mercy and all these ethical things that we believe apparently the left has a monopoly on.

We think those things should be the things that end up being part of the message of the gospel, or they accompany the gospel, or you don't have the full gospel without these things. They're necessary in some way, or we just can't be a good witness unless we do these things, or evangelism can't proceed unless you have these elements, equality, diversity, inclusion, et cetera, and how the left defines those things.

That's one of the first tactics that I often hear, and when I know someone's bent towards social justice, that's one of the first things that they say is there's some kind of, well, are we really being the kind of witnesses we need to be if we don't?

And then it's A, B, or C. There's something that needs to accompany the gospel. There's something that's part of the gospel, and there's something that conservative, political conservatives are missing if they don't have it.

And so their orthodoxy is actually called into question in some way because they don't have these social justice concerns, initiatives, causes, whatever, as part of their ministry. So this is the way that I think mostly the left smuggles in the progressive political ideas they want the church to then replicate.

And it's similar actually to a virus that inserts a DNA into a cell, and then the cell starts replicating that DNA. That's what we're talking about here, that kind of thing. And you have to get past the defenses that the cell has.

And that's what progressives have figured out, or they work on figuring out how to do. And they've perfected it. They've done it for so long. They figured out ways to find parallels in Bible verses and in Christian concepts.

And they'll twist, they'll pervert, they'll sneak in something underneath the banner of something else that's legitimate. They'll bring their issues in. And the main thing that Christians are supposed to be about is the Great Commission.

That's the main thing. That's what Christ our Lord left us, is to spread the news of the gospel, to make disciples of all nations. There's a propagation element within Christianity, and the left loves that.

They want that. They want to propagate. How do we do this? And so if you can convince Christians that part of what they're supposed to propagate is social justice, concern, and especially if it's just the pinnacle of what Christians are supposed to propagate, the message of the gospel, the good news, then you can effectively promote, you can exponentially increase the output of your message.

And Christians are then forced to do it. They have to. It's part of their duty. They can't raise an objection, even if they have a political objection to it. Well, part of my Christian duty. And so that's how you convince Christians who might otherwise be even apolitical to become political in this cause.

So that's the first thing. Associate causes of the left with the gospel. Second thing is to redefine pro-life to include quality of life issues. This is at a moment in time where there's sort of a fading going on of the religious right.

And the religious right, their main issue was abortion and opposing abortion. And the pro-life movement came out of this. And it's bigger than just the religious right. But that's one of the things the religious right really rallied around.

So if you're pro-life, it means that you're against murder. And that could be abortion. That's the issue that's at hand now. But it could be other things. It could be euthanasia. Euthanasia was part of that as well, is part of that still.

Murdering people, taking their life without cause. Not in war, not in some capital punishment or anything, but actually just murdering, taking their life without any justification. Now, legitimate justification.

Now, quality of life issues are different than that because the Bible speaks about murder, thou shalt not murder. However, quality of life issues such as smoking or the environment or how much exercise you get, how many Big Macs you eat.

Now, the issues that are quality of life issues that are popular would be like access to health care, how good of an education you can get, what kind of economic barriers you face in your neck of the woods.

These kinds of things the left uses to somehow promote whatever government plan they have. And so if you can take the pro-life movement, the very clear word God has spoken about, thou shall not murder, and then smuggle in underneath that banner a bunch of quality of life issues as if there's no essential difference between the two, then you can get Christians to expand their definition of pro-life.

So not only is murdering the unborn wrong and evil and sinful, but so is not taking care of illegal migrants. So is not standing up against systemic racism of some kind. So is free health care, taking care of people.

So is you fill in the blank, opposing smoking. These are things that, and all the examples I picked are ones that I know for sure have been used as pro-life issues. And they're not, they're quality of life issues.

Whether or not you smoke, right? This is a personal choice someone makes, just like eating a Big Mac or choosing not to exercise or choosing to watch tons of television instead of going out and taking walks or, you know, all the unhealthy versus healthy things you can choose may have an impact on your quality of life.

It may have an impact on your lifespan. It's not the same as murder though. It's not the same as murder. Murder, the unjustified taking of human life. Is different than, you know, over the years, having your health deteriorate because of some barrier that you're putting there or someone else, or just factors outside of your control, put there, you know, the circumstances you live under, the Providence God has even placed you in.

So, so here's the, that's a, that's a big difference. If you can make that distinction, if you can recognize the difference between a life issue and then a quality of life issue, you won't be taken for these rides all the time.

And, and this is how the left, the progressive social justice advocates dupe conservative Christians often into promoting their causes say, well, it's just like a pro-life movement, right? No, it's not just like the pro-life movement.

Here's the third one set maintaining public witness against advocating conservative views. Set maintaining public witness against advocating conservative views. So here's how the left brings in issues from the progressive side of the aisle into Christianity one and two, number three.

Now we're saying, okay, well, how do you, how do you make sure that while you're bringing in all these progressive ideas, conservative ideas don't creep in the door? Well, in order to do that, you set maintaining a public witness, a status, a respectability, a winsomeness against advocating conservative views.

So you can't be maintain your public witness, your reputation with the lost, with the world, with a certain demographic, with elites, really that's who they're mostly applying to with the media, you can't maintain your public witness with them.

If you advocate a, B, or C. If you advocate building a wall in the Southern border, if you advocate deporting illegal migrants, if you advocate these statues, uh, yeah, that, that's so many of the elites think they associate with racism.

If you advocate, you fill in the blank, whatever it is, it's just, the sky's the limit pretty much. It's just about every conservative view, uh, you know, opposing free healthcare and market solutions to things.

If you advocate any of this, you are sending a signal to the world that you are, don't have any compassion. You must be a hater. You must not love people because you're not adopting their solutions. Uh, and, and coming under their authority and adopting their presuppositions.

So you are abandoning your public witness. It's up to you to maintain a good public witness. So if you have those thoughts that are conservative, you better keep those to yourself. You don't want to risk your reputation and then you make us all look bad.

Right.

And you, and then, and then you of course feel guilty. You don't want to make everyone else look bad. You want people to think well of your church or your friends. So, uh, or your Christians in general, you, you don't want to make them look bad.

So that's what they use. Now, of course it doesn't go the other way. They never say they never use this kind of guilt manipulation on people who advocate progressive ideas. You know, you don't want, you're losing your public witness.

Conservatives are going to think that you don't understand morality. They're not going to want to become Christians, political conservatives. If they knew that you were advocating a, B, or C that doesn't work that way.

It only works when it comes to, um, conservative views and it only is implemented against advocating those. Uh, so there's a natural way that the, this is how things are kind of pushing left. There's an, just a natural bent to appease those who are the most idealistic.

Uh, or, and I mean by affected by ideology, the most, uh, the ones that are perhaps the most publicly passionate, willing to cancel others. Uh, if they deviate the most rigid, I mean, those are the kinds of people that are being played to right now.

Cause they're, look, you got to walk on eggshells. They're offended so easily these days. So in order to maintain a public witness, you can't offend them. Whereas conservatives in general, it's hard to, harder to offend them.

So you don't have to worry about that.

Right.

So it's, it's twisting manners. It's twisting decency, public virtue, et cetera. It's twisting those things and then weaponizing them against political conservatives in Christianity. Number four, here's the other way that you keep conservative ideas outside the gates of Christianity, minimize conservative causes by associating them with earthly motives and goals.

So have you ever heard this one? Uh, and Tim Keller does this all the time. I hear this all the time. It's not just him. It's like everyone. Um, well, you know, if you want to win, if you want Donald Trump to win, you must be about political power.

Is power really worth it? Is it really worth losing your public witness because you want power? So the goal here is to try to, uh, bludgeon someone's motive by saying, by, by giving a really a false motive generally by saying, well, they're, they must be after something that's, that's kind of dirty.

No one wants to touch that. You just don't like minorities. You just don't like women. That's why you're saying what you're saying. Well, I saw something that you posted, uh, on social media about, um, I don't know, immigration.

And I think that that means you're racist and therefore racism must be motivating everything else you say. I mean, that's the critical race theory position, right? You know, everything is power. Everything is, is, is, is these racial dynamics at play things just kind of boil down into this one thing.

And so you must be about power, uh, when you get political like that. And so, um, what this does is it pours water, cold water on any kind of spark that a conservative, uh, might have because in Christianity, because they don't, don't want to be associated with earthly motives or goals, uh, as if power is such a bad thing, achieving power would be the worst thing.

Well, of course it should be obvious that you want people with good character and morality and, uh, think ideas that work and you want those things to be, um, in place. You want people who advocate them to have power for the good of all.

That should be kind of a no brainer, but power is a dirty word. Now power is a bad thing. And, uh, you know, trying to, uh, to, to love your own, to promote your own, uh, to promote the interests of, of your, your children, um, even through things like an inheritance or just, uh, getting them good educations, those kinds of things are considered kind of bad now, you know, you're, you're, you're maintaining a white privilege or something like that.

So you don't, you don't want to have those motives. So what happens is people who, uh, are, might be politically conservatives will oftentimes bend in all kinds of directions, trying to prove that they don't have those motives that they're being lied about that, um, they, they want to avoid at least being lied about so that they can try to promote a conservative cause, even if it's kind of minimal, uh, or a conservative candidate, while at the same time, uh, not being seen as just after power or just after promoting one's own interest or something.

So that's, these are the four things that I see often happening. Associate causes of the left with the gospel. Number one, redefine pro-life to include quality of life issues. Number two, set, maintaining public witness against advocating conservative views, number three, and minimize conservative causes by associating them with earthly motives and goals.

Number four, these are the four most common woke church tactics I see for trying to include ideas from the progressive left that are political and trying to disassociate from ideas from the political right.

And, uh, and I, I think you're going to start seeing them everywhere now that you heard the list. So I hope that was helpful. If you can recognize the tactic, you can point it out. You can say to someone, Hey, look, uh, you know, you've accused me of, um, not loving the gospel enough because I'm not working towards this end.

Well, uh, I've identified that what, that is what you're doing. And I reject that kind of logic in total. Uh, this is what the gospel is, and this is what you're advocating. And there are two different things.

If you can start to do that, then I think it's going to be just very effective in your daily life when you're dealing with people that would try to use some of these tactics on you. So there you go. Hope that was helpful.

God bless. Got a lot more coming this week. In fact, uh, Rod Martin is going to join us on Friday, uh, for those who are in the Southern Baptist convention. Uh, he's going to talk about why people he thinks should stay in the Southern Baptist convention, which is very different than the message that I gave.