News Roundup: Zach Garris Censured, ARP's Kinist Report, McLean Bible Loses in Court

Conversations That Matter podcast. I'm your host John Harris. We have a number of news items to get to today. I don't think it's going to be an incredibly long podcast. But I am going to talk about some issues that you likely won't hear anywhere else.

And I think they are important issues. And if you're a Christian, especially if you're a Christian who's concerned about the direction of the evangelical church in our country. Then you're gonna want to pay attention to this.

We're gonna talk about Southern Baptist related issues and also PCA related issues. So let's start off with Southern Baptist stuff. I want to talk about a. And as I say this I'm thinking in my head. This is tangentially Southern Baptist okay, so this act this is Southern Baptist because it is Concerning McLean Bible Church, which as far as I know at least in the recent past was even though it had an Independent Constitution they were affiliating with the Southern Baptist Convention now, I'm not saying that's still the case I don't know exactly where they're at but David Platt who of course is a big name in the Southern Baptist Convention is still a pastor there and There was a whole documentary that I produced on this particular issue.

The Church Reform Initiative published it. And the issue was in part this affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention Against the Constitution of the church and how members handled this. Well, one of the issues was the fact that there were members of McLean Bible Church a very prominent church in Washington DC which many important politicians and so forth attend many of those members were upset at the direction that David Platt was taking the church when he assumed the reins from Lon Solomon and one of those things was this affiliation and so in response to these concerns and the really oversight supervision Opposition that the church is would receive from some of these members some of them founding members of the church.

The.

Presumably if you watch the documentary, you'll see what I'm talking about. The membership Status of many of these members was eliminated. It was stripped and This has become one of the issues.

That.

They did not follow their own Rules the church's own Constitution when it came to how they treated members. So There is a lawsuit right now a second lawsuit a second court case in on behalf of members of McLean Bible Church who sense that their rights as church members were were violated by The McLean Bible Church and this is now going into greater greater levels of court in the Virginia Court of Appeals just ruled in their favor.

So I'm gonna explain that a little bit and then we'll get to some other Southern Baptist stuff but this is a prominent church in the DC area and I think it's important that we at least mention it because we've talked a lot about this church.

We've talked a lot about David Platt. And so let's talk about this. Let's start here now. I had it pulled. Oh, here it is. Here's the court case. Okay, it's the Court of Appeals of Virginia Steve Gaskins et al versus McLean Bible Church.

Now I've highlighted a few of the areas in this particular. This case that I think are of note to us, of course, oh there they are. Okay, at least one of them came up. I thought I had a number of others highlighted.

Yeah, I do. Okay. Let me just give you the summary and then I'm gonna read some of these quotes to you. Okay, so here's the summary the Virginia Court of Appeals reversed the circuit courts denial of the dissenters those who had their membership or they claimed that their membership Status was violated it reversed the circuit courts denial of those people's motion to compel discovery and It granted summary judgment to McLean Bible Church.

So it remands for further proceedings what this means is that the Virginia Court of Appeals? Looked at what the circuit court did the lower court and the circuit court. Essentially said, you know what?

We're gonna grant summary judgment to McLean Bible Church there. It's what they did is fine and we're going to Stop these dissenters from causing more problems. Well, they appealed to the Virginia Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals reversed that court's decision.

Of course courts don't like it when their decisions are reversed. So I'm sure there's folks in the Virginia.

Court of.

Circuit court rather that are probably not happy with this but the reason that they did this is actually pretty straightforward and there was some controversy online about it, but. The rule in question is If you are a member and you miss eight consecutive Sundays at McLean Bible Church And that means in a row of worship Then the board can deem you inactive if you are an inactive member.

Then you don't have voting privileges as I understand it. So the dissenters Were seeking to find out in Discovery whether or not the records indicate this because they're claiming we were there. They just stripped us of our membership status without Going through the due process.

They didn't actually Prove anything. They didn't actually count and counting is really the only thing in question here. They said we missed eight weeks, but we didn't and so the dissenters sought in discovery.

To.

To try to Figure out Where this logic was coming from why the church made this decision so they see themselves as disenfranchised members and. And this is really the only issue in question here. An assertion that a dispute might involve a purely religious question is quite different from an assertion that a dispute will turn on such a question.

In other words McLean's trying to say look, this is a religious issue. The courts don't have any jurisdiction here. Okay, this is First Amendment stuff. Let us be the church you be the civil magistrate and leave us alone.

This isn't your deal, but the court saying what do you mean counting is not our deal kit. This isn't a religious question. This is just a basic question of whether or not you're operating by your own bylaws now.

Why is that important? Well There is a rule in Virginia and it's applied to congregational churches that when the majority has spoken in a fairly Conducted congregational meeting held after proper notice to the membership Then the governing body of the church has expressed its will and as in the case of a hierarchical church Its decision is constitutionally immune from judicial review.

The problem is the question is here in this whole case is whether or not.

The.

Congregation actually did make a decision that reflects their will.

So.

This is in order to prohibit someone from just taking over the church. Think about it this way if you had someone come in and just say I'm a leader now You guys aren't members anymore. I'm gonna wave my magic wand and I'm the pastor so I can just do what I want.

They're fundamentally Going against the Constitution of the church the whole logic of the Constitution the congregational setting and They're acting as a tyrant at that point and who can stop them. Who can stop them from doing that if they hold the key to the church?

They can lock it and unlock it they can do whatever they want and there's no recourse for those people Outside the church and the only mechanism they had because it's a congregational church was their voting membership status.

Which has just been arbitrarily taken from them. So in a hierarchical setting there would be recourse for these kinds of things there's there's bylaws and There's there's church rules. Well in a independent church, that's congregational.

They have their rules too, even if they're not part of a denomination. And so this is one area at least in the state of Virginia that the government is permitted to Exercise some level of oversight to just ensure that the church doesn't get stolen from the members who formed The very Constitution that the church is intended to operate by.

Now this is somewhat of a controversy for this reason.

Because.

There are people who especially Baptists who really want to make sure that churches can remain independent and autonomous. From the government and so Jesse Johnson who also has a church. He pastors a church that's very close to McLean Bible Church in the DC area.

It's a manual Bible. He says this I hope those celebrating the Virginia Appeals Court ruling against McLean Bible didn't read the opinion. It establishes a lower threshold of religious freedom for congregational churches than denominational churches and allows state courts to get involved in issues of church discipline.

Okay. Now this isn't a church discipline case. But he's invoking he's saying it's a church discipline case. McLean should appeal and seek to transfer the case to federal court. The people suing McLean should drop the lawsuit and ask the appeals court to vacate their own opinion as moot.

Otherwise, they open up every congregational church to judicial oversight of church discipline at admission to membership. As far as I know, there's never been a successful lawsuit against a church for exercising church discipline.

This opinion bursts that door wide open. So he's saying you're opening Pandora's box guys. You're opening Pandora's box. How can you do this if you are being disciplined from a church that is a spiritual oversight?

That's the keys that's given to the church. They can do this. It's the binding and loosing. This is not something that. Well, I don't know. I shouldn't put words in his mouth as far as binding and loosing.

I don't know if he would interpret it as applying to church discipline or not but this is something that's a spiritual matter is the point and It's a due process that only exists within the confines of the ecclesiastical realm.

But this is not a church discipline case. That's really the basic fundamental problem with this kind of a reaction. So I did react to it and I just said look the case is not about church discipline. But whether the board followed the church's own Constitution when it designated members in it as an active no attendance for eight consecutive weeks without reasonable excuse for voting purposes in an elder election.

The dissenters and that's another thing by the way reasonable excuse. Some of these members just had according to their own testimonies their membership stripped from them without any questioning. It's just they showed up for a vote and they weren't members anymore.

They weren't active members at least the dissenters allege the board arbitrarily purged dissenting voters to rig the 2021 election the court is enforcing the church's secular contractual membership rules not litigating spiritual decisions.

It is applying an existing Virginia distinction read verse Colson. This interpretation is way overstated and then I said it is good to be sensitive about courts overstepping their boundaries if this is Pertained to specific religious matters.

It would be a good point counting to eight isn't a theological question though. And so I stand by this I am rooting for the folks at McLean Bible Church, of course I think that they're in the right and I think that there needs to be some recourse.

And the issue at hand was voting in a slate of elders that would have been supporting the agenda of David Platt part of that agenda being Cooperating with the Southern Baptist Convention and so this does relate back to the Southern Baptist Convention and speaking of Southern Baptist Daniel Darling Who is a darling of the Southern Baptist said we should pray.

It's overruled. It's a terrible decision. The state has zero business involving itself in Ecclesi Ecclesial governance. The government can barely run a functioning post office. You don't want it choosing church deacons.

So the next thing, you know The government's going to now choose your church deacons, which is very ironic because this whole issue was people who were choosing leaders in the church without Allowing the congregation to actually make the decision of who the leaders are according to the church's own governing documents.

That's the whole issue here and Daniel Darling saying well, hey, you know I guess the the alternative is would you like the government to come in and choose your deacon? Who do you want you choosing your leaders or your officers at a church?

You want the government doing it or would you like say? People who can come in and just strip others in the church of their membership without due process doing it I mean, they both sound about equally bad to me.

But fortunately this case is not about the government being able to choose leaders in a church. The the case is about whether or not. The members who were members in good standing according to their testimony.

Were.

Justly stripped of their voting membership status their active status that's really the whole question here and it's really a cut -and -dry thing because if the church is operating by its governing documents its Constitution then then the church should be fine.

And so discovery to find out whether or not there's evidence here is a very reasonable thing and that's really all it is. On what basis did you say that these members are no longer members? Did you have a reason for actually stripping them of their membership, okay.

So that's one of the controversies floating around out there and I probably could have tackled that in the last podcast. But figured I'd do it now because we went so long last time for those who are in the Northwest area I'm gonna be at the church militant conference.

That is at Masters Bible Church. It's coming up political theology for the courageous Christian. It is in Vancouver, Washington on June 12th, so I'm looking forward to seeing you there June 12th through June 13th.

That's coming up here real soon. And what a beautiful area. I love going out to that area. I'm so glad they invited me. It's a long way, but I really really like that particular area of the country at least the the flora and the fauna.

I'm not saying the politics so I'm actually looking forward to seeing it before that actually I am. I don't know if I've said this yet, but I am gonna be at the Southern Baptist Convention for like one day.

So like I might be there for part of the evening of the second to last day of the conference and then I'm gonna be There for the last day of the conference, so I might miss some of the good stuff. I just couldn't justify Leaving for with this conference and then I'm preaching on that Sunday.

So I'm taking a red -eye back. It was just like too much to do the entire week missing time with my my family and stuff. So but I will make it for part of the conference. So I love or the convention. So I'd love to see you there if you happen to be there instead of in the Northwest.

So there you go for New York to Florida to Washington. It's gonna be a lot of flying but but we we do Enjoy that and we do progress and proceed here. Let's talk about some Other matters. I'm gonna get to the Zach Gareth stuff.

I know that's a lot of the stuff that's going on online. I wanted to give an honorable kind of shout out here though an honorable mention the Epoch Times just did a whole piece on America's educational Renaissance and so it's about the classical Christian school Movement and all of that and Justin Puckett who writes for truth script is quoted in this.

He said that Christian the Christian element of schooling solidifies an objective truth free from chaos morality and confusion. Teachers cannot tell a student that violence theft or cheating is wrong without a standard of morality and ethics.

Parents cannot hold schools accountable without a standard of morality and ethics so he talks about the problems with public education and I just want to say it's great that Justin was quoted in this and If you want to support obviously the work truth script is doing and Justin's very much part of that then you can go to truth script Dot -com and check it out.

We do support classical Christian education there now. Let's get to some other stuff Southern Baptist related stuff and then we'll get to that Gareth. So I wanted to point something out here. I've been exposing the churches that have female pastors and I put out a video last week with 11 churches that they have female pastors listed those pastors are preaching pastors on Sunday morning and violation of the Baptist faith the message and and the Bible and One of the things that has come to my attention is that there are churches that are doing this kind of thing without the title Pastor though, so I want to highlight one of those for you here this is a church called colonial church in Wichita Falls and it has a teaching team and Kelly Morris is on the teaching team.

There you go. There's a blow -up of it. Kelly Morris right there connections coordinator for the teaching team now, you might think maybe she's like a secretary or something. But then she preaches just about monthly on the teaching team.

And does the whole Lord's Day service there. So this is part of the problem is you do have churches that are Bucking the Southern Baptist Convention and flying under the radar because they're using these titles that aren't specific to Pastor or even elder.

They're saying things like I'm just on the teaching team. Now there are churches that are explicitly doing this. Here's a 12th church. Exposed 11 last week. Here's a 12th for you to consider. This is happening all the time in the Southern Baptist Convention and Baptist Church in Coppell Texas is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention.

But features multiple female pastors on staff despite the Southern Baptist Convention's convictions against female pastors.

Now at the extreme some people may believe that anyone who lives here should speak like us dress like us and eat foods like us. But on the milder end sometimes tension comes from just unspoken even unrealized cultural expectations.

It's easy to get frustrated with one another when we face these cultural differences. I'm reminded of the first sermon I had the joy of preaching with you when I joined the team this summer.

The Bible says no women pastors the Baptist faith and message says no women pastors, but Valley Ranch Baptist Church says no. All right, there you have it the Southern Baptist Convention splitting over this issue it seems Megan Basham actually put a tweet out earlier today about reports, she's receiving of Coordination from within the Southern Baptist Convention to try to stop this Amendment, which would give the credentials committee enhanced abilities to Expose and get this.

I gotta choose my words, right? Deem as not in friendly coordination cooperation rather churches that have female pastors and This is going on behind the scenes. But it's very much going to be in front of us here soon as a Southern Baptist Convention shapes up in just a few weeks and one of the things that we're doing on this podcast and If you support the podcast, which I really appreciate if you're supporting me through patreon or just prayer or whatever it is.

I am in the homestretch of Producing my editors actually putting it together right now a documentary on the female Pastor issue in the Southern Baptist Convention. It is gonna come out right before the Southern Baptist Convention.

We are on the leading edge of this stuff. And I just really appreciate all your support because I think it's gonna make a difference. So check it out when it comes out I'll give you more information as the time comes but we're working really hard to get this all out there.

Everything's been filmed. Everything's been exposed. We have all the information it's just a matter of getting it to those who are gonna vote in that room in just a few weeks and We we plan to drop it at an opportune strategic time.

So that those who are gonna be in that room have the opportunity to view it it's gonna be hard -hitting and short enough that they can consume it and understand the issue and Then there's gonna be a vote and there's gonna be more than one vote because one of the votes is not just for this particular amendment one of the votes is going to be for Willie Rice and whether or not he will be the next president of the Southern Baptist Convention because this is one of his issues.

So if you're concerned about this if you see this as another battle for the Bible. Which I do because that's really the issue. Are we gonna follow the Bible? Are we gonna follow the governing documents?

I mean how how many organizations just aren't following their governing documents. That's a dangerous thing. Then if you believe that that's important, they're gonna want to come out. You're gonna want to vote for Willie Rice.

So that's. That's where I'm standing and that's what we're up to here on the conversations that matter podcast more to come on this. Thank you for your support wouldn't be happening without you all now.

Let's turn to the subject at hand, which is Zachary Garris. Zachary Garris is a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America. He is in the Rio Grande Rio Grande Rio Grande presbytery and he is Somewhat of a controversial figure in that presbytery because that particular presbytery happens to be one of the most left -leaning if not the most left -leaning presbytery in the Presbyterian Church in America and this has been an ongoing issue with Zach and I've covered it before and I'm gonna give you some of the Background so, you know exactly what I'm talking about, but he was just censured.

He was just Essentially told that he Should not be preaching. He should not be exercising his duties as a pastor because he is in violation. I'll tell you what he's in violation of in a moment, but let's start at the beginning here.

So we understand what the issue is. Here's where it started. Zach Garris on X this is in I think June of 2024 so we're going back a ways now. Zach's Responded to Lamont English who I'll tell you more about in a moment.

Lamont English said I agree with Reverend Charles not super excited about being in Richmond at the PCA General Assembly with a bunch of Christian nationalists some who believe American chattel slavery was justified.

Interesting. Zach Garris says uh -oh There's gonna be people who reference Bible verses at the Grimke event now just give you some context. Grimke seminary put it on event at the PCA there were The General Assembly there were people who were sponsoring it such as American reformer who?

Did let's just say I think yeah, I think I think this is right. I think I'm getting my facts right here I'm now I'm trying to remember was it the PCA or was it the Southern Baptist? I'm pretty sure it was the PCA because Lamont English is saying PCA.

So it was a PCA. Anyway, they're sponsoring this event and It's gets all this controversy. You can't have American reformer here. Yada. Yada. Yada and Zach decides to cross swords with Lamont English over this.

So Lamont says brother allow me to ask you two questions is interracial marriage is sinful. Was American chattel slavery. Absolutely sinful and so Zach says no for the first question. No, it's not simple as for the second question.

The majority of it, but and by the way, can I just like emphasize this he says no. We're gonna talk about kin ism in a moment, but Zach says it's it's not sinful. All right, just because I keep seeing this stuff on X about how Zach is Somehow a kinnest and Sean McGowan who he's co -writing.

He's I think they're basically done with a book. They've written on the Southern Presbyterians. So one of his co -authors that they're basically kinnest both of those guys. They're their own personal backgrounds would dissuade you of making that charge too lightly.

You would be you you would have all sorts of other questions. Why did they marry the women that they marry? However, Zach says right here explicitly no, it's not so hear that. Secondly, he says as for the second question, the majority of American Presbyterians said no.

It's possible to be anti -slavery and reject abolitionism. Do you think is Israel's chattel slavery of foreigners was absolutely sinful? So he's throwing it back in Lamont English and saying look if you're trying to say that this is an all -times -in -all -places Thing all types and kinds of slavery.

What do we do with the Bible? The Bible is an ancient book that has examples of slavery in it Lamont English. Hold on brother I'm asking about American chattel slavery in your view as a PCA pastor was American slavery 100 wrong sinful not permissible.

Zach says I just told you the position of most Presbyterians with which I agree. They opposed abuses and wanted to get rid of slavery, but they rejected abolitionism because of the Bible's teachings now so and I've said this many times this is the position of Gradual emancipationist essentially not an abolitionist.

So this goes on and It gets to the point that Lamont English Makes a statement about the whole exchange. He says I was shocked by this interaction last night with a PCA teaching elder. How one can be an ordained teaching elder in the PCA and believe American slavery was not 100 sinful and wrong biblically is beyond me interactions like this one.

A reason it's a reason why so many people of color are hesitant to join reformed churches now. It shouldn't surprise you that Lamont English would say this Lamont English. Here. He is with a shirt that says pro -black with the black fist.

He's grateful for the church that encourages him to not leave his blackness at the door. He all kinds of things accusing, you know, people of being racist accusing Donald Trump of being racist. This he's woke, okay, we'll put it that way and So he's upset about this and there's other more prominent PCA teaching elders that like David Cassidy who also become upset about it.

So he posts Against what Zack said and he also acknowledges something else so that Zack said and he thinks they're in contradiction. Zack's interaction with Lamont English and A statement that Zack made in response and I want to want you to hear some of the statement.

It's kind of a long statement. It's a responsible attempt to thread the needle here. But Zack says look in response to the questions a few days ago about American history of slavery. I give a brief answer that I hoped would expose my biblical anti -slavery position.

He says I have a biblical anti -slavery position, but I recognize that I was insufficiently clear and how I address the matter I sincerely regret and apologize for not being more sensitive and how I answered the question on this platform to clarify I believe without qualification that God's Word clearly condemns man -stealing and being selling stolen men as gross and abominable sins.

All right, so he goes on and he just really emphasizes. Look there are aspects to the if you want to call it a system, but the.

The.

He's not talking about necessarily slave master relationships. He's talking about this whole enchilada that's often called slavery from start to finish and it starts with this element of tribal warfare man capture Etc.

And he says look this is condemned. He he goes through and he says The American system of slavery that resulted from the slave trade also involved abuses of slaves. So he says look, I'm not for splitting up families.

I'm not for You know prohibiting them from being instructed in these kinds of things. So he he goes through he dots the eyes he crosses the T's he says look I believe what the Bible says though. This is not a sin in and of itself.

In other words the master -slave relationship that you see as demonstrated with the patriarchs with even Philemon. These are things that are you cannot condemn a sinful without also judging the Bible.

Okay, so he makes this statement I'm just telling you what's going on and Lon English is upset. David Cassidy is upset. Lamont English I failed to mention this. Lamont English is Also the assistant director of them or was I don't think he is now the mission to the world which is the PCA's Missions arm West Coast hub and national diversity mobilizers.

He's a national diversity mobilizer. So Really Zach got in Crossing swords with subwood who is very sensitive to these matters. Now one thing led to another and here's the indictment. All right. Now let's just say let me let me Sort of fill in the space between that for a moment here.

What happened between that time is that.

A.

Number of complaints Provoked by this interaction were sent to his presbytery the Rio Grande presbytery. There were three letters that were sent two of them were signed by multiple pastors. I think one of them was signed by 60 pastors or so and they.

They make statements against Zach. They charge Zach with violating the rules.

Of.

Conduct for being a Presbyterian pastor in the PCA there's one letter from Brian Chappell's son and it has screenshots of things Zach has liked or said online that are Egregious right and so they they water it down they go through a trial process and here we're at the end of the trial process and by the way, the Process is the punishment in the PCA because these things take forever and if you get censored and can't Do your Lord's Day duties as a pastor then like it's a real bummer when you're waiting around for this slow as molasses organization to Get into gear.

Well, here's the bottom line. Here are the charges. There were two of them one was violating Exodus 2016 the ninth commandment. So in other words, he's lying. And charge two is violating the command to let no corrupting word proceed out of your mouth.

But what is good for and necessary for edification that it may impart grace to the hearers Ephesians 429. Okay, so you have these two charges you're in violation of Scripture Zach Garris because of these two things now.

Here's the amazing thing charge one which all the ink that spilled in this document is mostly charge one. That's the evidence that was presented as charge one the majority of the time of this trial was consumed with charge one and He was not convicted on charge one.

He was exonerated. So let me read you a little bit of that Charge one that on or about October 8th 2023 Garris posted on X a public forum a comment stating there was chattel slavery Including buying slaves with no provision for freedom see Leviticus 25.

Which statement is false in that? Israel did not practice chattel slavery is commonly defined and Leviticus 25 may permit slavery but not chattel slavery. I can see why this This this charge didn't stick because all that is doing is quoting Scripture there really, they're trying they're trying so hard to make a separation between American slavery and Hebrew slavery and there are separations and differences, but.

But where Zack is Entering the discussion and saying that there is a Similarity there is a similarity so you can't really charge him on that number two.

On.

June 4th 2024 he posted on X a comment saying I'm saying the Bible does not condemn shadows. So we actually just read this is the exchange that we just read and they're saying look. This is wrong because the Old Testament laws regarding slavery.

And and the idea that most Presbyterians held the view that Zack Garris espoused here. That's just that can't be proven which is an odd charge. It cannot be proven like sort of. Like how about disproving it.

Specification three that on or about June 4th 2024 Garris. So it's really just mostly from the exchange. It's all this is all June 4th 2024 stuff and then March 1st 2024 Garris to post on X a comment stating that John Calvin and his commentary on Jeremiah 34 refused to condemn slavery per se.

Which statement is false. What I don't know how like who wrote this. I Mean, that's it's just not it's like someone who didn't know what they were talking about wrote this so they spend their time on this particular issue and the experts who are Summoned to give the.

Hopefully the rebuttal to what Zack Garris is saying instead of firm was that Garris is saying enough at least so that The charges don't stick he's exonerated. He is not actually charged with this but the second charge.

Which is it an extremely weak and just very odd charge. You're not gonna believe it when I read it to you is the one that sticks. Violating the command to let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth.

Now what was the corrupt word? In October 9th of 2023 Garris did post on X a public forum a comment stating even here. You only speak of some situations. Sometimes things are more complex than a PhD can handle.

Specification to and I'll tell you the context in a moment on or about October 8th 2023 Teaching all their Garris did post on X a public forum a comment stating you. Started by misusing a Bible verse and then calling others biblically illiterate, but arrogance can't tolerate banter.

What's what's that in reference to? It's in reference to an exchange that Zachary Garris had with Anthony Bradley and One of the letters To charge Zachary Garris came from the origin of it is New York it's a lot of the people that are in the Redeemer Presbyterian Church world and Where Anthony Bradley is and This was seen as disrespectful.

To say that there's things that a PhD can't handle to say that Anthony Bradley is behaving arrogantly. Now you can look back in the archive. I have talked about Anthony Bradley a Number of times on the podcast.

I actually think Anthony Bradley sometimes makes some really good points about things like fatherhood. I I don't it sort of bothers me that he can make such good profound points and then He does behave arrogantly at times.

In fact, I think I'm blocked by him right now. So I don't even know if I can go to his ex and well, I guess you can now under Elon Musk He's made you you can go there. But you can't like anything and that kind of thing you have to screenshot if you want to comment on it so if Anthony Bradley was called arrogant and he was His PhD apparently was not able to help him decipher.

Whatever the argument was between him and Zach. That alone and I know this is like mind -blowing that alone apparently is disqualifying this is corrupt speech coming out of Zach Garris his mouth because he dared to diminish the certification of the PhD and He also called Anthony Bradley arrogant.

I.

Was.

Surprised myself and my thought is that this is just a A parting shot. This is something that they're doing because they couldn't get him on the big fish. And so They got to have something. We went through this whole ordeal.

It's been a year since the charges were filed. We got to do we got I we got to tell the liberals we did something here, right? We didn't let him get away with it. So we're gonna charge him with this. That's corrupting speech now, which just if you want to talk about Pandora's box being opened If calling someone arrogant online when they're behaving Arrogantly is gonna open Pandora's box and bring about charges.

Then. I think a lot of people could be charged right but so this Probably is not gonna stand and and what happens procedurally here. Well, what happens is Zach Garris is now censured, which means he shouldn't be preaching or Administering any of the ordinances.

However, if he appeals this to the standing Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church in America For their own review of the situation if he appeals it those that censure is immediately suspended.

Meaning he can preach next Sunday.

So.

That's where it stands. He Will. This will likely I mean my prediction is this will be Going before the standing Judicial Commission and this will be overturned because if they allow this to stand then Really anyone who calls anyone else arrogant is going to be in trouble for Violating the let no unwholesome word come out of your mouth rule.