Mega Edition: Seminaries, Church Meetings and Malum in se, Jonathan Leeman's Identity Politics

Welcome to the Conversations That Matter podcast. My name is John Harris. Well, you may be surprised this morning as I am holding this little kitty.

I am not a cat person, one bit. In fact, I never saw myself being a cat owner in my entire life.

But this little guy showed up next to our home the other day, and the neighbor actually texted me and said, there's a little kitty outside calling for its mother.

And it was caught in this little area by the window, the basement window, kind of like a two or two and a half foot, three foot, probably more than that, about three feet or so deep area.

And this little kitty was crying down there. You're getting energy now. You want to go away. And anyway, my wife, it was over when my wife saw the little kitty.

You want to go? All right, well, just say hi to everyone real quick. Yeah, we were going to call it

Oliver. Now we think it's a girl. So we're, you know, we're looking at other names. If you have a suggestion for a name for the kitty, this is so outside my wheelhouse.

Pepper was the one I suggested, but my wife doesn't seem to like pepper as much. You don't know how to get down from here, do you?

Here, I'm going to help you. All right. Bye, kitty. So that is a side of me you likely have never seen.

And I wasn't planning on showing it to you, but I guess it does exist. And if you've been watching 80

Robles, he's been raising chickens. You know, I actually raised chickens when I was younger, when I was like 12 years old.

My parents believe in entrepreneurship. So I had I had like a bread business, which basically meant

I paid my mom to make bread. Yeah, instead of an allowance, my parents wanted me to learn entrepreneurship.

So that was the bread business. And then right after that, I said, I don't like making bread. I'm going to raise chickens. I'll sell the eggs.

And I did that for for a few years. Actually, I took care of these chickens and you don't get as much attached to chickens.

I remember the day some people are going to be offended by this. But I remember the day that we had to.

We had to mercifully end the chickens life. I'll put it that way. I don't know how else.

I mean, look, if you go get chicken nuggets at McDonald's or someone's doing that for you. So just just remember that go to KFC.

Someone's doing that. We tried to be merciful about it, but I did have to rename the chickens. Things like, you know, like Hitler, like, you know, instead of Henrietta.

You know, I had to I had to sort of conceive of them a little differently before we did that. But but I did raise chickens the whole way through a few times.

And and we had I had a few dogs when I was younger. But they were outdoors until until I was in my late teens.

My parents got a dog they kept inside. So we and we never had cats. We never had cats.

Cats, you know, cats were evil in my experience. Neighborhood cats would scratch you.

And my grandparents had a cat. It was mean. And so, you know, I don't know at what stage the demons enter the cat right now.

That little kitten. Yeah, there's no demons in that little kitten. But, you know, it likes to play.

It likes to bite around or trying to keep it from doing that. But when it when it gets older, that'll hurt. So so we have to have to figure that all out.

But my wife is very happy about it. And and that's been taking up a little bit of my time. So for those who don't like what

I have to say on this podcast, you can't be too hard on me because I just had a little kitten in my in my arms.

Or or actually maybe it works the opposite. Maybe I'm a James Bond villain. Not that I watch James Bond.

I'm a good conservative Christian, but I know, you know, all the villains always have a cat.

And they're like, you know, petting the cat while they're talking about how they're going to kill James Bond or something. So I don't know.

However, you want to take that. I have a cat, though, now. And I'm not sure I'm having an identity crisis over this.

You were not expecting me to start the podcast off that way, I'm sure. But but there we go.

Not only cats, but there's actually something else that is more important that I've been spending actually a whole lot more time on.

And that has kept me from doing an episode. I was going to drop some important things last week and I just couldn't get to it because of this.

So this is what I've been working on, though. So what this is, is a 157 pages.

It stands now thesis on the evangelical left. And I've been writing it this semester. I haven't talked about it much, but it's now going through a peer review process.

It'll probably change a little. But I did some research for it last semester as well. And it's really more of an objective history.

It's not meant to be critical. I'm not writing all my opinions. I'm just writing down what happened and trying to answer why it happened.

So the interesting part of all this is and this will come up later. I'm going to talk about Jonathan Lehman's identity politics episode at T4G.

Some folks have asked me to comment on that. I'll keep my comments as brief as I can, but I will talk about it. But this principle is going to come up.

This this idea, at least. Evangelical leftists, Jim Wallace, Ron Sider, Sharon Gallagher, you know, the list goes on and on.

Wes Gramber, Michaelson, you know, John Alexander, these guys who were influenced by new left radicalism, campus new left radicalism.

Usually they go off to college. You know, they started out in these conservative Christian homes just about in every case.

And then they will go off to some either seminary or usually college, secular college, sometimes high school.

And they get along the way somewhere. They are influenced by new left ideas. They start rubbing shoulders with Marxists or, you know, some variety of Marxism.

And they accept the new left critique of America and how the church has just been so complicit in this.

And it's America is a crummy place and the church has been complicit in its crumminess. That's basically the critique. And so what they do is they they try that on for size for a little bit.

They get, you know, like Richard Mao, Jim Wallace, both members of Student for a Democratic Society. Right.

Jim Wallace is like organizing protests. He's really deep into it. And so they start they reject their

Christianity or they have a crisis of faith or they change denominations or something happens in their their their religious outlook.

It gets rattled by this new left critique. But then they realize, you know what?

Secularism doesn't work. That's not a foundation. I mean, you know, Sharon Gallagher, Christian World Liberation from Berkeley, California.

They were they really liked Francis Schaeffer over there. And you think Francis Schaeffer, he hated communism. Well, yes. But they were looking for a critique of secularism.

They wanted some way to have a moral foundation for the new left critique that they now believe in.

And so they adopted the new left ethics, if you will. But they tried to underneath it, put a metaphysics that was still

Christian. And so they were turned to their evangelical roots and they brought with them their new left ideas and what they would say.

And I have all the original source quotation and everything they would say. We accept the new left critique.

We accept Marxism. You will even hear that we accept the Marxist critique. Marxist. But the problem is it doesn't go far enough.

We need Christianity to change souls, not just change the system. But that's important, too.

That's part of, you know, if you accept, you know, the Neo -Cyperian Richard Mao kind of take or the liberation theology take.

Well, that's important, too. You know, we got a salvation. The atonement of Christ extends to institutions and government, etc.,

which in their minds also meant the new left critique. That's part of the salvation, part of the redemption of society.

So they would say that's important. But individual souls are where a lot of this evil comes from, from there.

So it doesn't go far enough. So we need the Marxist critique, those ethics, those principles.

But we need it to the foundation to be Christianity. And then eventually what they would say and different, you know, figures in this movement at different times, they would just say, well, we don't need

Marxism. Marxism is not even part of this. It's just the Bible. It's only the Bible. We see all these things. And what they would talk about was redistribution of wealth, egalitarianism, all the things that the new left critique was saying, they would say, but they would just try to find

Bible verses to back up what they're saying and say it's just biblical. That's all it is. And we're seeing the same show again.

We're saying this, we're seeing the same exact show again. And there are those within the established evangelicalism who are winking and nodding at it.

Today, Al Mohler is a good example of this, by the way. And in the coming weeks, I'm going to talk some more about this.

I know some of you have asked, when are you going to talk more about what's happening at Southern? I will.

I am going to talk, not this episode, but I will say this about Al Mohler. Al Mohler was mentored by Carl Henry.

Al Mohler, you know, he endorses Donald Trump. He's against critical race theory. He blasted on his podcast. But then he winks and he nods at the guys in his own seminary, at the guys in his own denomination.

What's up with that? Well, Carl Henry did something very similar. Carl Henry signed the Chicago Declaration in 1973, which if you read that, it is the new left critique.

Talks about mutual submission of husbands and wives. It talks about the disparities and how bad they are worldwide and rich and poor, etc.

The church has been complicit in racism, etc. It's all that stuff, right? Carl Henry signs this thing and then Carl Henry turns around.

And I have the quotes in this work that I've done. Carl Henry says, well, you know,

Chicago Declaration, after he signed it, it really doesn't address Marxism like it should.

It really needs to go after Marxism, you know, essentially is what he says. And Carl Henry endorses

Richard Nixon. And so the evangelical left doesn't really know what to do with Carl Henry because Carl Henry. And there were more people than just Carl Henry that were like this.

But Carl Henry is a really he's kind of a he's a figure that I think stands out more than even

Billy Graham. Billy Graham wasn't so much a theologian. So when Billy Graham platforms, you know, speaks alongside of Samuel Escobar or, you know, platforms some of these other guys like Tom Skinner or, you know,

John Perkins or something. You know, Billy Graham's not thinking in the same terms as Carl Henry. Carl Henry knew what was going on.

He did interview with Wes Gramber Michelson and Jim Wallace. But and for those who don't know Carl Henry, he's the guy.

He helps start Fuller Seminary, Christianity Today. He National Association of Evangelicals. He is

Mr. Neo evangelical. We got to get away from fundamentalism. Evangelicalism is a new thing.

Neo evangelicalism. So he opened the door for the new left to come in.

But then he would say, I'm not not I don't agree with the new left. It's very similar to what you see

Al Mohler doing. And so the way was kind of open for them. And the way is open today for the current crop of social justice warriors.

And there's a connection between the two. There really is. And I have found it. So I'm excited about putting this history out there when

I get a chance. I got some other things in the works as well. But but that is why I didn't put out a podcast last week.

And hopefully that whets your appetite a little bit. Another project that's happening that I'm part of is this.

This is the trailer for First Baptist Naples documentary that Enemies Within the

Church is putting out. Check it out. Why does someone need a gag order on a church?

What's up with that? But it is undeniable that race played a part in the final days leading up to this election.

You were branded as a racist. Yes. But you're not a racist. No. It was slander.

Total. Four thoroughly social justice -driven components of the Southern Baptist Convention, J .D.

Greer, Kevin Ezell, are involved in changing the direction of a large megachurch in one of the most conservative areas of the swing state,

Florida. All of a sudden, Pastor Wicker's now retiring, but then he's just gone.

It wasn't just pushing to get him to leave. They had to ruin his reputation. For some reason that was important.

And, you know, that pastor transition team that went on even before, you know, there was a consulting group,

Oxano, that was called in. And eventually they came up with some candidates. And, of course,

Marcus came up. Homosexuality is a sin. Now, if you have, now maybe somebody even in this room, you may have same -sex attractions.

I don't know. I would say that's not a sin. He just was not qualified. We had different guidelines that they were supposed to fall under, and they changed the guidelines for him.

Because he was a plant by the SBC to come in and take the position of senior pastor. Hey, First Naples family, this is

Kevin Ezell, president of the North America Mission Board. He's going to be a fantastic pastor. You're going to love him.

Every one of these woke young pastors have some connection with Al Mohler.

They were ruling with an iron hand. They're running the church now. There's a lot of individuals that don't even realize that that's happening, and they're just going with it.

I don't want to see other churches go this way. This will destroy the church in America.

So that is going to come out within the next few weeks, I'm told. Enemies Within the Church is doing a great job.

Throw them a few pennies if you can. I appreciate all the support you're giving me, by the way. It helps me do what

I do. I've been doing some of my work with them. In fact, this week, I'm actually going to fly somewhere to do a top -secret mission that you will find out more about soon.

But it is important. Look, paying for flights, hotels, that kind of thing. I don't really make money off this.

This is something that I do because I love the body of Christ. I see the gospel being corrupted.

I see foreign ideas that are actually antithetical to biblical teaching taking root.

I don't want to see that. You're not alone in this. You need to know that. I get contacted by so many people that are interested in what

I'm doing and what others like me are doing. They feel isolated. You're not isolated.

I appreciate those who have supported me on Patreon and beyond. Sending me checks.

Praying for me is more important than any of that. I appreciate it. Thank you. Please pray for Enemies Within the

Church as well. They have a lot that they're sitting on right now that needs to be released. They're trying to make up the difference so that they can have the money to promote it and to get it out there.

By the way, if you're a whistleblower, and I get contacted all the time by whistleblowers, but 99 % don't want to go on camera.

They'll lose their job, their reputation, etc. The people you just saw in that trailer, they risk their reputation to come on camera.

I really appreciate it. Look, some of you aren't in a position you can do that. I get it. But if you are in a position you can do it, and you're inspired by what you just saw in that trailer, please, please contact

Enemies Within the Church. It's easy to do. You can go to their Facebook page. You can go to their website. There's tons of places you can go to contact them.

But they would love to get your story. Again, if you're willing to go on camera and talk about it, we would really appreciate it.

They would appreciate it. There's my little spiel. I want to give you some coming attractions here.

Before we get to it, we're going to talk a little bit about the quarantine situation again. I have a few thoughts to share.

Then we're going to talk about Jonathan Lehman's identity politics thing. I've been critiquing, like I will later, kind of on the fly.

But I haven't put together a step -by -step, here's the hard copy, print it out, share it with your Sunday school kind of material.

This summer, I intend to do that. Your support definitely helps make that possible. But that's really where I'm going.

I don't want to spend as much time on the exposure, though. Every time I say that, something crazy happens, and I feel the need to expose.

But I want to start spending more time on the education. Let's talk about these ideas. Let's identify them, and let's root them out when we see them.

That's where I'm at. That's an exciting thing. Here's the other thing

I wanted to share with you. I'm going to talk about, just for a minute, if you wouldn't mind, seminary education.

I've been reached out to about this by a number of folks. Since, I think it was two episodes ago,

I talked about, hey, we need to have another seminary. In the context, it was what's happening at Southern.

We have professors now who are free to teach that are conservative. We have donors who are pulling out of some of these places.

Finances are now becoming somewhat available to do something. Let's do something. I gave you the tip of the iceberg.

Really, what's happening is behind the scenes, there are people who are watching the SBC implode.

They're already thinking about what's the next thing. I know of at least, I think

I've been contacted, let me think about this, two online seminaries, I believe, have contacted me.

Then two, they haven't started yet, but their potential attempts, I'll put it that way, so preliminary stages, but potential attempts at brick -and -mortar training institutions of some kind.

I'm in contact with folks about some of this stuff. My whole goal, I don't want to be part of leading any of this stuff.

I'm a 30 -year -old man who is looking at other things. If I was 60, maybe, and had some of this experience under my belt, sure,

I would be maybe thinking I was a pastor. I had a church. I had resources. Maybe I'd look at doing something like that.

My goal is to just get people talking to each other, to make connections. Some of these guys don't know each other. I want to connect donors with professors, with churches, see what we can come up with out of this.

I'll certainly express some of my ideas. I definitely have thought through seminary education. I've been at three different brick -and -mortar campuses for seminary.

I've been at Masters. I've been at Southeastern. I've taken classes at Liberty. Here's the thing

I want to say about seminary education because I've seen a little bit of this. Number one, there's an advantage to having a church on the campus.

It's not enough to just have it on. Even Southeastern had a church on the campus, but it's a church that's actually invested in the seminary, a seminary that's invested in the church.

The two are not separate entities. They actually dovetail with each other.

The closer you can get that to happen, the better. We know this. That's one of the reasons.

Every single time, I'll tell you what I tell students who reach out to me or potential students because this happens multiple times a week usually.

John, where do I go to seminary? I don't know. Everything seems bad now. It's all social justice. I say, look, there's no perfect seminary, number one.

There's no perfect place because we're people. I would start out looking, depending on your theological tradition, etc.,

I would start looking at expositors. That's the first one that I always say to look at because they don't have their seminaries as these separate institutions.

They actually blend, which is really the model you want to begin with, a discipleship, church, ministry model combined with the education.

That's the first place. Now, most of the time, the people that I'm talking to who ask me about this, it's not an option for them to go to a place like expositors for a variety of reasons.

Sometimes it's they want to go higher in education and they need a certain kind of accreditation in their minds to do that or their denomination.

They're Presbyterian or usually they're Southern Baptist, but they might have an eschatology that doesn't necessarily line up with expositors.

You need to do your research. When I say go to expositors, do your research and see if it's something that fits, but I do recommend them first.

After that, I should say this too, by the way, if you're looking at undergrad, because that's a seminary, if you're looking at undergrad like Bible school type of stuff,

I always recommend first Appalachian Bible College. That is just because I know enough about what's going on there behind the scenes to know that they are trying to take a stand against this woke social justice movement.

That is rare, I will say, for especially a fundamentalist era institution.

This is what I've noticed is that because there's such a line between politics and religion, we just don't talk about politics.

We just talk about theology here. It's hard for them to get outside that box and realize there is a political movement with theological assumptions.

It's an alternative religion, but it's political that is coming to you. It's not that you're getting involved with politics.

Politics is getting involved with you and the battle is coming whether you want it or not. Preparing your students for this is really important.

This is the biggest apologetics issue right now of our day. It probably will be for a few years at least.

It's good to know about Mormonism and cults and all that stuff, but you know what? This is actually the thing. This is what secular humanists, which most of our country practically speaking is, this is what they're all falling into.

It's important, I think, to try to go to a school that is at least trying to address that. Apologetically.

If you can't go to Appalachian Bible College, if you can't go to Expositor Seminary, here's my advice to you.

Most of you who reach out are Southern Baptists, so this is what I'll say. Find a school where you can shadow a professor who agrees with you on this.

Someone who is conservative, who sees the theological implications of this political movement, who knows what's happening on their campus and is against it.

The safest bet for you is probably Mid -America if you're Southern Baptist or Mid -Western. You're still gonna come up with, there probably are some woke things there that you're gonna find, but there's professors there who you can shadow.

You're gonna have to do some of your own research on this. I would advise this. Don't talk to the administration. They're gonna give you all the right answers.

Their job is to try to make you feel comfortable. We're not woke. We're not. Talk to professors if you can and just see who you'd be comfortable with maybe shadowing.

Southeastern, now Southern, probably not the best options, but you can survive there. This isn't the only issue.

If you're Arminian, you might not wanna go to a Southern. If you're Calvinist, you may not wanna go to a Southwestern. There's other things to consider, but the main thing you're looking at is the social justice movement.

That's kind of the range. You have your Midwestern and your

Mid -America over here and you have your Southern and your

Southeastern on the other end. Here's what you can do.

The three brick and mortar places I went for my seminary education all taught this.

Learn Greek, learn Hebrew. I'm not one of these guys that necessarily says you have to be an expert at it.

I would say I'm not an expert at it. I'd like to be someday. I really would, but enough to at least really know how to use the tools.

You should be able, I would think, at least after you're done with Greek 2, to open a

Greek Bible and kind of at least get through it to be able to give your own translations to things.

That would be my advice is to try to learn those things. You can learn that anywhere. You actually don't have to go to seminary to learn that.

There's plenty of online tools for that. For Hebrew, you can go to your local rabbi. Those two things are important, and you can learn that at the wokest seminary.

They still have to teach you Greek and Hebrew, or they should have to teach you. They should at least offer it.

The other thing, and I'm probably biased in this, is church history is important to me. I think you should have three semesters of it, but that's because I'm biased.

Most places do two semesters, and if you're a

Baptist school, they'll probably make you take a course on Baptist history. So get some church history.

Understand kind of in general theological ideas, time periods. And then the other thing

I think is really important, and this is maybe another area I'm biased, but I think apologetics is really important.

Know kind of, okay, what kind of objections am I going to get once I am pastoring?

And apologetics will help prepare you for those objections and to be able to minister in those contexts.

A lot of the other stuff, honestly, you're going to learn on the job. I mean, theology is important. It really is.

I tend to think, though, that in hermeneutics, honestly, I forgot about that. Hermeneutics is very important. You need to be able to take hermeneutics, and that may be a class.

If you go to Southeastern, you're going to get kind of more of a reader response hermeneutics, most likely. So you may want to do some research on that before you go.

Get a good grammatical historical book on hermeneutics and learn that.

But yeah, hermeneutics, church history, languages. Theology, I would say, is,

I would put that fourth, I guess. Theology is important, but I think you learn theology as you're going through the text and engaging with the text as well.

Some of the other classes, I call them fluff classes, but classes on discipleship, pastoral leadership, that kind of stuff, honestly, if you can avoid taking those,

I would avoid it. That stuff, it might be helpful for you, I mean, depending on who you are, but I wouldn't consider those necessary.

You learn that in a mentorship situation with another older man and elders that you can shadow, you can learn from.

That's where you really should be learning that stuff, like visitation, the ordinances. That's all stuff you shouldn't need a class on that.

You should be able to just learn that from whoever you're being mentored by. That's my two cents just off the cuff on seminary, but I wanted to get it out there because I've had a number of you contact me after two episodes ago, and you're really interested in this idea of maybe a new theological institution of some kind, and we are talking about a church -based model, some of those

I have talked to about this, and I'm excited about it too, but it's not going to be off the ground right away.

This will take time, and so that's why, like I said, if you're interested, I'll put you on the list, but until that happens, there's other options out there, and I will always, even if what

I'm talking about now gets off the ground and there's an alternative in the Southern Baptist world, or that orbit, probably outside the convention, but in that orbit,

I would probably still recommend to you, yeah, go to Expositors. Go to Appalachian Bible College.

Check out those places. There's probably a lot of other places, and I'm sorry if I left out your favorite seminary. A few people said, haven't you looked at this one or that one?

And here's the truth. There are some others that I'm thinking about that I'm like, yeah, those are good, but I don't know enough.

I'm not comfortable in every single way maybe to put my wholehearted endorsement out there and say, yes, go there, and it'll be great.

Expositors and Appalachian Bible College, I'm pretty comfortable giving an endorsement to. So again, that doesn't mean they endorse me.

It just means that I do endorse what they're doing. All right, let's get to some meat now. I feel like I've been doing an introduction for about half an hour, and I'm ready to get into some stuff.

So let's start off with a question. Was the Apostle Paul a criminal? Was the Apostle Paul a criminal?

Verse eight of 2 Timothy chapter two says, remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel.

Verse nine, for which I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal, but the word of God is not imprisoned.

I was reading this this morning in my devotional time, and I wanted to point something out to you.

I'm scrolling right now over the word criminal. He's saying I'm in prison for the gospel, but I'm suffering, I'm in prison as a criminal.

Click on the word. The word is kagourgos, and it means criminal, or evil worker, but the reason you can say evil worker is, if I scroll down here, and if you know

Greek, you can tell very easily, but this is from another word, kakos. If you go to Romans 13, and you go to the word evil here, verse three, for rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil, it's the word kakos, it's the word for evil.

Paul is suffering here, as he says in 2 Timothy, chapter two, as an evil worker for sharing the gospel.

And it struck me as I was thinking about this, that it depends on what perspective you're looking at this from, whether or not you think

Paul is a criminal, an evil worker. Is Paul an evil worker? He describes himself as an evil worker. He's suffering as one, but was he an evil worker?

Was he a criminal? That's what a criminal is. One of the things that I think it's important to understand whenever we're talking about ethics, especially when we're talking about government and the civil magistrate is this, there's a difference between malum and se, and malum prohibitum.

Any first year law student would learn this. Malum and se, these are both Latin phrases, means evil in and of itself, wrong in and of itself.

It's morally wrong. It could be legal, but it's wrong. And then there's malum prohibitum. Malum prohibitum means, well, it's wrong because it's prohibited, not because it's evil in and of itself, but because the government says that you shouldn't do this, or some kind of, you know, it could be your parent telling a child you shouldn't do this.

It may not be evil in and of itself. You know, and there's lots of examples we could use.

Is it necessarily evil to go 65 miles an hour on a road? No, it's not.

But is it evil to go 65 miles an hour on a road in a zone that says the speed limit is actually 30 miles an hour for the public safety of those that are using the public taxpayer -funded road?

That would be wrong, right? But then it's not, the wrong isn't in the fact that you're going 65 miles an hour.

The wrong is in the fact that you're not valuing human life. That would be the actual evil, and that's what you would be punished for.

But it's all underneath the veneer of this law, the speed limit law.

And so there's a difference between those two concepts, malum and se, malum prohibitum. So let's go back.

Let's talk about what we just saw in 2 Timothy, and in Romans 13.

When Paul says in verse nine, I suffer hardship even as to imprisonment as a criminal, but the word of God is not imprisoned.

Is he talking about malum and se, or is he talking about malum prohibitum there? He's talking about malum prohibitum.

He's talking about the fact that he has gone against what the authorities have said he can do, and he's being punished for it.

Did he actually do anything evil? No, but he's calling himself an evildoer. Right, from the perspective of the governing authorities, he's an evildoer.

That's how he's suffering. He's suffering as an evildoer, but he's not an evildoer.

Romans 13, what's the purpose of government? Verse three, for rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.

Kakos, same root word. What's the context? What's Paul talking about? Is this malum and se?

Is this malum prohibitum? If you look at chapter 12,

I'm not going to go through all of this with you. I know I went through some of this with Pastor Kerry Gordon, but the context is really set in verse one.

It's about being a holy sacrifice, and if you go through the rest of Romans chapter 12, and I would encourage you to read it, we're not talking about malum prohibitum.

We're talking about things that are actually evil. We're talking about malum and se, keeping ourselves pure from those things and doing the right thing, actual right.

And so when he gets down to do not become by evil, right, but overcome evil with good, that word for evil there is, again, kakos.

Do not, he's talking about things that are evil in and of themselves, and that context continues into Romans 13.

So what can we draw from this? Turn with me, not if you're driving, but if you're not, turn with me to Daniel chapter six, and I am using, of course, my assault

Bible for this. We have to do that. Let's go to verse seven.

It says, Now, these jealous satraps know that Daniel prays three times today, and he's public about it, and they're trying to trap him.

We know this because we see behind the veil. But if you were in that situation, you wouldn't see it at all.

The king didn't see it. To them, the law has nothing to do with trying to single out

Daniel, right? It's an across -the -board rule. It doesn't discriminate against those who worship

Yahweh. It is just across -the -board, and it's only temporary, 30 days, just temporary, can't pray, something that God has commanded us to do.

And to be honest with you, I mean, pray without ceasing is in the

New Testament, right? So the concept was there. We're supposed to pray, but to actually find an actual command that says, well, you have to pray all the time, doesn't exist.

Daniel doesn't have it, but that's part of Daniel's worship. So Daniel's in this position, temporary, not discriminated against, and he could have shut the window, right?

He could have said, I'm just not going to be public about it. I'm still going to do it, but I'm not going to tell anyone

I'm doing it. Or, you know, he could have done the whole thing. He could have done the protest route, right? He could have just said, we're going to lead a protest to the king right now.

I'm going to be really loud about this. Daniel didn't do either one. Daniel actually just kept doing what he always did.

He didn't change his habit, his tradition, which is not technically something that he has to do, right?

Nowhere in the Bible does it say you have to pray three times a day, and you have to do it publicly so everyone sees you.

But that's what Daniel did, and he didn't change. He just kept doing it publicly. Well, what happens?

King Darius signs the document. He's fooled, right? And then Daniel knew that the document was signed, so he didn't do this ignorantly.

He entered his house. Now in his roof chamber, he had windows open toward Jerusalem, and he continued kneeling on his knees three times a day, praying and giving thanks before his

God, as he had been doing previously. Then these men came by agreement and found

Daniel making petitions, supplication before his God. They approached, spoke before the king. The king said, basically, this has to be carried out.

It can't be revoked. Daniel's thrown in, and then you know the rest of the story, right? Daniel is saved, and those who singled him out, because their motives were made known to the king, were the ones that were actually punished.

God delivered Daniel. What do we get from this story? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

Daniel could have taken the easy way, and he didn't. Technically, Daniel could have kept praying, and he didn't.

Daniel wasn't singled out, not that he knew of, not that the king knew of, not that those outside would have known of, but he decided to keep doing what he was doing.

Malum in sae, or malum prohibitum, that rule that the king put out there. It's definitely not malum in sae.

Daniel was not punished for evil. Neither was the apostle Paul.

He was treated that way, but that's not what he did. He didn't do anything evil. What's the job of the government?

It's to punish evil, evildoers, malum in sae. And so this actually ties in to this whole debate about churches, and Romans 13, and I have a few things

I want to share. I've said a lot about this already, but it's a continuing debate, and I notice,

I mean I'm not on Twitter all the time, but I've noticed kind of the level of the discussion on Twitter, and I want to inject some things into this that I don't think have been injected quite enough.

I want to read a passage for you from Francis Schaeffer. It's his book, How Shall We Then Live?

I think it came out in the 70s. Here's what he says, Rome was cruel, and its cruelty can perhaps be best pictured by the events which took place in the arena in Rome itself.

People seated above the arena floor watched gladiator contests and Christians thrown to the beasts.

Let us not forget why the Christians were killed. They were not killed because they worshipped

Jesus. Various religions covered the whole Roman world. One such was the cult of Mithras, a popular

Persian form of Zoroastrianism, which had reached Rome by 67 B .C. Nobody cared who worshipped whom, so long as the worshipper did not disrupt the unity of the state.

Centered in the formal worship of Caesar. The reason the

Christians were killed was because they were rebels. This was especially so after their growing rejection by the

Jewish synagogue lost for them the immunity granted to the Jews since Julius Caesar's time.

Let me read for you a passage from 1 Peter about persecution. Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer or thief or evildoer or a troublesome meddler.

Paul is giving a list of things you shouldn't suffer for. We're talking here malum in se. We're talking if you're murdering, if you're a thief, if you're an evildoer, again the root kakos, or a troublesome meddler.

This denotes getting outside the authority, the chain of command, being obnoxious.

Don't suffer for those things. Don't be a jerk. That's the John Harris translation. But if anyone suffers as a

Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name. I don't see a lot of discussions going on about malum in se versus malum prohibitum.

But they need to happen. We need to think through this from that perspective. Paul suffered.

From the perspective of Rome, he suffered as an evildoer. From the perspective of God, he did not suffer as an evildoer.

He made trouble with the state. What Francis Schaeffer said about the early churches, dead on.

The state didn't care about Christianity. They could care less, as long as you did the sacrifice to Caesar.

And that was not something that was owed to Caesar. They could do their whole religion as long as they made the sacrifice to Caesar.

Hail Caesar. They wouldn't do it. And that is the reason that they were persecuted.

They were persecuted as Christians. And no, it wasn't because they shared the gospel.

In fact, most of the time, Christians are not persecuted at the root of it. From the logic, at least, that the government uses when the government does the persecuting.

They are not persecuted, generally, just because they're Christians. That happens. But most of the time, when it's justified by the government, it is not just because they're singling out

Christians. Doesn't happen. It's because they're in violation of some ordinance or principle the state wants to enact.

They won't participate in state worship. In the case of Daniel, he wouldn't change his habits.

He's persecuted for opening his window. Now, what's the telos?

What's the point of all this? Where am I going? I put out a post a few days ago.

Maybe now it was a week and a half ago. Nine barriers that I see. And this was just thrown together in about ten minutes, so there could be more.

But I came up with nine barriers that someone who says it's sinful to meet for church right now, which

I've seen, would need to overcome. Because what's happening right now, and you may not see it, is the state is favoring.

The state is making a choice and telling you that worship of God, what he commands, is not essential.

But other things are. That's how you know the emperor has no clothes in this. When there's liquor stores and grocery stores and Planned Parenthood in many places, and the list goes on, restaurant drive -thrus, etc.,

but you can't have a drive -thru service. This is how you know the state is prioritizing the material world over the immaterial world.

It's telling you what you should value. It's making a value judgment here. We're going to shut things down for the virus, but these things are essential.

Essential to the functioning of our society. The state says so. So you're going to obey the state?

Let me bring you through this. Let's get outside the box, guys.

I think so many of us are inside the box, and I want to have as much grace as possible. But let's get outside of it for a minute. Leviticus 13 authorizes the magistrate to quarantine a person who is voluntarily examined by a priest and found to be sick.

Nowhere do you find the magistrate authorized to quarantine healthy people otherwise not examined. So that's hurdle number one.

And look, I know there's a lot of questions, and I can't get into all of them. I do think that Jesus and Paul both take the ethical principles of the

Old Testament and apply them. The principles. I'm not saying you apply everything from the Old Testament today.

That's not how this works. But even in—there's a number of passages in the Old Testament that talk about the law of Israel, the example of Israel being a light to the nations.

Yes, there's things specific to Israel, but there's also things that are supposed to be a light to the nations, and there's also things that are applicable today.

And so I do think that we take these principles, and we see how to apply them. And this is how I look at the general equity here of Leviticus 13.

There is a pattern for what the magistrate should do in quarantine. This is malum in se, what the government is authorized by God to do.

What God says is the government's role, not malum prohibitum. This is malum in se, if it's from God, if these principles are from God.

So we can wrangle about that more, but that's my first barrier. Second, if you can justify the quarantining of healthy people who haven't been examined, you'll need to justify the magistrate infringing on the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical authorities by canceling their services.

So this is, you know, government, you're out of your lane. You know, think about it this way. Would you let your pastor into your house to just eat from your refrigerator, or spank your child, or whatever it may be?

He can just come in whenever he wants, do whatever he wants. Well, you're commanded to submit to him, and he's not asking you to sin.

It's not a sin for you to let him rummage through your fridge and take stuff. Well, you say, oh, that's stealing.

Well, yeah, but you're committed to submit to him, though. So why would that be stealing? Why can't he discipline your children?

You say, well, that's my job. Well, but you're commanded to submit to him, right? Whenever you invoke those kinds of principles, what you're saying is there's a barrier.

There's a limit to his role. So the principle is not, this isn't how it works. I've seen this all over the place.

As long as the government doesn't ask us to sin. Yeah, that's not how this works. Let me show you something here.

Check out this story from World Net Daily. City demands churches turn over names, addresses, and phone numbers.

Officials want information for surveillance of members. And, of course, this is for the public good, right?

This is because they want to keep track of people who may be infected with the coronavirus. So what city is this?

Kansas City. Several churches in Kansas City, I guess. So this is what's going on in Kansas City, according to this article.

Now, if this is the case, think about this with me. Is it a sin to hand over the names, addresses, and phone numbers of your church members to the government so they can have surveillance of them?

Is that a sin? You have to face this one square on.

Is it malum in se, malum prohibitum? Well, if you violated it, you're definitely malum prohibitum, right?

You violated that because the government's telling you to do it, right? I mean, if you think that they have the authority to do that, which

I don't think, but let's just say that they do. So you're violating... So you'd be in sin, right?

You'd be in violation of the typical way most Christians think of Romans 13. If you object to this, then the objection that you have to make is that they're outside of the boundary of their jurisdiction, which is the same point many of us have been trying to make from the beginning, is the government doesn't actually have the authority to cancel church like this.

They can advise. You can work together with them. And if you have health reasons, every situation is different, then by all means.

But look, if you're doing this because the government said so, and that's really the reason, and there's really no other reason that you're canceling your services if you're a church, then

I want you to think through this. What if the government then asks you to do this? If you're in Kansas City, it's a real possibility. What logic are you going to use?

All right? So where are we up to now? So that was... Was that number two, number three?

Number three. So let's go to number four now. Oh, no, that was number two. So number three, if you can justify the first two, you'll need to now justify a civil magistrate violating the right to private property by canceling services on privately -owned ground and privately -owned buildings.

Not all places value that. We do. So there's another reason. I mean, part of this is the system of government in the

United States. If you can justify the first three, you'll need to justify how, in a governmental system which guarantees the right to both assemble and worship, the present governing authorities should be allowed to overturn the wills of the framers of the government.

And this is something you hear all the time, right? You try to invoke the Constitution, and you say, look, the

Constitution doesn't allow this, or the Constitution of the state doesn't allow this. And then what people will say is, yeah, but it says in Romans 13, it's not talking about a document, it's talking about people.

Well, who put the Constitution together? Who swore to uphold that Constitution?

That's right, people did. Framers of the Constitution of the United States put it together.

Framers of your state constitutions put them together. And your civil officials are supposed to be protecting those things, and they've made a promise to.

If they violate their promise, who's the one in sin? And who do you submit to?

Do you submit to those who formed the framers? Do you submit to, you know, the,

I mean, we're having to go back in time now, because we're looking at, but this is something that's supposed to still be in effect, and everyone who's over you in the civil realm has basically sworn allegiance to this, right?

But they're not, they're the ones in violation of it. So there's actual people, if you follow the path back, there are people that you're submitting to.

They may not even be alive now, but you're submitting to them. So which one are you going to submit to?

The people who formed the Constitution and the rules, or are you going to submit to those who want to violate them today?

It's not just a document, guys. You've got to make that decision. So let's see here, verse 5, reason 5.

If you can justify those four barriers, you'll need to justify how governing authorities who favor liquor, grocery, and hardware stores, as well as Planned Parenthood and restaurants, should be allowed to violate equal protection principles to force churches to close.

And this is where the discrimination comes in. This is where, you know, this is the equivalent of the state gets to tell you what's essential and nonessential, and worship just doesn't cut, not important.

If you're still fine with the governing authorities overstepping these boundaries, you'll need to explain why Acts 5 and Daniel 6 don't give churches an example for civil disobedience in circumstances where they are required to disregard

God's commands. And look, this is a situation in which we have to disregard possibly.

Now, I'm going to get into this in a minute. I don't want to get deep into the weeds yet, but God's commands. We're told to meet, right, and there's reasons for it.

Number 7, if the government closing churches is still okay, you'll need to justify why it's imperative for churches to cease from physically meeting together with, which includes administering ordinances, demonstrating the full spectrum of gifts in 1

Corinthians 12, and elders praying for the sick. Can't do those things if you're not physically meeting. If disregarding these commands from God is temporarily fine, you'll need to think through what kind of logic you'll use to defend churches meeting if the government arbitrarily uses safety to permanently close or regulate church services.

So what I'm saying here is get ready for the next reason that the government uses in the name of health or some, you know, altruistic motivation to close your church or to suppress you in some way.

This isn't about my rights. You know, the rights are tethered to responsibilities. It's not, this isn't, you know, revolutionary.

This is actually order that we're talking about. The revolutionaries are the ones that are overturning this order. So, yeah,

Christians aren't supposed to be troublemakers. We're not supposed to be revolutionaries, which is why we shouldn't go along with those in public office who are that way.

If you're able to jump those hoops and you're still clinging to Romans 13 for justification, you'll need to now argue how discriminating against churches in the face of a pandemic with an extremely low death rate is good according to God's law.

Malum and say good, not malum prohibitum good. And, of course, the wheels are falling off this whole thing now, and I don't need to even go over that because it's now starting to be universally understood that this was a big overreaction.

And so, I mean, I've traced some of those things out, but all this to say, this is a lot, there's a lot more questions that need to be thought through,

I think, in this whole discussion. And the responses that I've seen,

I wrote down a few of them, Twitter world responses mostly here.

But the arguments that are given is we need to be a good public witness. And I say, what better public witness can you be than to, and, again,

I've always said do this responsibly. We are, you know, there's a health concern, and you want to be as wise as you possibly can.

But drive -in services, what's the public health risk there? If everyone's going into Walmart, you're safer in your drive -in service than you are going to a place like that.

If you're meeting in small rooms, if you're distancing, if you're washing hands and all the other health precautions, wearing masks, whatever, which probably, wearing masks probably doesn't help, it probably hurts, but what's being a better public witness?

Meeting, saying we're still here, we're showing the community, this is the public witness, we're willing to risk a little.

If the community views it that way, if they think it's a risk, we're willing to, to worship our God. We're commanded to.

And we're going to be responsible, but we're commanded to. And you know what? The door's open for you, too. Because this is the place.

This is the recognizable place in our community. This is where, hopefully, if you go to an old church, this is where the graveyard is.

It's where the church bell is. It's the place that proclaims throughout the community the gospel. And we're not closing down.

That's the public witness. Other objections. I've already went over this one. As long as it's not a sin.

Doesn't work that way, guys. And I pointed out why. Online church is the same.

I want to show you this. This is a quotation for you that I think you'll find interesting. This is from a book

I was reading recently called No Place for Truth by David Wells. He says, Jerry Murray Brown in America says,

In America, it is television that is providing a common sense of identity to the diverse groups that make up this pluralistic society.

So you have people of different languages, but they have a sense of participation in American life because of the video images they experience together.

So at moments like the Challenger explosion or the invasion of Iraq, Americans are glued to their sets.

They want the latest information, but they also want to share international experience. And indeed, the fact that so many are watching these same images at the same time may seem to be the last vestige of solidarity that remains in a vastly diverse and fragmenting society.

Listen to what David Wells says. This is illusion. However, this is not solidarity, but simply a multiplication of individual experiences stripped of all relational connections.

60 million people may watch the same images, but each does so individually, not in communion with others.

I pointed out the full spectrum of spiritual gifts. I pointed out the administration of the ordinances. But do you think there's another reason that we're supposed to meet?

There is. There is. You're watching me right now.

I'm not against technology, obviously. You're watching me probably on YouTube or listening to me on iTunes or some podcasting service.

But I'm looking at a camera. I'm not looking at you directly. I hate to say that. I mean, I'm thinking of some of you, but I don't see your reactions.

I'm not reacting to them. You can't interrupt me. You can't get my attention.

You can't talk to me afterward. You're only seeing a very small part of who I am, what

I want to show to you. Meeting together, not just for a service, because there's more to a service than a message.

It's not just music and message. There's fellowship. There should be a lot more going on than just that.

But they're all supposed to be connected together. And God was wise in how he designed this to function.

Trying to fragment all these things to say, well, we're doing the live stream and that's our church service.

It's better than nothing, but you can't sustain that for long. And so that was one objection that I wanted to share with you.

Now you're going to want to dive into David Wells some more to find out more about that. But I think what he says, he's on to something there.

Watching a live stream, it's an individual experience. It's not a corporate experience.

The other thing, I've seen a little bit of this, but car services are inadequate. And I just have to...

Usually coming from people who support live streams. Because I have posted that I went to a car service.

Well, what I've seen at the one... I can't speak for all of them, but the one that I've attended a few times.

We've done communion. We've done baby dedications. We've gotten out of... So maybe this is where we violate the rule.

We've gotten out of our cars, some of us, those who are comfortable. And we've talked at a distance with one another.

There's been some fellowship. I've... I mean, I actually...

Last week, I brought little Kitty, actually. And I showed Kitty to some of those who were there.

Oh, by the way, those who want to... Squirrel. So those who want to suggest names for Kitty.

Girl names would be best. We think it's a girl now. So yeah, Oliver was my wife's idea for a boy name.

But now we're not so sure. So there you go. But yeah, I mean, I had some of that.

And I'm actually amazed at the connection that you can have. I mean, I can see the person next to me in their car.

I can... If you've got a windshield that doesn't have a tint, if you're in the front, which I usually try to be, they can see you.

So it's not... I don't know what people think of driving services when they say things like that. But there's ways you can actually do them that I'm actually impressed with.

I'm not saying it's necessarily ideal, but it's more doable,

I think, certainly than a live stream. And you can function that way.

All right. So those are some of the objections. Now, here's what I wanted to say for everyone else out there who is struggling through this.

And I think it should be a struggle. Don't just take my word for it. Research for yourself. Look up what I'm looking up.

Now, on Think Through Malum and Say Malum Prohibitum, what is Romans 13 talking about? You need to answer these questions for yourself.

And I'm okay if you come down on another end of it, by the way. I'm not like a hardliner that says, like, you must believe the way that I believe it on this topic.

But what I've noticed is I think I'm in the minority right now as far as the way

I view Romans 13 and the way I view this situation, which actually shocks me a little bit. The Romans 13 thing doesn't shock me as much.

And I don't know why. Because I took a class,

I remember, two semesters ago on the American Revolution, and I had to read a number of sermons. If you're familiar with the

Black Robe Regiment, there are a lot of pastors really behind the revolution. And, I mean, really, you should call it the

American War for Independence because it wasn't a revolution. But there's, I mean, they knew about Romans 13.

I've read sermons on Romans 13 using Romans 13 to justify what they were doing, how

England had overstepped its boundaries, and they had to submit to the local governing authorities. And, unfortunately,

I think the way history is taught now, we just think, oh, it's all Enlightenment thinking. And a lot of prominent pastors in the conservative camp, they just think, yeah, that was wrong.

The American Revolution was wrong, and Romans 13 says it was. And so I don't know if it's a pietist interpretation, anabaptist.

I'm not sure where this came from. It seems, my gut tells me that it sounds anabaptist -ish, but somehow this interpretation has become,

I think, the popular interpretation. And that hasn't always been the case throughout history. And so I think because I've been exposed to some of that stuff,

I tend to, I see the logic, and I say, yeah, Romans 13 doesn't say that. It says this.

But I'm in the minority today. Right now, as we're currently speaking, I'm in the minority for my views on this.

And there are some really, really great men that I respect, will continue to respect, that know way more than me, much more godly than me in so many areas

I look up to, I respect, I will continue to respect, that disagree with me 100 % on this, diametrically opposed to what

I just told you. And I still love them, and I still,

I'm not going to go mudslinging on them or say that I will share my convictions.

And I think this is what I wanted to say, I guess, is for all of us who are thinking through this, be gentle as much as you can, but be direct, be gentle and direct, truth love.

Try to put as respectful as you possibly can, and perhaps as incrementally as you possibly can, try to ask hard questions, like some of the ones that I've asked in this, and get those who you know, whether they're part of your church, or whether there's people maybe you know online, or they're friends of yours, you go to different churches, but if they're under this thinking,

I would just say, and you want to engage it, ask hard questions, get them to think through it themselves. People generally don't like being told what to think or what to do.

And it's just, I think a gentle answer turns away wrath. Harsh words stirs up anger, and you attract a lot more bees with honey, or bears with honey, however that saying goes.

So that's what I would suggest you do, and don't get bent out of shape about it. I know that I felt that way,

I've been beside myself a little bit, I've been like, where's my country? Where's it going? Why in the world?

I mean this is madness what we're going through right now. Completely crashing our economy, and I've shown you,

I've done other episodes so you know. But, you know, ranting about it, point out those things, that's what

I try to do on this. But be calm, God is still in control, and most of the people in your life who probably have taken the other approach, even people that know more than you, they probably haven't thought through it in detail, that's my guess.

I'm just listening to some pastors, some online pastors that I've enjoyed over the years talk about this, and I'm thinking,

I don't think they're thinking through this. One pastor was saying, one of my favorite pastors, favorite preachers, was talking about how, well the

Puritans, they would sometimes take a month off of church in the winter. And I'm thinking, because they physically probably couldn't go to church, like in New England, they literally couldn't do it.

But I was raised up in the Northeast, so I know what it could be like. And yeah, there's times when it's physically impossible.

And, you know, so you do your best with what you have. But, you know, this is a much different situation than that.

And so anyway, I just want to encourage you guys, like, you know, you may be even going to a church right now and all they have available is a live stream, and sometimes that's justified.

Look, if you have an older congregation, if you have, I mean, I don't even pretend to know all the factors that could go into this.

Maybe Romans 13 isn't even the factor. Maybe it's really that they legitimately have health concern. They legitimately, for whatever reason, think what, you know, what the government's telling them about this is true.

Okay, I might want to have a conversation about that. But if they were legitimately under that impression, then okay, that's the justification.

But if the justification is only Romans 13, then I would approach it very gently and try not to let it ruin the fabric of the body if you possibly can.

You know, this is something that I think we're in, this is something that churches were ready for.

You got to understand this. For those on my side who, and I'm preaching to myself here, we have to understand no one was ready for what happened.

And they're still reacting to it, everyone who's trying to figure this out. And if you didn't have a theology that was fully, you hadn't thought through these things first, then you're going to be trying to react to it and figure out, well, what's the best way to approach it?

So I only have a few minutes left to talk about Jonathan Lehman. I wanted to give that more attention, but I waxed long.

So let me give it the quick treatment here. So Jonathan Lehman did this talk a few weeks ago for,

I think it was the Together for the Gospel conference online, and they released the transcript or at least, I guess, his notes on Nine Marks, which is what

I looked at. And some people sent me some helpful things in thinking through it as well. And it's dangerous, guys.

I thought at first, so the first half sounds good. And this is such a typical, like, evangelical industrial complex thing to do, where Russell Moore does this all the time.

They pick a binary. They say, well, there's the right and there's the left. And, you know, well, they'll give all the critiques of both.

So if you're a right winger, you think, oh, he's going after the left. Great. If you're a left winger, you think, oh, he's going after the right.

Great. And then they say, well, the gospel is the third way. Christianity offers this third way. And you just feel so good about it because, oh, yeah, that's right.

But then, you know, you read the end of the article, like usually a wall of words, and you think, I didn't really actually learn that much. I just, gospel is good.

But it didn't actually answer the core questions really. And Jonathan Lehman's article is kind of like that.

It's like as long as one of my podcasts. I mean, how does anyone have time for that? It really does.

He really does ramble quite a bit and says probably way more than he should. But in that wall of words, it's because you go through different emotions through this whole thing and you forget about earlier parts of the article because it is so long.

By the end of it, you're kind of like he ends on a good note. So you feel like, oh, good. And he gave some of the critiques that I would give.

But there's some poison in this. And I want to point this out to you because I think most people are probably going to miss it if they're not trained in or if they're not familiar at all with identity politics or even critical race theory and that whole panoply.

So let's start off with what identity politics is. Alicia Garza, writing for the

Othering and Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley says, the term identity politics was first coined by black feminist Barbara Smith and the

Combahee River Collective in 1974. Identity politics originated from the need to reshape movements that had until then prioritized the monotony of sameness over the strategic value of difference.

So this Combahee, however you say it, River Collective in 1974, if you look it up, they're

Marxist. They don't even really hide it. And so it's

Marxists that came up with this term identity politics. And what's the reason? There was a need. It was responding to a need to reshape movements.

What movements? Movements already in existence, guys, to reshape them that had until then prioritized the monotony of sameness over the strategic value of difference.

So here's the thing. They're creating allies. So this is what you have to understand about identity politics.

It is political. Number one, it is for achieving political objectives that are Marxist. That's how it started, guys.

I'm not making this up. That's the history of it. Instead of focusing on we're feminists or we're whatever minority group or we're same -sex attracted, whatever, instead of focusing on that's who we are, you're focusing on we have something in common with this other group because we're both what?

Oppressed by the straight white male, by the system, the hegemony.

We're oppressed by it. So we're going to join forces together to go after the bad guy. That's identity politics.

It's forming a coalition. It's Marxists in the 70s forming a coalition to do what? To overturn hegemony.

This isn't a culture war. This is a culture siege. This is the culture that was there, the culture that is there, that is falling, and that includes all the traditions of Christianity, that culture, that hierarchy.

Let's join forces to go after that. It is not Christian, guys. It is after Christianity.

This is identity politics. Make no mistake about this. And the fact that Lehman kind of skips over some of this, it should make you upset.

But anyway, here's another long definition you can screenshot and read later.

I don't want to read this whole thing. Long story short, let's see.

What would I want to pick out from this? Egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism is linked with freedom and liberty. So if you want freedom, everything's got to be equal, and this is the struggle for that.

And so, and I'm going to let you read that more if you want a more in -depth dive on some of these sources.

Let's get into the nitty -gritty here, though, because I just don't have much time. Here's Lehman's definition, by the way.

And Lehman fleshes this out more. He even gives some actual, he even talks, he mentions offhand. He says, yeah, there's feminists started this.

Sort of offhand, he says that. He says, yeah, it's a stepchild of Marxism, you know, he says here. It's interesting, though.

Check this out. Identity politics, this is what he says, is not pure Marxism. In some ways, you could say it's the child of Marxism and the class, and listen to this, the classical liberalism of the

American founding with all its emphasis on individual rights. And then after this, he goes on to talk about abortion being an individual right.

Guys, he does not understand the founding of this country and what the founders conceived of as being individual rights.

They're tethered to responsibilities. I'm going to have to do an episode on this someday, I think, because this is, I keep seeing this language of this.

It was just enlightenment, secular humanism. That's all individual rights is. No, it wasn't, guys.

Individual rights were about responsibilities. You have to be free. You have to have the rights to fulfill the responsibilities that, and whether you want to say nature's

God gave it to us, or whether, I mean, that was a typical term that was used. Even by Christians sometimes use that term, by the way.

Or if you want to say it was given by, you want to say the God of the Bible directly.

You just want to say that. Either way, there's a divine, there's a blueprint for how societies should function.

And the Bill of Rights protects it. And this idea that that was, oh, that's the same as abortion rights in 1973.

No, it's not. No, it's not at all. So Lehman's definition of identity politics is way off from the beginning.

If it's 50 % Marxist and then 50 % American individual rights, you could say, well, 50 % of it might be good.

And I think that's what he wants you to think. There might be a secular individualism, but don't tie this to the

American founding. That is sneaky, sneaky. Here's some of the assumptions. And I mentioned one of these already.

Binary culture war. He thinks it's right versus left. And the church is like this third way alternative, right?

That's the next assumption. The church is the answer. It's a third way alternative. And like I said, it's not really a culture war.

It's a culture siege. It's those who want to, the revolutionaries who want to overturn the hegemony. And then it's those who want to defend it.

And then he wants to say identity politics is an ally. This is, check this out, guys. This is how you know there's a problem with this.

Actually, I'll go here first. Some people will object to my use of the word ally, and I understand the nervousness.

After writing a first draft of this talk, a friend reminded me that this word is too often used to refer to the reshaping of fundamental allegiances.

Yeah, that friend was right. That's not what I mean at all. I'm using it in the everyday sense of making common cause with someone for a shared end.

Okay, so what's the shared end? I'm happy to ally with the Soviet communists in fighting the Nazis. Maybe I'll even learn a battlefield tactic or two, but that doesn't mean

I'm recommending Soviet communism. Who's the

Nazis in this analogy? That's what I want to know. Who are the Nazis? Are they the racists? Is that what

Jonathan Lehman thinks? Or the, I don't know, the white supremacists? Who are the Nazis? Identity politics was started to rip down hegemony.

It was a political movement with an origin, with a history, and it's of the left completely.

It's a Marxist. If you're allying with them and that's their cause, what's your cause?

That's a real, real problem, and I think it gives away something about Lehman. Here's some quotes that show the third way thinking.

Identity politics is not pure Marxism. I already read that one. I have the right to an abortion.

I didn't read this quote. I should have the right to pick my pronoun. I have the right to marry whomever I want to marry. To be sure, classical liberalism can become idolatrous too.

So he's saying the American founding is classical liberalism, and classical liberalism is gay marriage and abortion.

Do you hear this? This is, I mean, I don't know what he's reading, but this is not at all the case.

This is certainly not. The founders would have been shocked. They would have said that is not what we mean by rights at all.

Here we find why there's a pharisaical self -righteousness that, in my observation, inhabits so many of the conversations surrounding sexual politics, race politics, and identity politics these days.

Lehman goes on. He says, So much finger pointing, so much virtue signaling, so much writing people off as white supremacists, sexists, homophobes, neomarxists, liberals, and so forth.

All it takes is one tweet, one comment, and the guillotine of social media commentary lops off the head.

The person is condemned. You're a white supremacist, says the left. You're a race baiter, says the right. You're a sexist, says the left.

You're, and I'm not going to say this word, says the right. Look what he's doing here. He's saying, can't we all get along?

Can't we stop with the name calls? Well, what's he doing in this? He's actually the one that's, he's saying, oh, they're a bunch of Pharisees.

And then what does he do? He starts condemning them. Can't people stop condemning each other?

I'm going to condemn those who condemn each other. That's what he's doing. And the way he sets it up is, well, there's the right and there's the left.

And what he does is he takes the extreme elements of the right. So no one would say the word that I just put on the screen that I won't say on the mainstream conservative, in the mainstream conservative world, you just wouldn't hear it.

You only hear that on like the extreme elements. So he uses that and says, that's the right. And then the left, he uses, you know, typical words that they would use.

Now he does mention as well, he says, you know, calling someone a neo -Marxist or a liberal, you know, which are actually good.

Those are actual terms that you would use. I mean, it's a little different than white supremacist, sexist and homophobe, which get lopped around all the time for people who aren't those things.

But yes, neo -Marxist, liberal. Those are these are just horrible that people would, I guess, call themselves that. And that's the online guillotine.

But, but he, you know, your, and then the word says the right. I mean, that is not a, so he's taking the extreme elements of the right.

And then the, just the typical elements of the left. And he just puts them on two, two opposite pendulums.

And says, well, you know, these are the two kind of, these are the, this is the battle going on. And he makes them so unattractive.

Why would anyone want to be part of any of that? Rather than thinking through the fact that there's two political philosophies. And typically there has been a conservative political philosophy in this country.

That doesn't use that word. And that actually holds onto Christian conceptions of what the government ought to be.

And we're trying to defend those things. And we have people, even inside the Republican Party, who are trying to defeat us.

And then we have, of course, a whole nother political party, which is completely antithetical to those, that civil order.

And so, doesn't even acknowledge that. And that has been the mainstream. I mean, this isn't Burkean conservative.

He's not talking about, you know, this isn't conservative mind Russell Kirk stuff. He's taking like alt -right type.

And then saying that, yeah, that's the right. That's the right. That's deceptive, guys. And why would he do this?

Why would he do this? He is going to present his third way, the attractive option. So, identity politics is an ally.

So, who are we trying to go after, right? Here's what he says. Here's how identity politics is an unexpected ally.

It reminds us of what the Bible teaches about the pervasiveness of sin. It helps us better understand the Bible's call to repentance and unity.

It encourages us to consider more carefully the prominent role the Bible gives to justice. And it helps us better understand what the Bible teaches about authority.

I'm going to go through some of these. And I would call it Christianizing identity politics.

Here's some quotes. It's an ally because it reminds us that sin is from birth. It wears camouflage.

And it deceives us. Really? Identity politics says that sin… No, it doesn't. Identity politics doesn't say sin is…

Unless you're saying, I guess, because you were born white, you're sinful. So, it's a reminder that sin is from birth. Why can't we get that from the

Bible? Why do we need identity politics to tell us this? Identity politics doesn't have the same conception of sin at all. It ties it completely to the social class you're born in.

It wears camouflage. No, it doesn't. Identity politics is the opposite of that. It says you can look at a person and where they live and how they identify, which aren't camouflaged.

Their skin tone and all of that. Take that together and put them on the social ranking. And that's going to tell us about sin.

It deceives us. Sin does. Identity politics is a deception.

It doesn't… How does it tell us that sin deceives us? It just says that automatically if you're oppressed, you have a righteousness.

If you're an oppressor, then you have unrighteousness. He admits this in the article. But then he's like…

I don't know what he's doing. He's attributing biblical characteristics to this and they don't exist. He says, No, it doesn't.

How does identity politics help us do that? Identity politics only can bring…

It's only unified against a common enemy. It brings division otherwise. So if you're not against the common enemy, which hopefully

Jonathan Lehman isn't, but it sounds like he is, then identity politics doesn't help us understand repentance and unity.

In fact, you're on the perpetual hamster wheel of repentance. And identity politics, if you're in an oppressed category, doesn't help us with that.

The Bible helps us with that. How about this? It encourages us to consider more carefully the prominent role the Bible gives to justice.

How many sermons have you heard on justice? The advocates of identity politics don't possess a wholly biblical view of justice by any stretch of the imagination, but might they prompt us to study the topic more than we have?

Oh my goodness. You know, how many times have you heard a sermon on loving your country?

And I'm not saying the Nazis have a corner on the market of loving your country, but couldn't we learn something from them?

I mean, guys, what kind of logic is that? What kind of like… No. Why would you want to learn from Nazis about loving your country?

Why would you want to learn from Marxists, in this case, about justice?

They have no clue. They don't even know how to pick up the pen to arrive at the paper to talk about, to write about justice.

It's not even in there. They can't get the first letter onto the page. Justice is blind, and they take the blindfold right off Lady Justice.

So we don't learn from them anything about justice. And if Jonathan Lehman thinks we do, he's got a problem.

In a sense, identity politics functions in the role of Moses in the law. He actually said that. Identity politics functions in the role of Moses in the law.

It brings judgment and condemnation, reveals our sinful partialities. To use a word from the book of James, it reveals our lack of love.

Really? Identity politics does that? Because of the social group you grow up in?

Okay. And if nothing else, identity politics is an unexpected ally because it should teach us to do this with groups of people who are not like us.

What scripture tells husbands and wives to do? Live with them in an understanding way. No. Identity politics, because, look, this is where you'd have to take this.

Because homosexuals and feminists decided that they have a common enemy, they're unified. They're learning how to get along together.

Christians can learn from that. No. No, they can't. Let's see.

What else does he say here? The fact that we need more love is the main thing I take away from the fact that identity politics can be a useful ally.

Identity politics doesn't know about love. It's a political movement that is completely secular. Maybe you're saying identity politics should do all these things, but that's not what identity politics is.

Majority folk like myself too often have not taken the time to read the books or even more to make friends, listen, to ask questions, to try and understand.

So majority folks, he's saying white males. So those white males, just not empathetic enough, clearly.

I want to share something with you guys. What makes someone empathetic? What makes someone—here's what

Lehman's saying. Lehman's saying there's this hierarchy. White males up here, they don't look down at these poor underclass people, and if they only would.

I mean, identity politics tells us we should, and it'll just create love. Guys, what creates love? Why do we love?

Is it through looking down or looking up? Jesus looked out upon Jerusalem, right?

He had pity. Jesus had love for people. And there's a part of that, but what actually, what's the root?

What causes love, guys? How about this disparity?

White males here in Lehman's mind, everyone else down here, what about God? Where does he stack up on this? How about the unattainable standard?

And that through the grace of Jesus, we were able to be right with him. You think that'll put some humility in someone?

Maybe some love? Maybe realizing that you're in a very poor state.

The state you're in is much closer to the state someone who's living in the gutter is in than you realize.

Because of who God is. And because of what sin does. It's looking up that you gain empathy.

And it doesn't mean we shouldn't. And we should be quick to hear, slow to speak. But we should be quick to hear everyone.

We don't prioritize. We just gotta listen to certain racial groups. That's what Lehman wants us to do. And identity politics helps us love through that.

That's not what, at the root, causes love. Lehman gets it wrong here. So, he

Christianizes identity politics to make it useful. To say, well, identity, I'm against identity politics. It's postmodern.

It's got Marxist connections, etc. But we can Christianize it somehow. It's a common ally.

No, it's not. And, yeah, here's a standpoint epistemology. I'm gonna read you this.

Still, we live in a moment when 88 % of blacks in the United States say the country needs to keep making changes in order for blacks to have equal rights with whites.

Are we sure we want to say 88 % of U .S. blacks have been ideological hoogwinked while whites, like me, maintain the objective perspective in life in this country?

The most charitable indictment I may offer is that we lack empathy. We're failing to live in an understanding way.

This is standpoint epistemology. He's saying because a majority of the social group says something is the case, it must necessarily be the case.

And the only alternative he presents is this white male perspective. And that's the objective perspective.

Well, maybe there's an objective perspective residing outside the white male perspective.

And any racial, maybe there's just objectivity. Maybe it's God's perspective. Maybe that's what it is.

Maybe God's given us tools to try to understand these things. I mean, I could play this game all day long.

Jonathan Leeman, you want to discount all the scientists who talk about Darwinian evolution being true? I mean, look, just because the majority of people say something does not make it true.

Even if their experience, they say, says otherwise. This is—I'm not going to—watch the standpoint epistemology video that I did with Bill Roach if you want to understand this.

No identity politics does not offer us an alternative source of truth to the Bible. That's what he says.

But it does point to people's experiences, which sometimes might help us to see things in our

Bible that we hadn't really paid attention to before. Someone can share with you something you haven't thought of.

That's not a novel idea. That's not an idea that came with identity politics. Mark Dever—I remember there was a sermon a few months ago where Mark Dever said identity politics were happening in the

Council of Jerusalem. That is a presentist understanding that—and again, Mark Dever, Jonathan Leeman, both nine

Marks. That's insane. No. Unless you think that identity politics is inescapable and it's just always there.

But that's not true. It actually has an origin in history. And to take concepts like just learning from someone else, well, that's identity politics.

No. No, it's not. Why does it happen? Identity politics has a history, and it's a lot more narrow than just that.

All right. Let's talk about this. Guilting Christians. He says, but you can understand why minority folk, looking around, noticing how whites still huddle in the same neighborhoods and possess 13 times the average household wealth, might ask themselves, have things really changed that much?

Well, clearly Jonathan Leeman isn't talking about Appalachia and the poor regions in Appalachia. He's just talking about—this is demographic games going on here.

Depends how you slice the pie, how things actually look. We as Christians should be willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, we're more self -interested and less loving than we think, even as we give ourselves doctor's notes that say racism -free.

I'm asking you to think about the posture of our hearts as Christians, not policy, but heart posture. That's the conversation

I'm having. This is a guilty thing. I've said this from the beginning, the social justice movement.

It gets people to try to feel guilty for things that they're not even guilty for. You're guilty for having more income because you must be taking advantage of white privilege.

As soon as you start pointing out things like I just mentioned, like what about in Appalachia? Or what about worldwide?

You can split this up so many different ways. Geographically, should we split it up that way? Should we split it up by age?

You start realizing this is manipulation, and it is. It's guilt manipulation. He said, well, it's not for a political purpose, but that's what identity politics is.

Identity politics is all about politics. Jonathan Leeman's like, well, I'm not saying that. It's not a policy thing. It's just a heart posture.

Well, that's not identity politics then. Identity politics, their purpose is to get you to feel guilty.

It's for a political purpose, to subdue you if you are an oppressor. Maybe you've heard of the book

White Fragility, he says, which talks about the fact that white folk can have fragile egos and can't take criticism around the topic of race.

What is that? That's good old -fashioned defensiveness. It's pride. Of course, pride's a sin. What does that even mean?

They can't take criticism around the topic of race. If you're talking about you're going to start guilting people because they have a certain level of income, and that in and of itself means they're guilty, and if you're defining that as, well, they just can't talk about race, well, then, yeah, they're going to get defensive because you're falsely accusing them.

That's not pride. Aye yai yai. So some questions that I have for Jonathan Leeman, and I could have come up with a lot more, but what about national unity?

Think about this with me for a moment. We're fragmented right now in the

United States, and national unity is going down the tubes. Trump kind of capitalized on, hey, we're

Americans. No matter what country you came from, your parents came, it doesn't matter. You're Americans, and we're proud about being

Americans, and there are certain things that make us Americans. Trying to bring back some kind of a national unity, but we don't teach history the same way.

It's just this is a crummy place. So national unity is going down. So people's identities now are the kind of music that they listen to is like a primary identity for some people, or their sexual preferences.

That's the thing. It's my race. It's whatever the case may be. So national unity is kind of like getting lost in a way, and Leeman wants to say that Christian unity,

Christians should be teaching the church, or I'm sorry, the church should be teaching the world about, we're the political model, if you will.

This is what should be happening. And it's kind of like, well, yeah, but we live in a fallen world, and you're not, we would love it if everyone in this country was saved, and if they operated the way, the kind of love that church people should have for one another.

I agree with that. I don't have any disagreement with Leeman there, but there is something in the

Bible about national unity, nation of Israel. I mean, there's a history. God wanted them to remember it, what the

Lord has done in history, in time. Acts 17, Paul talks about how God established the borders, and these are really sociolinguistic groups, and there's cultures surrounding these things, and these guys, most of these guys in Big Eva, and they're very influenced by this neo -Cyperian strain of theology, which kind of treats culture as this artificial, like we've got to manufacture culture.

I'm going to do an episode on this one day, but it's like, it's taking these resources and forming them around us.

That's what culture is. And culture is traditions over time. It happens organically. It's not artificial. It's organic.

And so Leeman seems to, I don't think he has a place for that in his thinking here.

He doesn't ever talk about, well, is national unity, does that bother him? Why can't that be an answer to this?

Why can't national unity? Or why can't secession or something, or different states having their own cultures and getting rid of this big federal overarching big government?

Why can't certain regions, if they want to form, they want to seed form their own country? California can be

California. Why isn't that an answer to this question? How come the only answer is, well, you just got to love and everyone's got to be like the church?

I mean, I don't get it, to be honest with you. It's not a feasible political solution in every way.

It's a really good, I agree. Yeah, everyone should be like the church. But when you're looking at the big picture, you're looking at this country, maybe human scale is the problem.

Maybe it's just too big. Maybe there's too many people of different cultures and we need to split it up.

People hate when I say that sometimes. But why can't that be the answer? Or why can't, if you don't want to split it up, why can't we, you know, let's promote, let's get back to teaching the great things about America and national unity.

And those aren't solutions, apparently. The other thing is, why couldn't identifying with the church be a form of identity politics?

So apparently the church transcends the negative parts of identity politics. But why can't the church, in Lehman's definition at least, why can't that be just a new form of identity politics?

I'm a Christian. This is my identity. And good question,

I think. If justice is blind, what can identity politics possibly teach us about justice? And then, let's see, the other thing is, let's see.

He says we need to point to the church as the political hope of the nations where we find our primary identity together in Christ.

So then why do we need identity politics, if that's the case? If the church is the answer, what need is there for any kind of identity politics?

So those are some of the questions I have for Jonathan Lehman. Guys, I am not, I don't like being just like the bad guy and like, oh, it's all bad.

No, there's some good things Jonathan Lehman said. He admitted kind of some of the origins of identity politics. But then he turns around and he tries to Christianize it.

Why? What's up with that? Why do we have to use identity politics and critical race theory as analytical tools?

They're not. This is sufficient. Either this is sufficient or it's not.

And these guys want to pull in these things from these other disciplines. And they have fundamental, they're not like, they're not tools that we can't, they're not like logic.

It's not like the laws of logic being used as a tool, which is inescapable, which is fundamental to reality. No, these contradict the very book.

And you admit it, Jonathan Lehman. You admit it, it contradicts this. So then why do we try to take it and then use it?

That's my critique. Jonathan Lehman. I hope you all are happy. Those who asked me to do a critique of this, and this is a mega episode now.

Big things coming, guys. Some big things coming. So stay tuned, please. Thank you for your support. God bless. And we'll talk to you later.