Neil Shenvi Squares Off Against Jon Harris - Some Commentary

Alright, well, I'm working my way through this Neil Shenvey vs. John Harris conversation, and it's interesting.

There's a lot of interesting things that are being said here, and I haven't completed it yet, so, you know, it's a little dangerous to do something like this before I've completed it, because it's very likely that the things that I bring up, you know, they've already been addressed, so we'll see.

But I thought this part was especially interesting and I wanted to just do some commentary here. A little bit of drama, no problem with that, a little bit of drama, but that's okay.

Let's dive right in, because I thought this was interesting. Now, what they're talking about is the legitimacy of Walter Strickland recommending that people read

James Cone. He has a lot of high praise for James Cone, which is definitely not a good look.

Like, at the very least, you can all agree that it's not a good look for someone to have such high praise and want everybody to read a book by a literal heretic, which, to Neil's credit, he definitely makes no bones about it.

James Cone was a heretic. He's now passed away, but he was a capital -H heretic.

Like, he was not saved. It's very obvious that he was not saved. He had a lot of hatred in his heart, and he put a lot of highfalutin, stupid -sounding words attached to his hatred, but it was just hatred, pure hatred in his heart.

So it's very weird for a conservative Christian that's a brother in Christ to be recommending this person's work.

In fact, Walter Strickland was the one who was quoted in the same New York Times article that I was quoted in, and the quote was not good either.

It was a quote that said, basically, I'm teaching the ideas of Cone, but I don't mention Cone because I don't want to put any guardrails up.

I don't want people to get their guards up, essentially, and he kind of walked some of that back later on. He said that the quotation was incomplete or whatever, which, listen, it's the

New York Times. They probably did twist it a little bit, but it definitely wasn't a good look. And so a lot of people are like, well, what's the deal with that?

Is Walter Strickland a heretic? Is Walter Strickland a false teacher if he's recommending the book of this heretic?

And Neil is very concerned. It's a very weighty charge, and I agree, it is a very weighty charge, but let's listen to this, and I'll give you what my take is, because I think this is a very interesting exchange by Neil and John.

So when Strickland's been asked about what does he, why even read James Cone, what's the point of it?

What do you appreciate about him? And he actually says, and he said in the quote you read, he was the first theologian that Strickland encountered who talked about systemic sin.

Now, you believe that systemic sin can exist. Like, you've gone on record as saying the American slavery system was wrong.

That system was wrong. You've said that, right? Yeah, well, if you could just be completely honest with you, and I know some people don't like when

I start and stop, but that's just the way this show is. So I find it very hard to believe that Walter Strickland first came across the idea of systemic sin with James Cone.

Maybe the term systemic sin, I don't know, or the terminology that was similar to systemic sin, but the idea of systemic sin, you'd have to be pretty theologically illiterate for James Cone to be the first one that you've ever heard to talk about that.

But that's okay. It's possible. There's nothing wrong with that, with being, you know, you don't know what you don't know. But I find that to be a wild claim.

But anyway, let's just continue. You can point out a specific law or something like that. And you can say, well, you can point out that law and say, well, that's creating a system that's wrong.

Sure. But again, he's, this is not, James Cone is going way farther than that. James Cone is talking about invisible.

He's talking about systemic sin in the sense that a critical race theorist would talk about systemic. All right. Stop here. This is another good point.

So, so, so John is a reasonable guy. He absolutely recognizes that systemic sin is a possibility.

In fact, that in our history, we've had systemic sin that we can point to and say, this whole system, the way this was set up, the people were sinning who set that system up because this is wrong.

This is wrong. This is wrong. We can do that. And there's nothing wrong with that. So it's a, it's a straw man to say that people like me and John would say that systemic sin cannot exist.

It definitely can, but you need, we need to see the receipts. Um, but John's point is that so while that might be the case,

James Cone, if, if, if Strickland is saying James Cone is the first time I realized that systemic thing was sin was a thing like in, in the whole conversation about systemic sin with James Cone, he's going way further.

So, so it's like, where, where did you pump the brakes here? So as Walter Strickland saying that the systemic sin that James talked about,

James Cone talked about is real. And that's helpful because it isn't, it's a, it's a fake kind of systemic sin.

Um, some of it might be true, but, but it goes way beyond what we as Christians would want to say is true.

And so how helpful is the content really? Because sure, you know, slavery was a systemic sin, but if you then say, and here's all these other examples of systemic sin, when it's really just the category categories of critical theory, um,

I don't know how helpful work like that would be. So that would be a very weird recommendation again, from a minister of the gospel who should be trustworthy.

Let's see what Neil has to say. Cause he makes a good point here. I think. Well, he was talking about in that book that, that, that Strickland liked, it was about lynching, which is definitely, but lynching, but lynching is a present reality.

And it's also a reality that interprets the cross. It's contextual theology. It's liberation theology. Wait, that's not what, so Strickland says, what is there?

You said, what is there about this book? And I said, well, Strickland says, Cone, why do I think it's useful at all to read him?

It's well, he was the first person to show me that. Let me read you some quotes. So, so the idea here being that, well, well,

James Cone in that book was talking about lynching and that was an example of systemic sin. Sure. You know, ex execution without due process of course, is an example of, uh, of a sin.

Um, and I guess if the system allowed it, that could be a systemic sin. I really hesitate to use the term systemic sin because, um, it's the people within the system that sin.

So you could have a great system, but people that are going to sin in the system doesn't make it a systemic sin issue, but, but whatever.

I I'm, I'm okay going with it. It's, it's not the end of the world. It's not that offensive to me. Um, so yeah, like that would be an example of that.

But the reality is that when James Cone says lynching, he means something different than the typical person means because the typical person, when they think lynching, they think of a black person being hung by the

KKK without due process and all of that kind of thing. James Cone goes a lot further with what lynching is.

In fact, lynching interprets the gospel and things of that nature. So if that's what his example of systemic sin is, again,

I wonder why would Walter Strickland recommend that book? Because he gets that all wrong. Even the very thing that he finds so helpful about this, even that is wrong.

So it's like, again, why would he do that? I mean, I'm not going to explain why he means, seems to really like it.

I mean, I would kind of fall on John Harris's side here, where I think that Walter Strickland really does like a lot of aspects of liberation theology that he ought not like as a

Christian. Um, I don't go as far as John Harris, uh, about Walter Strickland's status.

Although John, you know, John, John's careful to say that I'm not saying he's going to hell, um, but I am saying that he teaches falsely, or I think he might even say he's a false teacher here.

Um, it's very technical, but, but at the end of the day, it's just, but okay, that all aside, why would

Walter Strickland recommend this book, this awful book that even the stuff he likes about it is in fact, awful.

You know what I mean? It's a weird, it's a weird thing to really want to defend. I don't know.

It's from Cone, uh, from Strickland rather. This is why he says, this is what he says about James Cone endorsing and just a few things.

The evangelical world would do well to hear the voice of Dr. Cone and drawing us toward the reality that the gospel, the resurrection of Christ has implications for the here and now.

Okay. So this is why Walter Strickland, if you might've missed that, he kind of misspoke. He said, this is a quote from James Cone.

No, this is actually a quote from Walter Strickland. This is the person Neil Shenvey is defending here. Um, and a lot of people defend him.

And this is, this is a made guy. He teaches, um, at Southeastern, I believe. Um, this is a made guy.

People think he's very, so helpful and conservative and he's definitely not conservative. There's no question about that. And he said that the reason why you should read heretic

James Cone is because he will help you. You should, you should heed his voice because he'll help you understand that the gospel has implications for the here and now.

That's why Walter Strickland wants you to read James Cone. Now, let's listen to what

Neil Shenvey has to say about this. Heretic. He's talking about, wait, John, John, is that false?

Does the gospel implication for the here and now? Uh, you're getting it from a heretic. No, no, no. But is it John Neil's getting very frustrated here and I can understand why.

Um, so, so he's saying, is that false? Is it false that the gospel has implications for the here and now?

Um, and John said, just kind of matter of factly. Yep. He's talking about a heretic though. Right.

He's talking about a heretic and it's like, and Neil gets very frustrated about that.

And it's like, if I like, this is the, this is, this is where I think the disconnect is. And I'm trying to,

I'm trying to understand this again. I'm trying to put my big boy hat on, you know? Um, but the thing is like, the gospel does have implications for the here and now that's true, but James Cone's gospel does not because James Cone's gospel is false.

And so the reality is that this is, I know Neil wants a yes or no here, but it's not a yes or no question.

It's like, does the gospel have implications for the here and now? The gospel does, but James Cone's gospel does not because James Cone doesn't have a gospel.

James Cone is a false prophet. James Cone is a heretic, which Neil Shenvey would agree.

So the answer to Neil's question is no, that is a false statement to say that James Cone's gospel has implications for the here and now, at least in the way that Walter Strickland was saying in a recommendation way.

Um, because, because like, like we can't, this is, this is the problem because this is why you don't recommend James Cone's for his amazing insights into all of these things, because, because he uses the same words we use, but he doesn't mean the same thing.

James Cone thinks that salvation and becoming black are synonyms. You must become black with God in order to be saved.

That's what salvation is to James Cone, the heretic. So no, that gospel does not have any value for us today.

There are no implications of that gospel today that, that, um, that we ought to be, you know, looking for or finding or gleaning from or anything like that.

And so Neil Shenvey in a minute is going to say, you can learn good things from heretics. You just got to be careful. Granted, granted, but not about things, the very things that they're heretical on.

Right? So no, you can't learn from James Cone, the implications that the gospel of Jesus Christ has for us today because James Cone's gospel was not the gospel of Jesus Christ.

No, we don't have to become black with God. No, it's not a synonym. This is, I just, you know,

Neil's a smart guy and I really like Neil. In fact, um, I, I listened to about 20 minutes of this, uh, and I, I messaged

Neil and I said, Neil, you know, thank you so much for your input. You are very helpful to me. I thank God for you.

He's using you in my life and stuff. I really do believe that because one thing that has been made so clear through the first 30 minutes or so of this video is that Neil very much cares about the truth.

Um, I don't agree with him on what the truth is all the time, but he obviously cares about Christ. He obviously cares about people.

He obviously cares about John Harris. And listen, I know I'm not going to make friends by saying this.

You know what I mean? I, I, I understand what some people think about Neil and that's totally fine. You know what I mean? But, um,

I do think he cares about John Harris's soul and his wellbeing and all of this things. He, he, he really thinks that John is, is, is doing something he ought not to be doing.

And so he'll earnestly reason with him. That's what, that's what love does. It earnestly reasons with someone.

So instead of hating John in, in, in your heart and hiding behind your, uh, your, your, your, your tweets and not engaging face -to -face and, and, and, and slandering him, he's an evil racist, this and that, um, this is what love does.

And so I'm grateful to Neil for that. And I think there are certain things that I would completely trust Neil with, um, when it comes to this fight and there are other things

I wouldn't. And I'm sure he would, I'm sure he would say the same about me, probably many more things he would not trust me with.

And that, and that's, and that's totally fine. But I just wanted to comment there because I'm going to let this play a little bit more, but I just like, like,

I know Neil kind of used that as like a, well, but that part is true. No, that part is not true. No, no, no, no.

The gospel that you'll get from James Cone's books does not have implications we ought to glean from.

Walter Strickland is wrong about that. That's, that's an absolutely irresponsible thing for a teacher and a minister of the gospel to say.

Um, you don't do that kind of thing. That's not, not with heretics, not with heretics. Now, yes, heretics can say some interesting things and some, and they can have some insights and maybe you don't get from somebody else.

That's fine. But their gospel, if they are actual heretic, which Neil agrees with, is not something that we ought to look into and glean from.

It's just that simple. I mean, call me a fundamentalist, I guess. I don't know. You said to me, you can get true things from like Jefferson or from actually from anyone.

These aren't heretical, these aren't heretical ideas and they're not fundamental to what they stood for. Jefferson Davis was an heretic.

You know what I mean? Jefferson Davis's gospel was a real gospel. Um, I think that's who they're talking about.

Um, or Thomas, was it Thomas Jefferson? Because Thomas Jefferson was a heretic. I don't remember, but, um, but the point was, if John was pointing to a literal heretic and saying that you, you can look at his gospel and glean this wonderful stuff from, uh, yeah, that would be a problem.

That would in fact be a problem. Jefferson Davis says that. But what you just read, is that true or false?

It's, it's false. It's false. Cone, that Dr. Cone is drawing us toward the reality that the gospel, he doesn't even understand the gospel.

This is right. Dr. Cone doesn't understand the gospel. So how can his gospel be drawn us to the reality that the gospel has implications to, to, to our lives today?

I mean, I mean, is, is, is it really being put forward by Strickland that there's nothing better that you could point to that shows that the gospel has implications in our lives today?

I mean, is that for real? Because, because if that's the case, then, then Walter Strickland is not qualified to teach for many other reasons.

Because, uh, I knew about this all, all the way from when I, when I was a gospel, gospel infant.

Does the gospel have implications? No. Yes. But Dr. Cone doesn't understand. I think this is a misstep by John.

No, it doesn't. The answer is just no. No, it doesn't. Because we have to keep all of these words in context.

So yes, the gospel does, but no, James Cone's gospel doesn't.

Or how to even navigate that. So why would you read Cone for that? You could read Joseph Smith.

Why not? The point. It's a great point. It's a very good point. So what if I pointed to Joseph Smith's work and on an issue and said that that hit, you know, beautiful gospel has implications for today.

Like, obviously you'd be like, yeah, but he didn't have the gospel. Well, he had a gospel. It was a false gospel.

So, I mean, I'm not trying to nitpick John Harris here, because obviously when you're in the moment, you know, you don't, you don't necessarily think of all the same things that I would necessarily think of.

But John is, is actually, he didn't actually miss this. He said, no, no, he's a heretic though.

So, so James Cone doesn't understand the gospel. Therefore, it doesn't have the implications for today. That's what

John essentially said. So the answer is, is, is yes, the gospel, but not

James's gospel. This is a very good point, John. He said that about Joseph Smith. Would you have a problem? Yes.

Right. But why not? Why not James Cone? Because I think that James Cone is actually articulating things that are implications that are real.

And Joseph Smith, if you were talking, so if Joseph Smith wrote a book saying, oh gosh, what did he write even?

Well, tell me what you agree with, with Dr. Cone then. What is it that you, you say Dr. Cone was right on this? John, Cone thought the lynching was a sin.

Do we agree on that? Yeah. So this is, this is a, this is a very interesting little exchange here, and I'm going to end this soon.

I'm not going to do this whole thing. But Neil's kind of laughing because I think he kind of knows like, like, yeah, but this is not really what anyone's talking about.

Like, again, like, was, is Walter Strickland saying that James Cone is the first time I realized that lynching was a sin?

Like, is that really what we're talking about here? And again, you know, to, to James Cone, lynching is something very different than to what the regular person means when they say lynching.

And this is the whole problem with language, right? Like, like racism, lynching, gospel, all salvation.

Yes, heretics use these words, but they use them in a way that robs them of their meaning and injects heresy into them.

Because when, when, when James Cone quotes the Bible that believe in you shall, you shall be saved, he doesn't mean what it, what the

Bible actually means by that. He means some gobbledygook about becoming black with Christ or something like that.

And so yes, lynching is a sin. And we needed James Cone's tremendous theological mind and insight for this.

Yes, I think we all agree that lynching, yeah, without due process is wrong. I hope lynching is kind of always wrong.

Yes, but that's what lynch by definition, that's what we think of lynching. The point is,

John, maybe it's the difference in our, our attitude in general. Obviously Cone's a heretic, but even heretics can say true things.

And we can, and again, maybe we don't believe this. We can learn even from heretics. Now we have to be very careful.

But we don't, we don't learn heresy from heretics. This is the point. This is exactly the point.

James Cone's gospel was heresy. And so for Walter Strickland to recommend you reading

James Cone's work so that you can see the implications that the gospel has on today, wonderful, beautiful implications.

It's the most beautiful book I've ever read in my entire life. That's a problem.

That's a problem. You might not go as far as some people and say, well, that means Walter's a heretic. I'm okay with that.

I'm not forcing you to do that. I don't think you have to do that. But you have to admit that it is very problematic for a professor of the

Christian faith, who is supposedly a Christian, to say that a heretic with their heretical gospel has tremendous insights in how the gospel has implications for today.

So that heretical gospel, because that's what he was talking about. Like, it's just, it's a very interesting, it's just, there's like a block here.

There's like a mental block here that just, Neil won't go there. He just won't go there. And it's, but you have to kind of go there.

You know what I mean? You don't have to go all the way, but you have to at least say, yeah, that's kind of weird that a Christian minister would do that.

Yes, you can get insights from a heretic, but not their own heresies, which is what Walter Strickland is pointing them to.

His gospel is a heresy. That's the difference. But wait, but what you just quoted, the gospel's implications for the here and now, is not heresy.

It is absolutely heresy if you are using a heretical gospel. And so this is the problem.

This is the problem with using James Cone when you yourself are very compromised on some of these issues and liberal on issues that you ought not to be.

Because what is Walter Strickland talking about? Well, I guess he could be talking about the gospel, but he's pointing to a heretical book with a heretical gospel to tell you about it.

But he also is doing it in such a way where he doesn't name him so that low -key he can push some ideas that you might have your guard up with if he told you the name.

It's not a good look. And I think at the very least, can we agree that it's not something that a

Christian minister probably should do? It's not wise to do it? I'm going to end it right there. Actually, we'll let

Neil answer that, but then we'll just go. But I don't know. It's just like, like, that's it.

Just Neil's just not willing to go there. And that's fine. I really do like Neil. I'm not joking about that. I really do.

I message him every now and then to encourage him because I like him. Right. He doesn't understand that you're talking about a guy who doesn't have the same gospel as you,

Neil. When he says, when Cone is talking about the gospel, it's not the gospel that you and I are talking about.

That's right. It's a different gospel. Can we then say, yes, his understanding is faulty, but when he says that this gospel, our gospel has implications, can

I realize that? Can I realize it speaks about lynching? And yes, I can realize that.

And if you need, you need to read a liberation theologian to find out that lynching is wrong.

I don't get that. Yeah, I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to stop it there. Well, actually let's, let's let him finish. I want to let Neil finish. I want to be fair to him.

No, no, no. I think so. I don't know why, but Strickland says that the first person he talked about, who he encountered to talk about systemic sin was

Cone. Okay. So I'll end it right there. And that's fine. If that's true, it's fine. But then you grew up and you put your big boy pants on.

This is what you should do if you're Walter Strickland. Then you should grow up and put your big boy pants on and figure out that tons of other theologians have talked about these ideas.

Maybe they didn't call it systemic sin or they use the terms of critical theory. That's actually probably a feature, not a bug.

But anyway and, and so you don't have to like, let's just give Walter the benefit of the doubt.

And so he's actually talking about the real gospel, but for some reason is pointing to a false gospel book to tell you about the real gospel implications.

That's really weird and twisted. And it's not necessary because there's tons of material out there that does a better job talking about justice, that does a better job talking about sin and that we ought to use instead of the heretics book.

Anyway, I hope you found this video helpful. Please watch this full video. It's two hours. I've found it so far.

I haven't listened to the whole thing. I found it very, very helpful. I'm grateful to Neil for doing it. I'm grateful for Don for doing it.

I think that Neil made some interesting points that I'm going to apply to my own content. There's no question about it.

And again, I like Neil and I pray for Neil and I hope Neil does good work in the future because I found it helpful.

I've recommended his stuff in the past and I'll continue to recommend it. Anyway, I hope you found this helpful. God bless.