BREAKING: SEBTS Whistleblower and Montage

Southeastern Seminary Whistleblower and the Need to Rescind Resolution 9

Welcome to the Conversations That Matter podcast. My name is John Harris. This is a big deal, guys, what I'm about to share with you. Just broke this morning a student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, which is actually the seminary I went to, recently graduated.

Apparently, things haven't changed that much. He shares some of his experience there, and it's similar to some of the things I experienced. It is discouraging to see that from 2019 to now, which is, I think I made my video in 2019, where I talked about what happened during my experience.

It doesn't seem like things have changed all that much. And from just, not just pumping in the social justice stuff, but the way that it's handled, the circling of the wagons, the way that they try to neutralize any kind of person who would share concern about this.

It's concerning, guys. So I wanna just play for you the video. The link is in the info section if you want to watch the whole thing. And there's also, there's a montage. This is a very, nothing like this about Southeastern to this level, I think, has quite been put out there.

But there's a montage at the end that shows chapter and verse. This is, you know, these are the clips that you can look at and say, yep, there's social justice being taught at Southeastern, or by professors from Southeastern, et cetera.

So if you want to get a link to the entire video info section, if you wanna just see the montage, there's a link for that as well. This is a big deal though, guys. So let's go through it. I'll make a few comments here and there, but I want you to just feel the full weight of this.

So we're, and by the way, one last thought before we roll the film here. This is gonna motivate Southern Baptists, I think. Southern Baptists who are going to Nashville, going to the convention, you're gonna wanna resend Resolution 9 after you see this, I think.

Most, I mean, if you're understanding what's actually going on, you're gonna wanna resend Resolution 9. And I'll show you at the end. I'm not gonna show you now. I don't wanna take anything away from this, but I have some ideas on ways to support that initiative when you're at the convention.

Let us start rolling the film here though. This is Scott Crawford is his name, and this is what he has to say.

Scott Crawford’s Experience of CRT and Institutional Pushback

Hello, everyone. My name's Scott, and I just wanna talk about my experience at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, which I am an alumni now. I graduated this past December. CRT is being taught there, whether directly or indirectly, but it is being taught there.

I should say, when I saw this, I downloaded it and I just cut the clips up so you can just see. These are the relevant parts. If you wanna hear the full thing, go to those links. These are the relevant parts.

So far he's saying, I'm a student there, and CRT is being taught there.

It's sad that when I called out Al Mohler to do something to resend this resolution, I got met with pushback from administration. It was amazing to see from just the student body that the pushback that Tom Askell and Tom Buck was getting for just speaking up on the issue and saying how godless this ideology is.

I remember talking with one person on the

So they tell you something about the student body, that where they're at.

The resolutions committee about it.

And Scott's saying that he's gotten pushback, and he's saying, he's talked to someone on the resolutions committee at the school. So that means probably, I think Walter Strickland or the other one would be, why am I blanking?

Keith Whitfield would have been the other guy. I think he's the dean now, if I'm not mistaken, or the provost. I think it's Keith Whitfield. So he's talking to one of them, it sounds like. He says someone on the resolutions committee from Southeastern, he's talking to them.

Here's what he has to say.

Conversation, great brother, I respect him. And if he watches this, I hope he knows that I respect him. And I just think some people at Southeastern, namely Walter Strickland and a few students are being held captive by false ideology as Colossians 2 .8 talks about.

And I remember bringing it up with him. We went through the resolution. I still was like, how can this be useful as an analytical tool for the gospel when it's a pagan ideology? That's like using Gnosticism as an analytical tool, which we would never use.

So I left the meeting, went on with my studies. And then November was when push came to shove, because I remember that was when they hired Karen Pryor, in 2019 in November, they said she'll be on faculty teaching English.

And I remember reposting the founder's article about it where they had some concerns. And I reposted it, it had DeSavitt's tag in it. Well, I remember it because it was Thanksgiving break. So I was heading home to Tennessee from where I'm from.

And also I got an email from Ron Hutchinson saying you can't post that.

Okay, this matches my experience, exactly matches my experience at Southeastern. I think it was Ryan Hutchinson too, who reached out to me when I posted something he didn't like, who's at the time, he was the VP, he may still be, I'm not sure, but this is how it works, guys.

You do something to, you put something out there that they think makes the school look bad, but it's about doctrine. It's about something that's very concerning. And you get the call, you get the, and it's not a call, it's more of an order.

It's more of a, it was wrong what you did and you need to stop doing it kind of thing. And so that's what he's saying is happening here to him when he posted a founder's article about Karen Swallow Pryor teaching at the school and some of Karen Swallow Pryor's concerning beliefs, like some of her endorsement for certain aspects of revoiced theology.

And I was like, okay, I'll delete it. And I was like, can I come talk to you about it? Because what they're saying has some merit. So when I got back from Thanksgiving break that Monday, we talked about it.

And I was just like, they have merit on this. And it was like, Hutchinson was like, do you really think they would hire somebody that's unorthodox? And I was just like, well, from this article, yeah. So we had that talk and then with respect, left the meeting discouraged, went back to work.

And then it was interesting that December, I found out that they really wanted me fired talking with two people that I worked with.

They wanted him fired. That also matches a lot of the experiences I've heard from others who work for SBC entities and take any kind of stand, whatever, even if it's small against social justice, specifically where it's happening at their institution.

And the next thing is to fire them. And so it sounds like Scott works for the school, I think in a custodial way or something. And he is being a target, or at least he heard that he was a target for termination.

That told me, and that was very discouraging. It was very, I was very upset that you can't even criticize anything. I understand I work for the school and there's an ethic there, but shouldn't the gospel come first, no matter whether it's the school or not?

Like, it seems like you're sort of keeping matters in house and not letting anything be criticized. So that December, Askall had a follow-up article, which I reposted because it didn't have the Cebits tag on it.

And she never made a renouncement of revoice. And everything I said in the meeting about, well, she didn't say this, was true. Cause she, from the emails Tom showed on that article, you can go back and you can type it in on Google and it'll come up.

And I was just like, so everything I said and Askall said in that meeting was warranted. And I talked with someone that was in a hiring process for her and they've said they vetted her on it. Well, I told him, I was like, well, she needs to make a statement on it.

And they basically said, oh, she doesn't need to make a public statement when she's told us.

This is so classic guys. I've seen this over and over. I've heard these stories. I mean, even there's some public things I can think of that kind of match this to some extent where professors will be in error or employees will be in error on something.

And then the statement, if they do make a statement, it doesn't address the error that they committed. They just make general broad statements. I think Matt Hall, right? Like he says, I'm gonna peel back, show you the rotting corpse of white supremacy that underlies that narrative of faithfulness you thought was in your church or family.

I'm a racist, I'll be a racist because I benefit from systems that allocate privilege to me. And then when he goes out there and condemns critical race theory, he does it in broad terms. He condemns the underpinnings that are naturalistic or atheistic.

I mean, this is what liberation theologians did. They said, we don't agree with Marxism. I mean, that's atheism. But then they imported all of its ethic or most of it. And that's what, it's the same kind of thing that we see happening over and over and over.

And I remember I was on the phone, what, about a year and a half ago with Danny Akin, the president of the school. And I was reading him. I remember I was reading him quotes. This is what your professor said about this.

And the response is, well, he didn't say that. And I'm like, this is the quote. I'm reading it to you. It's like, well, you know, it's always your, you're always the problem. You're a misunderstanding.

You're not. And I'm like, wow, if there's this many people misunderstanding. I mean, you either have a professor there that cannot communicate very well in just plain English or which would you think disqualify him?

I mean, he's saying things that sound the opposite of what he actually means apparently. Or you have someone that actually means what he says. Either way, there needs to be some kind of a public clarification or at best, I mean, at best, a clarification, or at worst, I should say a clarification at best, a retraction and an apology.

But you don't find any of it. It's just, it's pride, I guess. It's institutional pride. We don't make mistakes here or something, but I've run into this all over the place. And it's just, it doesn't seem Christian to me.

Christians, if they make a mistake, especially one as serious as a doctrinal issue, they would be happy to turn around. And instead of going and having a powwow and supposedly retracting or clarifying it with whoever in their institution wants them to do so, you do it publicly.

Public error means public retraction. But that's not what you get. So this is, what Scott's saying here is matching everything that I've known to be true in my experience and so many others experience in SBC entities.

Yeah, I was just thinking, well, you wonder why the public perception about Southeastern is the way it is.

Exactly.

Maybe it's because of that. As 2020 continued, I remember going to, I was taking theology two at the time and Dr. Keith Lee, who's over at the Bush Center had Neil Shimbey come for the CRT discussion.

And I made my thoughts known. He asked for questions. I asked him, what's your thought on the Dallas statement? John MacArthur, James Watt, Michael O 'Fallon and all them. And he said he disagreed with it.

And I was like, why? And he sort of stumbled around the answer. And I was like, is that not a biblical statement? And he said it was. And I was like, what's the problem? And he danced around the answer.

And I pointed this out before with Neil Shimbey as well. I think he said Neil Shimbey, right? That he supports, he thinks resolution nine is okay. He supports it to some extent. And he did when it was passed for sure.

And anyway, but then yeah, the Dallas statement. That's actually a good indication sometimes. It's like, well, why won't you sign the Dallas statement? It's not just him. There's many others who haven't or won't sign the Dallas statement.

And you have to wonder why. I mean, there's even folks at places like Ligonier where you'd think like, don't you guys agree with this? But I'm not saying I know all the answers to why some people don't sign certain statements.

But it is a question with how important and damaging the social justice movement has been. And with the intimidation we now know to be true, at least from multiple sources at SBTS where people were basically told they shouldn't sign, professors shouldn't sign the Dallas statement, why?

Why is it that that, what's the error in it that people are, that are against? There's something weird in the water when that comes up. I'm just saying.

I was thinking, I asked Keith Lee, and I have another story to ask him.

Keith Lee's a professor there.

About having other speakers here. But I asked Keith Lee, why couldn't you just get James Watt or Virgil or one of them to come up here? And it was like, well, the

He's saying James White, the apologist, or Virgil Walker, he's, who's on the Just Thinking podcast, both against critical race theory, liberation theology, ethnic Gnosticism, social justice. And he's saying to one of the professors there, I think it's Ken Keith Lee, why can't they come in?

No, they basically said they'd want to debate. And I was just like, what's wrong with that? And it's just like, they don't want to debate it. And I just don't get it. I remember asking Crystal Wilson, who's over the, you know, schedule.

That's true. That is true. You don't find that. I remember even with the atheists, you know, 10, 15 years ago, the new atheists, there was all these debates, but, you know, there was sort of, I don't know if it was a revival of debate or what, but we don't, academic, academia, you should be filled with that.

You think professors want to debate professors on their scholarship. You don't find it though, hardly at all.

Scheduling people, ask her. Why can't we get, you know, Vody or, you know, Tom Askell, Tom Buck, you know, any of those guys that signed that, Josh Bias, even, to come talk about this. How about we have a round table discussion?

Do it in the chapel. I guarantee you, actually, I know students at the school would be interested in watching that and just, all right, let's see CRT. Can it be used as an analytical tool? And, you know, I told

And the answer for that, guys, just real quick, is no. If you import the categories of CRT in order to use it as an analytical tool, I mean, you start off with the assumption, you know, racism is there, whether you see it or not.

You just got to find it. It's systemic, it's everywhere. It just pollutes everything. Minority perspectives are, there's some sense in which they have more validity because of their lived experience than other perspectives.

There's this intersectional framework. You have to import those things to use the tool. So the tool is going to be like, well, where's the racism, let's say, at McDonald's? Well, CRT says it's here. So the tool is, you know, in what ways?

You know, what microaggressions can we find or whatever? You're importing the assumptions. That's why, short answer, that's why you can't use it as an analytical tool and separate it from the worldview.

Because the assumptions, the basic fundamental assumptions behind the worldview are where the tools derive their legitimacy from.

Hold them over, you know, ask them over and over, can we get these guys on there? It was brought to my attention recently through DMs that they have. And I was just like, really?

Because

That's not true, guys. That's not true. And I'm going to drop a bomb right now of my own a little bit. Voti Bakum. I remember this was two years ago, maybe. I've heard this now from three sources. Voti Bakum is one of them.

That Southeastern essentially said that they had a scheduling conflict. Voti was on the schedule to speak there and they had a scheduling conflict and never rescheduled with him. And they basically booted him.

It was a disinvite by using the scheduling conflict reasoning. There's three good sources that I have received that from. And I, you know, this is the kind of thing though, it bothers me because Scott's living the same thing that I remember where you have guys that could articulate the opposition to social justice.

And the response is, you know, you know, we've tried to get them, or we're open to that. There's some kind of, if you're initially trying to ask about those things, we have nothing against them. But in the long, in the end, they won't actually invite these people.

And if they do, it turns out like Voti, you know, there's a scheduling conflict that comes up and then he's not re-invited or something. And it's, they only platform certain people. They only platform certain people.

It's the people that are gonna protect the institution. That's why, you know, you'll see the only way that, the closest they've gotten to trying to platform someone against critical race theory is the Neil Shenvey talk.

But again, someone like Neil Shenvey defends Southeastern, defends Danny Akin, defends to some extent, even people like Jarvis Williams, defends Walter Strickland, defends Resolution 9, doesn't sign the Dallas Statement.

What does that tell you? That's the kind of opposition that they're comfortable with. It's not real opposition against the school. It's opposition against certain abstractions. And it's always, you know, nicer to focus on abstractions, but it's not what the apostles did.

It's not what Jesus did. They did have names attached to, or people that they had in mind that people knew who they were talking about with these errors. And so anyway, Scott, Scott's just, it's just not surprising to me, unfortunately, that he would have gotten the runaround on that.

With them, and they say the opposite. They say they have it. And so, which is it? I went to Imago today, love Tony, love the elders there. I remember one instance during 2020 where it was after GT conference, and I post, you know, I'd repost the founders clip.

One elder in particular, Zach Lyons, confirmed to me about, you shouldn't call it strickling like that. And I was like, but the evidence is out there. And he

This is something I think people need to be aware of. Cause I saw this when I was there in that environment. It's very hard to find a church in the Wake Forest area. Southern Baptist churches are basically off limits just about.

I mean, you can't find, it's hard to find one that's not on the social justice train. And they're very connected with the school. The school really does influence that whole entire region. And so you're gonna have some, you're gonna run into problems with the leadership at your church if you go against Southeastern.

This is often the case. So I think it's just interesting he brings this up. I remember feeling that as well.

He went from the standpoint of epistemology approach. You have to learn from people's experience. I'm not saying everybody in Imago today is teaching this. Tony's not, cause I would have said something obviously.

And, but for them to call me out for Strickland when the teaching videos are out there in the public sphere, very uncalled for. And again, no ill will towards them. I love them. I love my time there. I had one of the best growth groups probably at the church.

So I love all them. But they do have an elder there that does standpoint epistemology and he goes to Southeastern. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it's being taught at Southeastern.

And you can go look at the clips. I don't do this out of ill will to anybody. I love my teachers. Every teacher that I had, thank you cause you taught me to be a better Christian and a better follower of Christ.

I have no ill will towards anybody to the administration. I just wish that they could see that CRT is being taught there and it needs to be found out and removed or whoever. And even if, and if someone's teaching it and meaning to teach it, they need to be removed.

All right. So he has a montage at the end included in this video that we're gonna go through. But interesting what he just said.

That,.

It's sad, honestly. It's sad what he just said, but interesting. He's, he doesn't have an ax to grind with Southeastern. And that, I can relate to this. I remember when I made my video in 2019 about my experience at the school.

I'm like, I just want the school to be, to come back to doctrinal purity. And I want people going in to know what they're getting into that there's some problems there. And Scott seems the same way here.

There's no, and it's unfortunate. I have a hunch that some people there are gonna try to turn him into like some kind of a horrible enemy. And, you know, I think of the words of scripture, you know, am I your enemy?

Because I'm telling you the truth. And that's, I think Scott's mind here is, you know, this doesn't help anyone. This does not, when you come out against the system like this, right? They all, it's the funny thing is like, they're always like, let's power, speak truth to power.

Right? When you actually do that, like Scott's doing here right now, it doesn't benefit Scott. It'll actually, it'll hurt him. Opportunities won't be given to, afforded him in the SBC. It will blacklist him.

It really will. And he's a brave man to do this. And I wish, and I'm gonna say this, I've said it before, I wish some professors had the guts Scott had. Because I know I would not have had to do my video.

Scott wouldn't have had to do his video if some professors had some backbone and would actually take this issue on at their institutions. Sadly, that's not what we're finding. And it's left to people like Scott to shine a light on this.

The Montage of CRT, Standpoint Epistemology, and Social Justice at Southeastern

Well, we're going to see a big light shown on this right now, probably the biggest light that has ever been shown on Southeastern. And this is a montage and includes clips of professors from 2018 to 2021, and some of the things that they've taught there.

And we're gonna watch it. And I'll insert some comments as we go.

White Christians need to learn above all things, I think to be good listeners. Over the last several years, as I've tried to help build a culture for racial reconciliation and kingdom diversity, which is a core value of Southeastern Seminary, I've come to understand more and more that my perspective is not the perspective of my African American brothers and sisters or my Hispanic brothers and sisters, my Asian brothers and sisters.

They really do see life differently. They're operating out of a different paradigm, a different context that's very different than mine. And I didn't really realize that until I stopped talking and began to listen.

And so I think one of the things that white evangelicals in particular have got to do is become better listeners. In addition to that, we've got to be willing to surrender power, which is again, not indigenous to our nature.

As I often say, not only do we need to invite ethnic minorities into our room and to have a seat at the table, we even need to be willing to surrender leadership at the table if we're really gonna make progress and really help our brothers and sisters understand we see them on an equal plane with ourselves.

That's interesting you said that because Danny Akin is still the president, as far as I know, of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. So he hasn't surrendered that power. So I don't know what that says about him, but you can see underlying that is the whole standpoint theory that they're just, like I was saying in the podcast yesterday, it's like, almost like alien life forms.

Like just, they're just so different, such a different reality. And because of that different reality, then they need to also be, we need to decenter some of the whiteness and have some of them, minorities, be in leadership positions.

So forget about solely looking at qualifications and who's gonna be best for the job, but you also have to now insert this other element of how diverse is it. And the expectation is you get a better outcome if it's more diverse.

I remember years ago with the get out the vote stuff, rock the vote on college campuses. And the assumption behind that was the more democracy is good, the more people inserting their voice, the better choice is gonna be made.

Well, now it's the more diverse people inserting their voice, the better choices are made. And that's just not true. You don't find that in scripture. It's totally foreign to scripture. And it's actually a contradictory to scripture because scripture in multiple places says that it's actually wisdom is found with age, with experience.

Wisdom is actually ultimately found in the word of God. We actually have a source for wisdom. And so it's not, and there's no barrier because of your ethnicity that keeps you from understanding that. There's obviously language things, and that's why with those translators and stuff, even in Jesus's time, the Septuagint was used, a Greek translation of the Old Testament.

So there's that, but that's not anything close to resembling what Danny Akin's talking about here. Let's keep going. I probably should just let a lot of this play because it's gonna be a long video if I don't.

This is another professor at Southeastern.

If you live in the middle of a place that is just overwhelmingly white, there's hardly any people of color where you live at all in your town. This sounds like a harsh thing to say, but you probably should not adopt a non-white kid.

And this goes back to that form that everyone's gonna have to fill out at some point if you wanna adopt. And we've talked with other couples about this given our experience. And if you're gonna move to the middle of someplace where it's all white folks and you're filling out this adoption checklist and it says, what races are you open to?

I think white folks struggle with guilt. They feel guilty. If they say, well, I'm only gonna check the box that says I'm open to adopting a white child. But it would be much better for your kids if you are gonna only be able to because of where you live, because of who your friends are, because of what you can and can't change in your life.

If you're gonna raise kids like white kids, that's not bad. That's not wrong. That's not evil at all, but you should adopt white kids.

That's interesting considering you saw the little graphic there. Wake Forest is like over 70 white and it's an affluent area. That's where he lives. I mean, that's where Southeastern is. I'm assuming that's where he lives or close to there.

So Matthew Mullins, professor at Southeastern. How many of the people that have adopted black kids you know, when they hear this, or kids from Africa or from Asia or something, and they're not from Africa, they're not from Asia, you know, how many of them listen to that and say, yeah, you know, that resonates.

Really, I should just stick to my, I mean, this is like what white supremacists would say. Isn't it? Like stick to your own ethnicity. It's just incredible. It's just incredible. This was said 2018, sponsored by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

That's a professor still teaching there.

Dr. Cone, he opened my eyes to the fact that Christ is trying to restore brokenness, you know, and he really had a focus on that brokenness as manifesting as oppression, racially speaking. Dr. Cone really allowed me to see a new vista, a new space, a new avenue to allow the gospel to be made manifest.

I think the evangelical will do well to hear the voice of Dr. Cone in drawing us towards the reality that the gospel, the resurrection of Christ has implications for the here and now, but yet also making sure that we don't lose the eternal realities of the gospel.

An African American cannot thrive in a white evangelical space if that space is entrenched in white evangelical culture. It's just a matter of time before I hit the brick wall. All my assimilation and everything, somebody's still gonna call me the N-word somewhere along the line.

Just hollows on top of a car.

I'm gonna stop there. So yeah, that's Walter Strickland. I know there's this controversy right now with the ACSI and them bringing in his group, Unify Ed, to kind of advise on diversity and inclusion in those 25 ,000 private schools, potentially, throughout the world that they provide resources for and accredit.

But there he is. From 2018, he said it himself. I mean, Dr. Cone helped him understand the gospel. It's basically a summary of what he's saying there. And then he's sitting down with another gentleman there, Ellis, I think it's Carl Ellis, and he's saying, instructing Dr. Strickland, telling him, this is at Southeastern, this is happening.

You're gonna hit the brick wall if you try to assimilate in a white evangelical space and you're not white. Racism's gonna be there. I mean, that's the assumption of critical race theory. Racism's just always there.

It's just always there. And it's, you know, eventually you're just gonna find it. It's gonna rear its ugly head. It's always underneath that surface, ready to bubble up. Here's, and again, remember, as we go through this, this is a seminary.

This is a seminary. These are seminary professors. The videos we've seen so far, in their capacity as seminary professors. Is this what you go to seminary to learn? I mean, if you agree with it, which hopefully you don't, but even if you do, is this seminary stuff?

Here's Fadini Anderson, who works at Southeastern.

Fighting and so is Okoye. And they're just doing the same thing. And they're not like, and even one has to demean the other in order to show that they're capable or strong. I don't know, that just resonates with me.

I know that in America, the history, I mean, historically in the world since Adam and Eve, men and women relationships have been broken from the jump. And in America, it's been seen in a patriarchal setup.

And with the women's rights movement, all that haven't happened, so we can have a voice. It's just really good to see what it can look like. If a man and a woman, both equally powerful, equally skilled, really respect that in each other.

So this is a fantasy, this is a fantasy. Black Panther, she's talking about Black Panther. Look, there's a woman who's equally powerful and equally skilled. And it's just so refreshing because it goes against the patriarchal setup we have in this country.

I feel like there's some verses. Aren't there some verses maybe in the Old Testament that talk about how it's a shame? It's not good, it's negative. It's cast that way that if a woman is to, women are defending.

I mean, it's to the shame of the men. Like this is, that's actually not normal. That's not a creative norm to have women in combat. And they're praising this, again, at Southeastern.

A lot of Christians, I think, suffer from hermeneutical solipsism. They assume that their interpretation is the only one that exists or the only valid one. But when you realize that there are insights you can get from different cultures and even just from people in general, that their own life experience will bring something to the table.

Standpoint epistemology right there, guys, classic.

Do you need to be prepared to accept that our way, the Anglican way, the Presbyterian way, the male way, the white male way, the Northern Hemisphere way or whatever, the way is you've been ingrained is not the only way.

And you can learn a lot and at least appreciate the people who are other, who are different to you. And that's in the global Church of Christ, that is what we should be doing.

It sounds so good, guys. It sounds so good. What I noticed is someone who, if you're not familiar with standpoint theory, it might sound a little off, but it sounds good. Shouldn't we listen? And again, the issue is not listening, but the issue is there's an objective reality we all should be pursuing.

There's truth out there. And if someone is able to make connections and has sources that they found and stuff, and they're able to make sense of something in the scripture, they're able to find the interpretation of it, what it actually means, we should go to them.

We should learn from them. That's why there's commentaries. That's why there's certain people that are looked up to because of the good job that they do in this area. Being a Berean, rightly dividing the word of truth.

It's not because, well, I just, my social location gave me such a better leg up because of all the barriers I had to face or the oppression that I experienced or the division. That was before me. Look, some of those things, sometimes if you grow up in a certain way in your context, sometimes there are certain sections of scripture that might be more, you feel like they're more applicable.

They mean something to you personally, the application of them because of what you're going through. But that doesn't mean that you're somehow a better interpreter because of the context in which you grew up.

And that's the fallacy. And I've used this example before. It's like brain surgery or something. Do you want, you have a panel of doctors gonna do brain surgery on you. Are you gonna look for how ethnically diverse they are?

Are you gonna look at the authors of the textbook they read to make sure that they were getting the perspective from Africa and Asia and Timbuktu or wherever? Or do you want someone who has done this, has experience in it, is good at it, had high marks in their class as they graduated, and you don't care what the ethnicity is?

That's the difference here. It doesn't take, it's not like, well, she's a better brain surgeon because she's a woman and she's also a minority. No, that's not what makes you a good interpreter of scripture either, just because of those things.

So is it possible that there's someone who, because of where they grew up, there were a lot of brain surgeons and they were able to kind of learn from that and stuff. But again, even that is because it's knowledge being passed on to them, objective truth that they're learning.

So standpoint epistemology is a farce and it's being propagated there. Again, Southeastern, I think that was from 2019, if I'm not mistaken. Here's a library talk, the lingering effects of lynching on your ministry, an untold story from Southeastern.

Still hovers over our culture. There is an uncanny exact correlation between the rate of capital punishment in North Carolina and the rate of lynching in North Carolina. We've got a president who cannot rule this country without vilifying brown people at the border.