ABSOLUTE HYPOCRISY: Evangelical Elites React to Kyle Rittenhouse and Darrell Brooks

Welcome to the Conversations That Matter podcast. My name is John Harris. We're gonna talk today a little bit about what happened over the weekend. I was actually waiting because another situation came up, which we'll talk about, that I wanted to give evangelical elites a chance to respond to.

And every once in a while, the timing of two different situations happens in such a way that they're in so close proximity to one another that you can use them as kind of barometers to test. If something happens that's similar to something else, but there's a little bit of a rearrangement, so you have a different perpetrator from a different social class, let's say, and someone reacts in a different way, then you can use it as kind of a social experiment.

Okay, what is it that made a group of people react so negatively to, let's say, a Kyle Rittenhouse, and then not as negatively to Daryl Brooks? So we're gonna talk about that a little bit today. We're gonna talk about the absolute hypocrisy.

There are no moral compass left, no reason to follow evangelical elites. They are showing their true colors once again. And why do this? Some of you think probably, John, we've done this so many times, we've seen this before.

And I think it's good to remind ourselves of it too, because there is a pull, there is a tug to be quote unquote nice and reasonable, and don't say mean things about other people. I see that now with the whole the enemies within the church thing.

People are, the objection, the main objection is, how dare you call people Marxists? Or how dare you say that they have false teaching? We're just reasonable Christians. We're just like you. We have unity in the gospel.

And I think it's important to remind all of us why we actually don't have unity. And there are a number of reasons, the social justice religion, of course, being the main one, but there's different facets of the social justice religion.

Unity in Christ and the Commands of God

And we're gonna talk about some of them, at least one of them today. And this is the reason why we don't have unity. And the unity should, by the way, I should point this out, the unity should be in Christ, right?

I hear this a lot, and I think it's a trick that's been used for the last 20 years maybe, especially since the gospel coalition got going, is all the unity is in the gospel. Well, look, Jesus commanded to make disciples of all the nations and to teach people what he commanded them.

The commands of God, the ethics of the Bible have something to do with the unity we have. And our unity is actually in Christ. It's by nature of being in him, being brothers and sisters with one another because of what he has done.

He has put us in a right relationship with the father. That's the unity. And so, yes, the gospel is what enables that unity to take place, but the unity itself is not reduced to just being in the gospel.

And so I think there's a number of tricks, a number of ways that evangelical elites are trying to play us. Maybe they don't even realize it, all of them. A lot of them just parrot each other. But we need to look into these strategies and see the subversive nature of them and reject them.

And we need to clearly know in our own minds, because the evangelical elites are anything but clear in how they communicate. So we need to be clear with what we believe and why it differs from what they often believe and say themselves.

So that's why we're doing this. Some people also will reach out and say, John, I wasn't listening to you. I didn't know about this issue until three months ago, two months ago, six months ago. And that's because the issue didn't affect them personally in their church yet, or they didn't notice it.

And so I'm doing it for those who also for the first time are starting to realize these things. And I wanna give them some understanding of the current landscape and why it's divided the way it's divided.

So we're gonna point out hypocrisy. We're gonna show just the pharisaical nature, the straining at Nats, the swallowing camels, the inability to use equal weights and measures. The Lord loves equal weights and measures, hates the ones that are not equal.

We're gonna talk about the deception, the subversiveness, all of it in today's episode. And we're only gonna use pretty much the events over the last few days. I'll take a trip down memory lane with you and talk about one other event, but mainly we're gonna be talking about within the last week, what's actually taking place.

So let's start here. I just wanna remind everyone and relate to you that we all are used to the miscarriage of justice and media bias at this point. I saw this morning, a man pleaded guilty to rape and sexual assault of four teenagers, guilty, he pleaded, in New York.

And the judge prayed about it, according to the article, and decided it would be bad for him to put him behind bars. That's what we're used to now. We're seeing more and more of it, especially in progressive states.

We see, and this is just a little graphic I got from last year, actually, that over just a period of a few days, you had Cannon Hinnant, John Shockley, Nicole Merrill, Veronica Baker, Nathan Garza, all quote-unquote white people killed by quote-unquote black people.

And where was the media outrage? Where was the big evangelical leader saying anything about that? Saying, say her name, say Nicole Merrill. And you'd never heard of the name Nicole Merrill. And so we're just used to this because these things bubble up and we hear about them in our personal local lives and in our personal lives as well.

And we realized there is bias going on. There is something wrong. And we should just never, honestly, if it's on CNN, I just, I don't even pay attention to it as far as taking it to be a reliable source whenever they talk about anything conservative or on the right.

I just, I don't even, I don't even have in my mind the responsibility to check it out. Well, they said he's a racist. You need to go see if he's a racist. No, I don't. It's CNN. I don't even, I will pretend that it doesn't matter whether they said it or not because they have lost all credibility.

Nicholas Sandmann and the Covington Catholic Smear

Now let's take a trip down memory lane. We know what the secular elites do. The evangelical elites often parrot them. Now this is from Christianity and Social Justice, Religions and Conflict, a book I just put out and it is available.

A lot of people have benefited from it. You can go to Christianityandsocialjustice .com if you wanna order a copy. There's gonna be a great rate on it later this week. The website's for some reason down right now, but perhaps even by the time I upload this recording, it will be back up.

If you can't get it there though, it's on Amazon as well, Christianity and Social Justice. And like I said, the price is gonna be going down this week for Black Friday and Cyber Monday. So you have that narrow window between Friday and Monday to get your copy for a reduced price.

But there's a section in here where I talk about Nicholas Sandman. And at the 2019 March for Life, the Washington Post CNN used a short video clip to falsely report that Nick Sandman, a student with the Covington Catholic High School, confronted Nathan Phillips, a Native American activist, by walking up to him and smirking while wearing a MAGA hat.

Many of you remember this. There was an avalanche of strong condemnations. The Secretary of State of Kentucky lashed out. Comedian and actress, Kathy Griffin, doxed them. You had the Covington Catholic High School and the Diocese of Covington condemn the actions of the students towards this Native American activist, Nathan Phillips.

You had, the worst was Jack Morrissey, who wanted the MAGA kids to go screaming hats first into the wood chipper. But then of course you had the evangelical elites, the BDN-ABUYLE encouraged vigilant opposition to the racist incivility promoted by them.

Karen Swallow Pryor said that she was sick to her stomach. J .D. Greer agreed that Sandman displayed hate. Duke Quan, a pastor and author associated with the Presbyterian Church in America, attacked the pro-life movement for making it difficult for Christians of color to participate.

I mean, this was at a pro-life event, so he's attacking the movement for it. Beth Moore stated that to glee in dehumanizing any person is so utterly antichrist it reeks of the vomit of hell. And then she followed it up with, I cannot shake the terror of adolescence already indoctrinated enough to hate and disrespect, to smile that chillingly and jeer without shame or fear of God uncurbed, this utter glee in dehumanizing is what humanitarian whores are made of.

So a smile, a simple smile is triggering this, triggering these reactions. They're unhinged because Nick Salmon's smile that someone banging a drum in his face. Now, two days after the incident, the truth came out, an unedited video revealed that it was actually black Hebrew Israelites who directed the racial slurs towards the teenagers, and Nathan Phillips was the one to actually confront Nick Salmon, not the other way around.

And now we know that CNN has paid up a lot of money for saying what they did about Nick Salmon. And we have not really, maybe some measure of sort of a retraction from J .D. Greer-ish, not really. None of them apologized.

None of the, to me, Annabelle, Karen Saul-Pryder, Greer, Moore, Kwan, none of them apologized for what they said about Salmon. They were, it was evil what they did. And of course they did not condemn Nathan Phillips because look, Nathan Phillips is Native American.

They didn't condemn the black Hebrew Israelites. They're black, right? And they were saying all kinds of horrible, hateful things. No condemnation towards them, but heaps of condemnation towards a kid for smiling.

Why is that? You need to ask yourself, why is that? Well, it's because he comes from what the sociologists, and media elites think of as a privileged class. He's a white male. That's why. That's the only thing that makes sense of this reaction.

Kyle Rittenhouse, Self-Defense, and the Push to Redefine Open Carry

Now, let's go to the Rittenhouse situation. The Rittenhouse situation was similar. Thabiti Annabouile came out and condemned, you can see the video of Kyle Rittenhouse there, and he condemned 17 year olds for showing up with AR -15s, and that the police, he basically has a moral equivocation between those defending their property, and defending themselves and their friends, to those who are rioting, and says, well, they're both protesters, and the police shouldn't favor either one.

And because the police, I guess, were giving drinks of water to some of these people defending their property, then he's just really mad about it. And of course, the police, they were handcuffed. They couldn't do what they should have done.

Their rules of engagement were terrible. They were outnumbered. And so they were thankful for the help of people who came to defend the property, and to keep buildings from burning. But that's not, Thabiti Annabouile doesn't like that.

You have Beth Moore. She kind of, in a vague fashion, though, talks about how African-American brothers and sisters are, basically, they have such loss and grief, but they're bearing it so well, and she looks at them, and she's inspired.

And this, you couldn't, in court, show that, yo, Beth Moore's talking about this situation with Kyle Rittenhouse, but the timing is around the same time. And that's often the case with evangelical elites, is the timing is where, for all their talk about dog whistles, for every time they say that, it's conservatives who are dog whistling, and saying all kinds of white supremacist things by not being white supremacists, by smiling, and smirking, and nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

It's actually not conservatives who do that. Conservatives tend to actually be very upfront with their beliefs. It's actually the progressives, the leftists, that tend to be very, you tend to send the dog whistles to one another, and tend to be very vague, but the rest of the group knows what they're talking about.

So I do see a lot of that, and we'll see more of that as we go. So you have Duke Quan in this, again, one of the ones who went after Sandman. You have him just recently, so we're going back to within the last week, condemning the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict.

Kyle Rittenhouse was found to be in self-defense acting, and he's not guilty. He was acquitted. And Duke Quan, this is very important. We all hear this. Duke Quan retweets a sentence by David's French.

He says, it's been on in his mind all week. It explains why reactions are so divided to this decision by the jury, and it reminds us that legality is not identical to morality. It's not just the legal case narrowly considered.

It's our moral and cultural order. The whole thing is broken. And this is what I want you to hear. If you think that these evangelical elites are not just like the secular leftist elites, if you think for one moment that they are just a little bit on the left, but they're not revolutionaries, you'd be totally wrong.

They want to revolutionize, fundamentally reshape the entire fabric of American law. And this gives it away. This gives it away. What Duke Quan just said here, and what David French says more importantly, completely shows their dedication to fundamentally deconstructing our law.

Here's the sentence. The narrow nature of the self-defense inquiry is one reason people can escape responsibility for killings that are deeply wrongful in every moral sense. Now listen to what that's saying.

Self-defense might be legal, but is it right? Maybe legal, but it's wrong. What Kyle Rittenhouse did was wrong. And maybe they usually say, well, he was 17. He went across a state line. His AR -15 shouldn't have been there, which a lot of these things have been debunked, but none of those are relevant.

The relevant thing is was he attacked? Did he defend himself, morally speaking? And that is 100 true. Two criminals with histories, one being a child pedophile, attacked him, skateboard, beating him with a skateboard, pulling a gun, and Kyle Rittenhouse defended himself.

That's all that matters. But that's the thing that they have to condemn. They have to condemn it somehow. Now if Kyle Rittenhouse was black, or a different minority status of some kind, if he had that, what would be the reaction?

I just want you to think about that. So in order to use this situation to forward the leftist agenda, what David French has done is he has basically pitted morality against legality. And he said that it may be legal to defend yourself, but it's immoral.

That's essentially what he's saying. I mean, he might not say that about every circumstance, but why not? I mean, he's given them a blank check in a sense. The defense inquiry is one reason people can escape responsibility.

So people are escaping responsibility because they're defending themselves for killings that are deeply wrongful in every moral sense. And so it's deeply wrongful what Kyle did in every moral sense, all encompassing.

Everything he did was wrong. It's all wrong to defend himself. So we need to change the law. That would be the logical conclusion to this. We can't have people running around there with guns trying to defend their friends and their businesses and themselves.

Here you have Sky Jathani. He's the co-host with Phil Vischer on Phil Vischer's podcast who's the creator of VeggieTales. He says, and David French retweets this, as American politics become increasingly polarized and increasingly vicious, it's time to fundamentally rethink open carry both as a matter of ethics and a matter of law.

And he goes, David French is very pro-second amendment, but even he sees the madness we've unleashed. Look at the play here. Even David French, who's pro-second amendment, he sees that open carry is crazy.

We've unleashed madness. Now, let me ask you this. When did we unleash madness? I'm old enough or young enough, however you, I remember stories even told about my grandfather. Taking guns to school to hunt game afterward and putting them in the back of the classroom and it was normal.

Open carry was baked into the fabric of this whole country from its inception. It was just, there wasn't hardly any limitation on it. The only thing we've done is impose limitations. We haven't unleashed any madness.

If you think that's madness, it's been there the whole time. That's just America. You have a problem with America. You have a problem with our Western law, our legal, our Anglo, our tradition of law, British common law.

You just, you don't like it. And now British common law isn't what it was, obviously, if you go to Great Britain, but our history going back, there's a reason that we value self-defense. It's always been there.

This is the norm. They want to make it sound crazy. They want to make it sound kooky. That even the second amendment people, they even see how crazy it is to have open carry. You're marginalized. You're a weirdo if you believe in open carry.

That's what they're trying to do. They are moving the needle so far left. Chris Tye, David French retweets him, and he talks about that, let's see, basically the same thing, that this would be legal to acquit Rittenhouse, but it doesn't, it shouldn't make him a hero.

David French says this. He's actually retweeting. So he's quoting David French, and David French is retweeting his quote of himself. A political movement that turns a deadly and ineffective vigilante into a role model is a movement that is courting more violence and encouraging more young men to recklessly brandish weapons.

Okay, I'm done. Here's the deal. Kyle Rittenhouse is this kind of person that we used to build monuments to. We'd look up to someone like that. He risked himself. He risked his life, and he was willing to do it for the sake of his friends, their property, and then also defend his own life.

He prevented people from murdering him. That's his crime, apparently. And this is, apparently, this is madness. This is wrong. We should never look up to him. You know why the monuments are coming down right now?

Thomas Jefferson was just removed, what, yesterday, from New York City Hall. Do you know why we don't have heroes in Hollywood to look up to who are displaying manly character and the kind of things you'd wanna instill in your children?

Do you know why, in every other facet, we just don't have heroes? Because even the conservative, supposedly evangelicals, will try to castigate any example that arises of someone who's like that. There is a pressure to not be masculine in this way and to not defend your own and to, I guess, I don't know, what do they want him to do?

Just be, have the state, the all-encompassing modern state, will just protect everyone. And then we can just go be completely lazy and we don't have to worry about any of those things and we don't have to take any responsibility.

You want socialism? This is the kind of attitude that gets it, that brings it right in. People not being self-sufficient, not self-governing, but relying on an all-powerful government. Because I guarantee you, the violence isn't gonna stop.

And people are going to cry out for a solution. They're gonna want order in the chaos. Anyway, David French, that's his take on all of this. Well, who else said things about this? Let's take a look. We have Mike Edmondson.

I can't remember why I put him in here. I can't remember what he does. He's somehow part of that evangelical elite guild, but wants to pray for the families of the victims of Kyle Rittenhouse and an end to racial vigilantism and gun reform that protects life.

Yeah, okay. Pushing the needle left, no rejoicing over Kyle Rittenhouse being found not guilty. No, they don't care about actual justice, guys. You gotta understand this. These people do not care about justice.

They talk about it all the time, but their version of justice is not justice. Jamar Tisby talks about this whole thing as racism, because there's this vigilantism in the US has always been most frequently and violently deployed in the service of white supremacy.

So it's all racism. What Kyle Rittenhouse did was racism. He shouldn't have gotten off. He's the hardcore ideologue. And then you have this TGC article from last year. Gospel Coalition puts out this article, Why I Hate August.

Charlie Dates talks about it very favorably and calls it racist, what Rittenhouse did. Gavin Ortland, who is Ray Ortland's son, and Dane Ortland, who wrote Gentle and Lowly's Brother. He likes the article.

You have just, I mean, it got to a lot of places in the Gospel Coalition. And of course, now there's a big cry from conservatives to say retract. Is it so hard to retract and apologize? But are they doing it?

No, not since the recording of this podcast, they have not done a thing. They have not lifted a finger to retract this horrible article, which compares Kyle Rittenhouse to Dylann Roof and says he's basically a mass murderer.

And I went over it when it first came out. And then you have these third way types. You have the people who are just kind of, look, Anthony Smith, a guy just on Facebook, says, thinking about the families of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber today.

Yeah, the criminals who tried to kill Kyle with long arrest records. And Joanne Lyon, who is an ambassador for the Wesleyan Church, very high up, says it's painful beyond belief that Rittenhouse apparently was acquitted.

It's painful beyond belief. What, their families never really got justice. That's the insinuation here. So she's showing what side she's on, but she's not coming out and saying it directly. They're doing it in this moral virtue signal kind of way where, well, look how good people we are.

We're praying, we're thinking of these families, these hurting families. Yeah, the families of people who were child rapists, criminals, people trying to murder a man who gave them actual justice because he, and vigilante and people who use that are assuming it wasn't justice.

But if you're trying to kill someone and you get killed in the process, that is perfectly appropriate according to biblical law, but not according to the new crop of supposed conservative evangelicals in elite circles.

Joanne Lyon included in that. Then you have Neal Shenvey. My thoughts on the Rittenhouse verdict. This is one of the weirdest and just most ridiculous and not surprising coming from Neal Shenvey, unfortunately, but it's takes on this.

So Romans 12 talks about rejoicing with those who rejoice, weeping with those who weep. And Neal Shenvey says, well, if you rejoice with those who rejoice over Rittenhouse, then the verdict that he's not guilty, you'll anger those weeping over it.

And vice versa, the same is true of Biden's election, Trump's election, Texas abortion laws, et cetera. There's no way around this. Consequently, it's time to rethink superficial appeals to Romans 12.

My encouragement to pastors would be to say nothing about the verdict, go in tomorrow and exposit the Bible, preach the gospel. That's your vocation. And it's what all of us most need. If you must say something, encourage people to affirm their unity in Christ, watch the actual trial themselves and listen to the arguments of those who disagree with them.

But please don't simply affirm people's feelings as necessary, good and appropriate. And then he also says, he gives another reason for why he thinks pastors shouldn't talk about this. He says, the closing arguments alone for the Rittenhouse case took eight hours.

I doubt that a fair examination of the counter evidence from both sides, rebuttals and counter rebuttals could be done in less than 10 minutes. I simply do not think it appropriate for a pastor to devote that kind of time to this issue during Sunday worship.

Now, let me explain to you why I think this is one of the most ridiculous takes on this whole entire thing. Think about it. Let's go with the first one. You're gonna offend someone. Well, if you're gonna offend someone and you're gonna let someone taking offense, even if they take offense to abortion being scaled back apparently, and that'll keep you from saying anything and you should just focus on unity in Christ, then that means something.

That means that your unity in Christ isn't also in Christ's law. Teaching people what Christ commanded, Jesus said, if you love me, you keep my commandments. The ethics of the Bible don't factor into being in Christ apparently.

And so that's a real problem. You can just avoid these controversial issues and focus on being in Christ, but these controversial issues trace back to moral principles that the Bible has something to say about.

And many people right now having questions about the jab and mandates and what do they do at their job and the social justice movement and Me Too and all these things trace back to biblical understandings and principles.

And yet they're not getting guidance often from their pastors. And I've been in churches like that that take this approach of we're just have unity in the gospel or we just have unity in Christ. And well, no, you don't have actually much unity in Christ because you're not even talking about his commandments as they apply to these situations.

And these situations do exist because people live in the real world where there really are facts out there. God created sense perception and minds to understand things. We can take biblical principles and apply them.

He expects us to do that. And because someone's conditioned into lies or they haven't bothered to look at the information they should cause they're ignorant or they're evil and their ethics are off does not give pastors an excuse to appease them.

In fact, that's the opportunity to correct them. And there would never be an opportunity for correction and actual discipleship into the ethics of Jesus Christ if you didn't bring up some of these situations.

So look, I'm not saying you have to bring it up but you shouldn't pour cold water on it. Maybe you should. And the idea that because it took so long for the jury to deliberate that it's just too complicated.

A pastor can't talk about it. Well, you wanna take that logic to the Nuremberg trials? I mean, how many days did the Nuremberg trials go on for? I guess we can't condemn Nazis. How about Jesus's trial?

You know, well, half the night. I mean, I guess we can't really talk much about it. I mean, this is ridiculous. This would destroy the prophetic witness a pastor is supposed to have. And I thought evangelical elites were fond of prophetic witness.

This would destroy the actual unity we have in Christ because it would make it so flimsy. And just, there would be nothing left. If you can't have ethical discussions about what the Bible says about ethics and apply them to real world circumstances, then goodbye unity with Christ.

You might as well just say, we are the non-offensive church that appeals to man's feelings. We're man-centered here. We don't care what the word of God says and applying it to situations so long as men are offended.

You're not thinking of the right, you're not appeasing the right people. You are trying to please men instead of God. And that's what Neil Shenvey is doing here. And I need to just think about this real quick, guys.

Neil, I've appreciated some of the things he said early on. There's still some things he says about critical race theory that are accurate. But if you diagnose problems and then you have a hard time applying it in your own church or own denomination, you are a shield to anyone who would try to apply a standard from scripture to people in your own denominations.

You're afraid to call them false teachers or at least you don't think they are, you won't do it. What does that say about you in the long run? What is it? What would it compel someone to have that motive?

I think Al Mohler fits into this to some extent either. You're at Southern Seminary. You have more power there than anywhere else to change things. And yet you'll talk about everything but the seminary you're at and the denomination you're in and talk about how bad critical race theory is, but then you won't actually do anything about it in your own backyard.

What's the problem there? At least publicly, you won't do anything about it. What's the problem there? So this is something that we need to really think about. And I think Neil gave it away. I think Neil in this tweet shows, here's the motive.

To some extent, at least, we just wanna don't, we don't want people to be offended. That would be so horrible if someone was upset. And we don't, you know, we wanna be so careful that it basically freezes us and we can't even move because we're so cautious that we're inactive.

Vague Dog Whistles and the Silence on Darrell Brooks

Okay, let's keep going here. So these are some of the reactions. You have Thabiti Annabuile, and this is the vagueness reaction, retweeting someone talking about evil systems. And you wonder, what's she talking about?

Rachel Joy Welcher, who Thabiti retweets, systems that crush, exploit, and dehumanize. On November 20th, what could they be talking about? How about Beth Moore? Talks about Jesus will one day renew all things and right all wrongs.

Well, what wrongs need to be righted that she could be talking about on November 21st at 9 .15 a .m.? This is the vagueness stuff. This is the stuff that I told you earlier. They're the ones that like to do the dog whistle thing.

I think we're, I'm pretty confident I know what they're talking about, but I can never prove it in a court of law. But everyone else seems to know what they're talking about. Now, if you thought, John, you didn't prove your case, I don't know.

I mean, look, the enemies within the church movie and stuff, that's so harsh. And the evangelical elites are saying, they're reasonable people. We have unity in Christ with them. How dare you slander them?

John, you didn't prove your point. I just think you're making mountains out of molehills here. If you think that, which I think you'd be wrong, but if you think that, this will completely destroy that assessment.

And you will have to admit, I think if you're gonna be honest and consistent, you will definitely have to admit that this fact seals the deal to show that these people in evangelical elite circles are absolute hypocrites.

I wanted to give them some time. I wanted them to be able to react to this, but sadly they have not. And I've gone to the profiles of the people, most of the people I've mentioned in this podcast, and I'm not seeing anything condemning the murderer, Daryl Brooks.

Daryl Brooks has a long list of crimes, resisting and obstruction, officer, bail jumping, felony, second degree recklessly endangering safety, domestic abuse assessments, disorderly conduct, battery. This is Daryl Brooks.

And of course, what does CNN do? CNN, well, there's nothing more frightening today than an angry white man. Fox News, Fox 6 News, local news. And this is pretty holds true for the rest of the media. A person taken into custody after an SUV plowed into a holiday parade in Wisconsin, killing at least five people and has been identified as Daryl Brooks.

A person, what if it was a white male? You know they'd say that. A white male taken into custody. No, it's a person when it's not a white male. Now let's go over who was injured and well, the names of those who died.

There's 48 injured, five dead. Virginia Sorenson, 79. Leanna Owen, 71. Tamarind Durand, 52. Jane Coolidge, 52. William Hospel, 81. Why did they die? Why did they die? Older people in a parade. And it's not too far from Kenosha where Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted.

Why did these people die? Well, I can give you a clue. Here's apparently some of his social media posts from Mr. Brooks. He's mad that Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty in all counts. He has posts where he talks about killing old white people.

Well, that's exactly what he did. Here's a picture of MLK smiling as a white person or a black person is beating white people picking cotton. Here is a black fist coming out of a fruit salad bowl. There's so many things, honestly, I could have posted so much more, but this man, he subscribes to a hateful ideology.

And he went into a crowd and he killed a number of people. And you can guess what maybe ethnicity they are. It's not hard to figure out. And what the media is doing about it. Well, it's not even focusing on the idea that this could be a quote unquote hate crime.

Evangelical elites haven't said a peep from what I found. Why? Why haven't they said a peep? They say something about Kyle Rittenhouse. They say something, even if it's vague, they say something about Nick Sandman.

They have a lot to say about Derek Chauvin. And then of course, in all these cases, they're proven wrong on some level afterward. They don't retract. They don't apologize. And then this kind of thing, nothing to say about this?

Really? Here's the takeaway. Evangelical elites have a completely broken moral compass. The vast majority will not lift a finger to decry the murderer, Daryl Brooks. They will not post about praying for his actual victims.

They will not connect his actions to hateful ideologies. Caring about actual human lives is not their chief concerns when weighing what to focus on. Evangelical elites on the left had divided into two basic groups.

The hardcore ideologues like Jamar Tisby and the opportunists. The first group has anti-scripture or principle. The second group has little principle, if any. And both groups of evangelical elites do not care about true justice.

They will not rejoice that justice was done for Kyle Rittenhouse, and they will not condemn Daryl Brooks. That's the takeaway here. That's the takeaway. You cannot trust these people. And the encouragement is this.

I think people are starting to wake up and realize this. There is a race to look a little more reasonable, be a little more vague on the leftist stuff. Push the needle left, but be more vague about it.

Say things every now and then that are a little more critical of the left, too. I'm seeing it more and more and more. And I know because what's happening is that in churches, they're being split. Organizations aren't receiving the money they used to when they go woke, and there's people freaking out.

And they want to appear to be more reasonable, yet at the same time, they've never apologized for the unreasonable and evil things they've said in the past that did promote true injustice. And their commitment is still to social justice.

They're just going at a different speed and in a different route. They're subversive. They are creeping in unaware to many people. And it's important we shine a spotlight on it. So that's my encouragement.

That's the episode for today. Christianity and social justice going on sale this weekend. You're gonna want to check that out on Amazon or you can go to Christianityandsocialjustice .com, Lord willing, if I can get the website back up and running.

And appreciate all of you for all your support, for listening. I hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving. More coming though later this week. Bye now.