No, Christianity Today, #BlackWomen Did Not Save Evangelicalism

Hi, my name is Adam Robles, and today I wanted to do a video response to an article that I saw posted on Christianity Today.

The article was posted in the wake of the special election in Alabama where Roy Moore lost the election to his

Democrat opponent, Doug Jones, and the article was written by a Christian, a black

Christian, and I thought it made some very weird points and some things that I think are pretty instructive and potentially can help us sort through some of these issues.

But I think, you know, it has a really, it's interesting, it has a really low view of black people and black women, which is bizarre since it's written by a black person, and I just,

I have a hard time understanding. If I was, if I was black, I would take a lot of offense to this article. As a

Christian, I take a lot of offense to this article, but I want to, I want to switch to it and kind of go through it a little bit, but before I do, a quick disclaimer.

I always say this in my videos, but I think it's worth repeating. I am not a Republican. I would not have supported

Roy Moore. I would not have voted for Roy Moore if I had the opportunity. So this isn't really about partisanship.

I don't care about Republicans, and I don't care about them winning the Senate seat. I just don't care.

However, this is about consistency and engaging in politics as a Christian, and I think this article does a really horrible job at it, so let's, let's switch to it real quick.

So here it is, published by Christianity Today, as you can see, and the article is titled

How Hashtag Black Women Saved Evangelicalism, quite, quite a claim, quite a claim,

How Black Women Saved Evangelicalism, and the, and the sort of the, the summary of this article is right below the title.

It says, For black Christians, sexual harassment and assault are as much of a gospel issue as abortion.

Now, the first thing I want to say before I start my critique is that tagline is super offensive to white people, because it sort of says, you know, for black people, these are both gospel issues, but for white people, are they?

I don't know. I mean, it doesn't say that white people think they aren't, but it certainly seems to be implying that, which is extremely ridiculous.

I don't know a single white person who supported Roy Moore, who was like, yeah, you know, sexual assault, sexual harassment, eh, no big deal.

I just don't know anyone like that. There may have been people like that. There may have been some fringe people, and this article even mentions fringe evangelicals who said it wasn't a big deal, even if he did do these things, but why present your opposition like this?

I just don't get it. This is partisanship at its worst, to say that, to kind of imply that white

Christians and sexual assault's not a big deal then, not a gospel issue, but anyway, for the point of this, for this article,

I'm going to assume that sexual harassment, assault, that Roy Moore actually did those things, that we could prove that he sexually harassed or assaulted somebody, and I'm also going to assume that they're kind of equivalents, right?

So abortion and sexual harassment and assault, they're both equivalents. They're just as bad as one another, and I'm going to assume those two things.

However, both of those things, I think, are highly debatable. I actually don't agree with both of those things. So let's just give him all of that and see if this argument holds water.

Oops, I'm sorry, I accidentally clicked out of it. Here we go. Okay, so the point of this article is essentially this, that white people overwhelmingly supported

Roy Moore, and that was very inconsistent, and that would have been sort of a day of reckoning for evangelicalism.

They would have been, they would have had egg all over their face. They would have been saying one thing, but really they would have been selling out, selling their souls just to get some political power.

And the reason I say that is because if you see here, this is what he quotes. He says, Ed Stetzer says that if you change your view of ethics in order to support a candidate, that's the definition of selling out and selling your soul.

And that's the slippery slope evangelicals found themselves on with Roy Moore's candidacy. So the point is very clear that white evangelicals supporting

Roy Moore was equivalent to selling out, selling your soul, selling your ethics, because, you know,

Roy Moore did these horrible sexual things. And again, I'm going to give him that argument. Let's just say that he did all these things and we knew it and we could prove it.

Okay, so black voters saved the day, essentially. That's the point of this article. Black women especially voted overwhelmingly for Doug Jones and that saved evangelicals from this embarrassment that we would have had if Roy Moore would have won.

Because Doug Jones won, now we still might have to explain why we supported Roy Moore as evangelicals, but at least he's not in the

Senate and so we don't have all that egg on our face. That's essentially the point of this article.

Black women saved evangelicalism from that because black votes matter. Now this is interesting because in the tagline he says that abortion and sexual assault are just as much gospel issues.

And so Doug Jones, very open about his pro -abortion stance. He is a big abortion supporter.

And so I'm just curious. This is why I think this has a very low view of black people because the expectation is that white people should be more consistent with their vote and they should know better.

They should not support someone who's committed sexual assault. But black voters, we can't expect consistency from them?

I don't understand. So if they're both gospel issues, which the article does say that they are, why is this author celebrating the fact that overwhelmingly black

Christians supported Doug Jones? Why is that a cause for celebration? Shouldn't that be a cause for mourning? And that's why

I say it has a low view of black people because it's almost like, you know, we can, we expect more from white people.

We expect consistency. We expect moral ethical standards. But for black people, we don't expect that.

I don't understand. I mean, that, that seems to be a very inconsistent and honestly quite racist view of things that, you know, we should celebrate blacks empowerment by being inconsistent with their vote.

That's, that's to me is extremely bizarre, extremely bizarre.

And so, you know, as far as, as far as this article goes, I, I, as a

Christian, I just, I wonder what, why is this, how is this saving evangelicalism?

Isn't this just being inconsistent and giving, putting egg on our face in a different way? Well, it's really only saving evangelicalism if you're a partisan, essentially.

If you're a anti -Republican, if, if you think that Republican equals bad and anything else equals better, that's partisanship.

And that's the only way you can really understand this article is something that might be saving evangelicalism. This article says here, black

Christians, for black Christians, sexual harassment and assault, yes, even accusations are as much a gospel issue as abortion for them.

There is no separation of voting values and social ethic because they have lived that reality for 50 years. Man, if that's true, why is this article being written?

If there's no separation of voting values and ethics, then why are blacks overwhelmingly supporting

Doug Jones? He's an evil, evil man. He supports more killing. In fact, he supports more killing of black babies because we all know that disproportionately black and Hispanic children are killed in the womb.

The womb is the least safe place for a black person to be. And so I just,

I don't understand. I mean, this, this, this quote right here, for them, there's no separation of voting values and social ethic.

It's just extremely tone deaf, extremely tone deaf. And it's made even worse if you remember that Roy Moore was accused of impropriety, but Doug Jones is open and proud of his impropriety.

It's almost like there's sort of a distinction here between Doug Jones' position on abortion, and that's like not really part of his character, his moral character.

Yes, it is. If you think killing babies is just fine and you want to make, give more access to it and make it easier, you're evil.

You're not a good person. And that's, and that's just the facts. Now, um, this article is, is extremely partisan and it's just bizarre.

It's absolutely bizarre. I have a much higher view of black people than this author. It's just that simple because I expect black people to be consistent as well.

I expect black people to be consistent with their vote and have consistent Christian values with their vote. And here's the thing.

I'm not saying that you might not, um, have a good reason to vote for Doug Jones. That's a Christian reason.

I'm not saying that. But according to this article standards, if you're inconsistent, even at one point, then you're inconsistent in total.

And if you're going to go by this author standards, then this is a time to mourn for black voters because you know, they're, they're, they don't have their own best interests in mind because you know, this man,

Doug Jones is, is a bad dude. He wants more dead babies. He wants it to be easier for you to kill your baby.

Um, and that's, that's not moral and that's not Christian in any way. And so, um, you know, I'm not going to argue with you that again,

I wouldn't have voted for Roy Moore, so I'm not going to argue with you that Christians should have voted for him, um, because I don't believe that I would not have voted for him myself, but if you're going to make the arguments that this author makes, um, and apply them inconsistently, that's the definition of showing partiality and again, has a very low view of black people.

So that's all I really wanted to say about this article. And, um, maybe I'm missing something that just seems so obviously wrong to me.