Keep sharing good news without ads.
#NoDespair2020
Well, it's Tuesday, June 16th year of our Lord 2020 and you are still not crazy. Yeah, you know, I feel like sometimes people need positive affirmations when in times of upheaval and a little bit of disorientation.
Seriously, you're seeing what you're seeing. You're seeing your big evil leaders say the things that you see them saying you're not crazy. You haven't gone crazy. Overnight, I've been there man. Trust me.
You're not crazy. Psalm 55 is a great psalm for our time. Psalm 55 I think you would do well to to read it to yourself and to pray to God. Regarding Psalm 55 the New King James Version calls this trust in God concerning the treachery of friends and this is Kind of what a lot of us are are feeling right now because we see our friends.
We see our leaders people that we've respected over years and nobody's saying you can't respect them anymore. But what we're saying is how is it that they're saying the things that they're saying? It sounds so twisted, right?
It's like how is this happening? So I would recommend Psalm 55 to you, but but here's a section of it. I want you to really hear this. He says he has put forth his hand against those who were at peace with him.
He has broken his covenant. The words of his mouth were smoother than butter. But war was in his heart. His words were softer than oil. Yet they were drawn swords and so this idea that his words are smooth and soft they sound So good.
But really it's about war and hatred and treachery like you can't be tricked by smooth sounding words. And I think sometimes we read a passage like that and we feel like it'd be very easy to detect the smooth sounding words.
We kind of think of like that creepy guy at the party who's like smooth talking the lady, but he's really bad at it. He's really pathetic. He's just sleazy and it's just obviously sleazy and I don't think that's the way the psalm presents this.
I think when it says his words are smooth like butter. It doesn't mean like it's gonna be very easily identifiable as sleazy. It's gonna be he's very convincing. It sounds really good. It sounds like something you'd want to affirm.
But you have to think twice because those words are actually war in his heart. Those words they sound good, but they're drawn swords. He wants to go to war. He wants revolution. He wants. He wants a division really is what he wants.
Chances are that if you're new to the social justice controversy, or even if you're not you've heard of Jamar Tisby. He is the it boy right now. There's no question about that. He's the it boy. Sorry about that.
My son didn't know I was recording. But anyway, so Jamar Tisby, right? His words sound so good. They sound so good to people and a lot of you right now are probably thinking in yourself to your in your in your own Minds like they sound good, but there's something off about them and you're not crazy.
There is something off about them. Jamar Tisby is One of these that his words sound good, but there's war in his heart. He wants division. He is not for the people of God. He's against the people of God.
This is one of those friends that you had that's really about treachery. Let me listen to this. This is a he links to one of his own articles here and Here's what he says about his own article. We're gonna go into it a little bit.
He says this piece has some helpful personal application, but we should also extend the concept of quote intent versus impact to policies. How do the policies we support help or harm groups such as black people other POC's and the poor in terms of actual outcomes.
And so the idea here is that we should we should think about the policies. We support, you know. The laws that we support the political policies and think not really about what the intent of the policy is.
But rather we should think of how it actually impacts black people or other POC groups or the poor. That's how we should decide what policies we should support and he links to this article. Let me show you how this article starts.
Listen to this for a second. He says once when my son was a toddler He drew on the wall with a crayon and made a mess when I confronted the perpetrator about his offense. He couldn't understand why I was upset.
He had after all intended to draw a pretty picture to please his father. His intent was not to cause damage. In fact, it was the opposite. He wanted to do something nice, but that's not really the point though.
The fact that his actions resulted in a mess that had to be cleaned up. While my son focused on what he meant by his action I focused on what he actually did. Intentions matter, but the entire conversation changes when we talk about impact and.
This is true. You could have good intentions, but actually have a bad impact depending on the kinds of things you support. In fact, this is my entire claim of many social justice advocates. They want to do the right thing, but actually the things that they support are vile and wicked and evil.
But we're gonna talk about how we know that in a minute. So here's what he says later in this article. This is actually not good or not bad at all. He says we need to make the same distinctions the Bible does he says the Bible sets a precedent for distinguishing between intent and Impact.
If someone is in the forest with his neighbor cutting wood and his axe head flies off and accidentally kills his companion. Then the offender may flee to a city of refuge to avoid death. The reason the killer can live is that the man did not deserve to die since he had not hated his neighbor in the past.
This is very true. Since the man had no malice Or forethought in the act that led to his neighbor's death. He did not deserve a fatal punishment on the other hand. If anyone hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and attacks him and strikes him fatally so that he dies your eyes shall not pity him but you but you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood from Israel.
A Person who plans evil earns a different punishment. Motives matter. So here's the point. So I would agree with all of this like like if you are lying in wait. You're trying to kill someone you hate him.
You want to kill him? That's very different than an accidental killing or like a negligent killing like you're just you know. Both chopping wood and one of you accidentally gets hit with the axe head.
You didn't mean to do it. So you you're not guilty of murder there. That wasn't that wasn't the point of the act and that's very true. God does make that distinction and so we also have to make that distinction, right?
But listen to what he says here. He kind of he knows what's what and then listen to what he says. But lack of malice does not remove the harm done or the need for restitution in another biblical example.
After giving instructions for all kinds of rituals God makes a final provision for anyone who unintentionally breaks the law numbers 15 says if just one person sins unintentionally that person must bring a year-old female goat for a sin offering.
He says notice that the transgression is still called a sin despite the unintentional nature of the act and the person must still bring a sin offering to make atonement and. So this is this is very true because you know when when somebody.
Like in the example with the axe head and stuff like that. There was something that happened there there. Maybe there was a negligence. Maybe there was something there. So like like the wrong still needs to be righted.
Although we have to consider, you know, all the facts was their intent wasn't murder. Was it manslaughter? Was it just an accident like we have to consider all of that to know what should happen in that case.
It all matters. That's very true. So Jamar sounds like He's making a lot of sense here. Look, listen to how he ties this all up in a bow because this is how false teachers operate. They they mix truth with lies.
I'm not saying this whole article is terrible, but listen to how he wraps this up. He says the next time a race-related event happens in the public or your personal life. Pause and consider both intent and impact do your best to discern whether malice or prejudice played a part but go further.
Consider the impact on the offended party if one member suffers all suffer together, which is a Bible verse. Think of the long history of african-american suffering in the United States and the countless instances when black pain was minimized or ignored.
Determined to break the pattern of self-justification by elevating empathy over indignation. Only when our love for unity outpaces our love for self will we create opportunities for racial reconciliation and.
So you can see what would Jamar takes with one hand or gives with one hand he takes with the other because on the one Hand, he's telling you, you know, the facts of the situation actually matter, you know whether or not somebody intended to murder someone it actually makes it changes how you would punish the Situation how you would address the situation now now some kind of atonement still needs to be made.
But the atonement is different is what Jamar says, but then he says the next time a race-related event happens. Then what you want to do is you want to elevate empathy over indignation? So he's kind of saying well, but you can't really trust yourself here.
You've got to just go with what you please empathize with blacks and go with what we say is the situation now notice here. There's so many assumptions that are being made a race-related event does this mean any event that involves one or more races because that's kind of what he wants to say here because This is all coming into light in the context of of Derek Chauvin and George Lloyd that Floyd.
That's where he's bringing this article back up into the forefront, right? And so was that a race-related event? Well, the facts of the matter is we don't know yet but what he's saying here is. Listen, you just got to understand there's a history here black people have experienced this pain for years.
And so you have to empathize with us get into the pain with us. You believe our perspective here. Even though I just told you all this nice-sounding stuff about how God makes a distinction between Intent and impact and we should to I told you all this nice-sounding true stuff.
But when it actually comes around to what in reality what happens then I actually really don't want you to do that. I really don't want you to do that. In fact, I want you to join the lynch mob with me regarding Derek Chauvin you see.
These words sound so smooth, right? They sound so smooth. I mean, how could you how could how could some someone be against this? He said he says Determined to break the pattern of self-justification by elevating empathy over indignation like who wouldn't want to elevate empathy over indignation.
We see these are smooth words that have an evil intent. There are smooth words that want you to love your black and brown brother and sister in Christ over and against Derek Chauvin. Or white people in general really is what it is.
You see this is this is the issue here like Jamar Tisby is a perfect Example for someone who has words that are smooth like butter, but there's war in his heart. He tells you he wants to you to follow God's law the intent over impact.
But then when it really comes down to it, he doesn't actually want that. So is this how we do this, right? Because this sounds good. Should we consider how Policies impact certain people groups before we decide to to support them.
I Would argue that that's textbook partiality. That's the opposite of what we should do. We should not consider how a law will impact poor people or POC's or black people or whatever the group you want to say.
That's not how we decide What is just right like that's Partiality God says over and over and over and over again. You shall not show partiality because there is no partiality with God. There's one law.
This is an important thing. This is no small thing. There's one law for the native-born. There's one law for the sojourner. There's one law for blacks. There's one law for whites. It's the same law. There is only one way to decide what is actually a just policy and That is does it comport with the general equity the general principles the morality of God's law.
That's how we do this. So here's an example. The law against murder right is murder wrong. We know that murder is wrong. The scripture says murder is wrong. The scripture says how we should adjudicate murders.
We should have one two or more Witnesses and then the murderer if convicted on the evidence of two or more witnesses ought to be given the death penalty. Right. So does it matter whether or not the proportions say that there are more black murder convictions out there than white?
Does is that does that something that matters? So like do we have to consider that before we decide whether or not murder should be illegal. Same thing with with abortion. Do we need to consider that whether or not abortion should be illegal first?
We got to consider. How does this affect poor people in POC's? Is that how we decide? What's what? Same thing with drug laws you see drug laws. For example, that's a very controversial topic in Christianity.
Our drug laws biblical or not. I tend to fall on the side of that. You know, most drug laws aren't biblical. I Understand the arguments for drug laws. I get it. But but that's where I stand just so, you know.
But here's how I didn't get there. I definitely didn't get there by saying drug laws impact blacks more than they impact whites or Latinos and therefore drug laws are unjust. That's partiality man. Like that's textbook partiality.
You don't decide how a law impacts a certain people group before you decide that whether that law is good or bad. Sorry about that my kids are. They have a lot of requests today. Anyway, that's textbook partiality.
That's not how we do this. And so you see that this sounds good to a lot of people like well. Who wouldn't want to consider how it impacts blacks and POC's and poor when we decide what policies to support?
But actually this is upside down. This is actually anti Christ. This is actually anti biblical. This is the opposite of what the Bible says you should do. No. Instead when we're deciding what's just and what's right and what's good what we should do is say how well does this comport?
With the general equity the general principles of the law of God. It's not a one-to-one Transaction so often like with murder it is like the Bible says murder should be illegal murder should be illegal.
Sometimes it's a little more complicated than that. So we need to do some work to figure that out. But what we definitely do not do is show Partiality to poor people or black people or POC's or whites or whoever when we're deciding what laws are Good laws and what laws are unjust laws.
Jamar Tisby is Embodying the friend in Psalm 55 his word sounds smooth as butter. But there's war in his heart. His words are softer than oil. But they're drawn swords. This man is at war with what the scripture says regarding justice.
He hates it and he wants you to join him in hating it as well. I urge you to read his stuff follow him on Twitter. Twitter is where he usually goes the most crazy. But follow him this you you will be able to see the upside-down universe that Jamar Tisby lives in.
So clearly by just following him and so so that's what I would recommend. Go ahead and read his book. Go ahead and follow him. Go ahead and read his articles and stuff like that you will see again and again and again and again how he Overturns the law of God and then insists that you do it as well.
Lest you be a racist. Don't consent. Don't bow the knee. Don't join Jamar Tisby in his rebellion against the scripture and against the Lord of glory. Anyway, I hope you found this video helpful. If you have any questions about Jamar Tisby or maybe you want to send me an article that you want me to review feel free to do it.
And I will consider I can't promise I'll always do it. But I definitely will consider also check out my youtube channel for other Jamar Tisby content because there is quite a bit I hope you found this video helpful.
God bless. One more thing about this somebody responded and I think there are some good intentions this response. But ultimately it kind of misses the mark. Responded to Jamar Tisby saying, you know We should decide on what policies and laws to support based on how they affect black people essentially and he responded.
No, we should look at how the policies we support help or harm people. Period those kind of like the all lives matter response and actually that's not how it is at all. You see our laws. We don't decide how it helps people or how it helps human flourishing because that can be a very Subjective thing because you know, some people will argue that you know Homosexuality and LGBT being Totally fine the law of the land promoter in our schools all that stuff helps human flourishing.
That's actually not how we do this in fact. The only way to know if what you're doing is just or unjust is to figure out how well it comports To the law of God the law of God. We have a big book of law in the scripture and again It's not a one-to-one thing all the time.
I don't think that the that Deuteronomy should replace the Constitution like one-to-one like that. But the general equity of God's law is perfect. And if we stick with the general equity of God's law We will be doing well when we stray from it and try to figure out things in a pragmatic way.
That's when we always Find ourselves in trouble. So no, it's not about policies how well policy support all people that's not that's an impossible equation to figure out instead what we got to do is look at the laws and the case law in The scripture and build a law system and policies that match that as closely as possible.
That's the only way forward.
