The Worst Good Faith Debater In History? - Part 4

All right everybody let's just jump right back into the fire. I was gonna do a video today about Joel Webben and all of the very bizarre heat that he's been taking from guys like K -dub

Williams and Thomas Kostuzis. I mean they've Kostuzis? Kostuzis?

They've decided that right response ministries is the most pressing issue of our day.

A lot of these guys have been kind of mining his sermon content to find things that they could say are very dangerous and concerning.

Very weird behavior and I want to analyze it. I want to try to get to the bottom of why this is happening.

I've got a few ideas. I've got a few theories. It's not normal interaction.

It's definitely abnormal interaction. Like obviously you know these guys they're content creators whatever.

They're gonna you know they're gonna interact with things that they find you know interesting or wrong or whatever but this is not the normal kind and so I want to talk about that.

So if you are interested in that let me know in the comments section that you are but for right now we're just gonna go right back to this good faith debate.

We're a little less than halfway through it. I gotta move faster so hopefully I'm gonna keep my mouth shut a little bit more today.

We will see but these two guys this is this is an interesting conversation.

One more definitional question. Do you use the terms racial reconciliation and racial harmony synonymously?

What's the freaking difference? Why is this important? One more clarification.

Do you use the term racial reconciliation and racial harmony and synonymously? What's the difference? None of this matters anyway.

This is just all theoretical nonsense. Oh my goodness.

Do we really need to parse the difference between racial harmony and racial reconciliation? Do we really need to figure out the nuances of each term?

Or do you think those are different things? I think they're related. These guys they're like whole career depends on making it seem like this is very important.

This is not important. You can have racial harmony without racial reconciliation. You can have racial harmony without racial reconciliation but you can have every square is a circle but every square is a rectangle.

I totally disagree. This is where the debate must be found.

Racial reconciliation ain't have nothing to do with harmony and racial harmony. They ain't related. Oh man.

Oh my gosh. Do these guys when they go to bed at night, this is what

I wonder. I wonder this sometimes. People like this that their whole careers are based on complete nonsense.

That's if they're not passive. If they're passive, okay, they've got a real job. But if this guy's a sociologist and this is what he gets paid for to decipher the difference between harmony and racial reconciliation, both made up nonsense.

But there's key differences there. When they go to bed at night, they presumably have a nice house and they've got nice pillows.

They've got a nice family, a nice wife and all the stuff that they live among and they have and they go on nice vacations.

It all comes from pure unadulterated, made up gobbledygook that they invented.

Do they feel a little guilty? Because when I go to bed, I know I've added value to the world.

My job, it's not the most glamorous job in the world that I have, but I've added value.

I've helped companies grow and that feels good. There's some companies that I've had a significant impact on their growth story.

There's one company in particular I've placed over 60 people at and it's a small company. It's maybe like 150 people.

I've had a huge impact on how they've grown as a business and they're providing a product that delivers great value to their clients.

In a small way, I was part of that. That's an honest book. I feel good about that.

I don't have any wonderings if I'm just robbing people blind.

Do they feel guilty? I think they do. I think these guys feel guilty at night sometimes where they're like, man,

I literally charged people to decipher the difference between two nonsense terms.

Restorative, right? And so we've had a bunch of suckers come back together. Something has created a breach.

Tony Soprano makes it more honest. It's a state, right? And so here we are. It's harmonious.

It does not require there ever being a history of division and things like that.

So, George, you said that if we're not careful, our motives can slip into revenge.

And we have people advocating different positions even in previous debates and obviously you're not insinuating revenge on their part, whichever side the argument there is.

But how might we check our souls, our spirits in this argument to know if revenge is maybe a prime motivating factor or if we've crossed that line somewhere?

So, I'm thinking most people who engage in revenge don't think they're doing revenge.

They think they're doing what they're doing is right. I think the people who killed Romaroff's family thought they were doing the right thing.

Was that word there? So that's the thing. Did you say Gramoff -Tarkin? I think we have to hear other people.

Man. Because I think that is an important check. I think we have to hear their concerns and I think we have to try to address their concerns.

Now, hear me. I'm not saying that we have to say, all right, this is what you want. I'm going to give you 100 % of what you want. No one gets 100 % of what they want.

It's dangerous to give us humans 100 % of what we want. We don't do well with that. But we have to hear and take that into consideration.

And if you're married, you know what that means. If you're married, if you get 100 % of what you want, there's a problem because the bill is coming due.

So you have to be very careful that we need to negotiate and argue with one another and argue in a good way, not in a polarized way.

I want to be also clear on this. This guy is so clueless. My thing is that we all have to enter into this discussion honestly and open to listen to everyone else.

That is something that I think everybody has in common. What I'm not saying we're going to have in common is the solution.

The solution is because something's worked out. And given our racial history, a lot of times, perhaps not all the times, but a lot of times the solution is going to look like, well, whites are going to have to make more adjustments than people of color.

I think that that's perfectly fair given our racial history. Yes, it's definitely how you know. OK, this is this is what he just said.

He mumbled through a bunch of stuff. Who knows? He said that the way to make sure you're not getting revenge is to hear people out.

But if you're white, it's keep in mind that you're basically going to have to agree most of the time, not all the time, most of the time with blacks.

And that's how blacks know they're not getting into revenge. They've heard the white people and dismiss them.

Just listening. This is this is what he's basically presented so far in this. We're a half an hour in this.

The way to solve the problems is not. No, don't don't don't compare it to God's justice. Don't look for it to the scripture for answers, because, you know,

God is there. Sure, he's just. Yeah, he's there. But the way to know that you're not sinning is to listen.

That's it. You listen to the other side. You bring him in, you bring him into the table, the negotiating table, and then we negotiate what morality is.

We negotiate morality amongst ourselves. And the way that you know you've done it is if you're listening to the other side.

But if you're black, keep in mind that you're going to get your way a lot of the time because of the racial history. So the racial history makes blacks positions more moral and more likely to be right.

If you're white, I'm sorry, but the racial history has determined that you are much more evil.

And so, yeah, we'll hear you out because that's how we somehow managed to avoid revenge.

But just keep in mind, you're wrong most of the time because of the racial history.

This is all I don't have to tell this audience. This is brain dead.

This man is brain dead. I got to be honest with you.

I don't say this often about people. This man is not too bright. This is a low IQ person.

The other guy is sharp. I still disagree with him, but it's very clear that he's got more logical thought processes.

He's more rational. He can understand things. And sure, he's wrong about some things, but he's making sense.

I can understand what he's saying. This guy is absolutely brain dead.

But even knowing that, if we don't enter that conversation in a way where we're going to hear people out, then we're setting up the people for us just scripturally.

You know, the Bible tells us to think about the interests of others. All right. I mean, we may want to get away from that, but that's there.

But even just practically, you know, empirically, we set people up for a backlash.

But we set people up to fight us every step of the way. Like a lot of woke people will misuse scripture to try to make their points sound good.

But at least they do it in a way that's somewhat plausible. It makes sense.

Like you could see the thought process there, and you could even find the mistakes a lot of the time. But at least you could understand what they're saying.

Like Eric Mason, for example, when he tried to use the Bible to talk about reparations. You know,

I think he's wrong, and I described why I thought he was wrong. But at least you could follow his thought process.

This man has just said that the Bible says you've got to consider the interests of others. That's true.

It does. But what does that have to do with determining what justice is? Nothing. The Bible doesn't say anything about that.

What does it have to do with determining whether or not your heart is desiring and seeking revenge? Nothing. It has nothing to do with that.

What does it have to do with... What did he just... Man, I just lost my train of thought of what he was just talking about.

This is not even plausible. This guy's a train wreck. It's very confusing as to why they chose this man.

Again, he can't put two sentences together. I can barely understand the words that he's using. And it's not because they're big words.

It's because he's mumbling through them. I don't get it. This guy's a disaster. But notice he's like, well, yeah, you know, we've got to go into the conversation willing to hear people out.

But just know, keep in mind, because of the racial history, white people are wrong most of the time and black people are right most of the time.

And so he set up this no -win situation, of course, obviously, for white people. You guys are just wrong.

So, yeah, we'll hear you out. And you can know we're hearing you out because we're telling you. But you have to cave.

And if you don't cave, you're not hearing us out. Okay. It's quite aggressive if you can get it.

So that's a big part of what I'm advocating is that, you know, that we check ourselves by being in conversation with others in a way that's respectful to them, in a way that's productive, that we build on each other's ideas and move forward.

I like that. And we're going to get to the practical things, the moving forward things from both of your comments.

But I want to ask you, Darrell, George, and make sure I say this, I quote you correctly. I heard him say racial justice cannot move forward without racial reconciliation.

Do you agree with that statement? I don't disagree with that. I think that they travel together. I think they're very much bound together.

That does not mean that they're exactly the same thing. And it doesn't mean that all considerations for justice have a reconciliation kind of attribute.

And so I know we're going to get to some of the practical things, but I'll just say this now. There are various expressions of racial injustice in our society.

And I think particularly around meaningful disparities. And so those disparities being addressed is not something that we simply need to sit down and kind of talk about how you feel about it.

How do you feel about the fact that there are significantly worse health care outcomes for black people?

That's not a discussion item. So we need to take that thing as a very serious data point of injustice and figure out how to eradicate that disparity.

I think that's true in a whole variety of ways. And so I think it's essential that we recognize that there are key aspects of injustices that aren't things that we simply resolve in a conversation.

But we do have to recognize that that's a major problem in our national and church narrative.

And that we want to address those disparities and bring the right people to the table to solve that problem and not simply to get to a consensus.

So I said I had my last definitional question. So this is really funny because now we found the debate. So I guess

I owe Gospel Coalition a little bit of an apology. There is a debate here.

I mean, it's not the title of the debate, so they're still misrepresenting what this is about.

But there is a debate here. They both agree on everything, except one of them wants to get your feelings and talk through your feelings in like a little kumbaya circle.

And the other one says, no, we need action. We need action. They both agree they need action. But one of them is like, yeah, but we got to get through our feelings first.

And the other guy is kind of just like, not against it necessarily, but he doesn't really want to emphasize that. That's the debate.

This debate is basically do feelings count more than action or does action count more than feelings?

That's the real debate here. They should have titled it something like that. Facts don't care about your feelings.

Do facts care about your feelings? Good faith debate. There's a good faith debate. That's what this one actually is.

Do facts care about your feelings? This is so dumb.

I was wrong. George, you said that you fear that much of what we see today in anti -racism emphasizes telling white people that their job is to do what people of color want without question.

Anti -racism is a very technical term. This is so funny. I got to be honest.

I owe this guy an apology too, whatever his name is. He might not have done it intentionally, and I doubt this is going to be answered by this guy, but he just kind of called them on a contradiction in a nice way.

Maybe you've underestimated this guy. Because if you remember a few minutes ago, this guy was saying over here, we got to hear you out, but just know that our racial justice history means that black people are going to be right.

They're going to get their way most of the time. Not every time, but most of the time. And this guy pointed out, hey, you know, earlier you said that doesn't mean that white people just have to do what black people do.

You worry that that's what people think it means. So there's kind of like a mild contradiction there, and I doubt he's, maybe he has.

You know what, let's believe all things. Let's believe all things. I just choose to believe that this white guy here with the matching jacket and shoes, he wanted to point out this contradiction, or maybe a tension in his positions.

And he wanted to do it in a way that's non -threatening, that's very winsome, and in a good faith way.

He should have pointed it out much more aggressively, in my opinion, because it's a debate and that's the whole point. But, you know, this is a good faith debate.

So maybe he realized, hey, you know, you're full of it, and here's some proof, because you said two things that seem to contradict.

What say you? Let's find out. Would you mind just fleshing that out a little bit? Flesh that out.

He could have said, let me translate that. Flesh that out means you're full of it, and I want you to prove how you're not full of it.

Sure, so when I wrote my book, what I did was I read the major anti -racism books that were popular at that time.

This guy wrote a book? Yikes. D 'Angelo was the number one, but there's other ones out there. I hate D 'Angelo. And I looked for just tendencies among them, because I wanted to know popular anti -racism.

I was less concerned about, you know, the academic anti -racism, which, you know, in a journal that only 15 people read.

So I wanted to know, you know, the anti -racism people are talking about, what they mean. And that's where I saw certain things that popped up in almost every book and article that I saw.

And one of them was this sort of notion that they talked a lot about whites and what whites should be doing.

And so I just came to the conclusion that, you know, in popularized anti -racism, there's an expectation that whites are to do what people of color want them to do.

Yeah, and you have that expectation too. The only difference is you said, not all the time, but most of the time.

Yancy, you are the man. You're the man. That's you. You said the same thing.

Except you tried to kind of weasley, kind of mealy, in a mealy -mouthed way, said, yeah, but not every time.

I'm sure they say that too, if you really press them on it. Man, maybe not. Maybe not. A lot of these guys,

Jamar Tisby, you know, Ibram Maksandai, or whatever his name is, that mushroom dude. They're a little crazy.

Maybe they say every time. But you believe the same thing. Stop trying to act like you're this voice of reason.

You're not. You believe the exact same thing. If I'm incorrect, then find me the popular anti -racism book that doesn't do that.

Because I could not find that book. Yeah, and your book clearly doesn't do that either. And to me, that is more the problem.

There's a lot of anti -racism that I actually like and agree with. Yeah, even that. You agree with that too.

I think that's a major problem. Alright, so I want to go back to this phrase.

Racial justice cannot move forward without racial reconciliation. I think

I hear, and I agree with both of you, that they are inextricably linked. They move forward together, maybe one ahead of the other.

But just in case someone's out there thinking this, does that open you up to the claim that that would not have solved slavery?

That there are times when people, we're not hearing from everybody, that we need to move, maybe even programmatically if you want to call it that, that justice just has to go forward even when the reconciliation is not?

Or maybe you just think the gap is larger? How do you apply that framework to something horrible like American slavery?

Okay, so if I'm being very generous here, and I'm being generous, racial reconciliation, racial justice,

I don't care about either of those things. It's nonsense. It's totally loaded with all kinds of things that are completely false.

But when it comes to just, let's just say justice in general, and what this guy's presenting as reconciliation, which is sort of like this feel -good sort of consensus, right?

That's kind of what he's putting forward. He's saying you can't have justice without the feel -good consensus. That's his position.

Unless everyone basically agrees with it, and everyone's been invited to the table, and everyone's kind of decided together, that's the reconciliation.

And then you can have justice, you can know you have justice, and you know you're not seeking revenge and stuff like that, because everyone's together and has this reconciliation consensus.

That's the position this crazy person is putting forward. And this guy's saying no.

No, you can move forward with justice regardless of what people think. Now, again, I don't agree with him because he's talking about made -up kinds of justice, but let's just be generous.

I've got to be honest with you. This guy is a lunatic, and this guy's right. This guy's a lunatic, and this guy's right.

I disagree with both of these men, but in the terms of this debate, if I'm being very generous, this man's 100 % right.

You can do the right thing. You can do justice regardless of what people think about it.

And so the perfect example that's on everybody's minds on Twitter right now is this whole idea about doing justice on the abortion issue regardless of what

Jews have to say about it, because Jews, modern Jews, really love their abortion, right? They're sick.

It's absolutely sick to see this. They say it's part of my religion. You know, a lot of Jews out there are saying, look, my religion demands that I have access to abortion and that I can commit abortions and things like that.

Well, yeah, I'm sure it does because you worship Moloch. But I don't need to reach a consensus with those psychopathic

Jews that think abortion is essential to their religion in order to do the right thing on abortion, which is to make it punishable as murder.

It should be a death penalty offense if you kill your child. That's what it should be. And it shouldn't be like, you know, maybe it's a death penalty offense if you kill your child in an aggravated way.

No, no, it's life for life. You kill your own child, and we find you guilty on the evidence of two or more witnesses, that should be a death penalty offense.

That's what justice demands. And it's not me in my brain thinking justice demands that.

That's what the Lord says. That's what God says in his word. Killing your own child is such an abomination that he says in the scripture that it's never even been in his mind.

He's never commanded such a thing, nor has it entered his mind that you would kill your own child.

And so I don't care, and no Christian should care, what Jews think about abortion law.

Nobody cares because they don't define what justice is in abortion. And a consensus with them does not define what justice is in an abortion.

There is one person who defines what justice is in the case of an abortion, and that is the

Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah. He rules and reigns. He tells us what's what.

He is the law giver. And so this man is right if I'm being generous, because they're talking about nonsense here.

But in a theoretical sense, he's right. If you agree with him on racial stuff like that, the nonsense parts of the racial justice, then you would agree with this guy, because this guy has given us a position that we can't really know what justice is unless we talk to black people.

It's basically the point is what he's trying to put forward. And that's not true. That's not true at all.

But yeah, that's the bottom line. I mean, I envision a country, a nation, that when we're setting up our institutions and our laws, we do not do it in reference to Hindus or Jews or Muslims.

We don't make any accommodations for what they think is right, because they don't decide what's right. There's only one who decides.

That's the Lord. That's why Christian nationalism is necessary. It's necessary. So I don't care if Jews want to live in a

Christian nation. That's no concern to me. By the way, they would want to live in a Christian nation. They do. They want to, because obviously

God's law is so good that it creates these societies that thrive.

And people want to be a part of a thriving society. They don't want to necessarily submit to God, but they want to be a part of the blessing that a society gets when they submit to God.

And then they come, and then they ruin it and exploit it. And we can't let that cycle happen over and over and over again.

We can't let non -Christians come and ruin the blessings that we have from God by subverting our own commitments.

And this is not just Jews that do this. This is something that happens all the time. You read about it in the

Scripture. Israel was corrupted by the nations many times. Why? Because they saw how righteous

Israel's law was. They saw the blessings of God that God had given to Israel.

They saw all that. They wanted in on the blessings. They didn't want in on Christ. They wanted in on the blessings, and then they enticed

Israel away from God to serve their gods, to kill their own children. Again, killing children is typically part of this.

This is how they operate. This is what they love to do. They want to serve

Moloch, but they want the blessings of God. They want to serve Baal, but they want the blessings of God.

And so they kind of hitch themselves to a nation that's getting God's blessings, and then they try to entice them to serve and worship

Moloch, thus ruining everything that has been created. I don't want non -Christians to have massive influence on our culture, on our nation.

This should be standard. This is not controversial. It's not. So we're talking about something different today than back in slavery.

Praise God. So slavery, definitely we need a civil war. Civil rights movement, we needed a powerful political movement.

We didn't need a civil war to end slavery. We didn't. This guy is a mess. He's a mess. We didn't need a civil war to end slavery, as evidenced by every other country who ended slavery without one.

So that's just completely false. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. The challenge today, because if you think about it, the challenge today through slavery, through Jim Crowism, through all that, was are people of color,

African Americans, Hispanic Americans, human? That was the question people had. I mean, when you treat people like that, your treatment is less than human.

That is not the major question today. If you ask people... That wasn't the question back then either. Are people of color human?

Everyone's going to say, yeah, of course. How dare you ask me that question? The question today is how do we overcome our centuries of racial abuse in a way that people think is fair?

And that's where you get your disagreement. So you are right. There are times in which you got to do the military or political or, you know, there are times where you have those sort of overt discrepancies that the only way you can do is just change them.

And it's very clear. But it's not quite as clear how we move forward in a way that's fair.

And that's why, you know, we're looking at a different challenge. And we can't do what we did...

It's totally clear. You just got to submit yourself to the Lord. That's it. It's totally clear how to move forward. You submit yourself to God's rule.

And God's law has very clear things to say about this kind of thing. You don't punish the children for the sins of the father.

It's very simple. Very simple. You don't punish the children for the sins of the father. It's very hard when you're trying to, you know, quite frankly, worship and serve other gods at the same time as you worship

Christ. That's what makes it hard when you're trying to serve other gods. Two.

That's helpful. The one thing I would say to that is... It's not helpful though. Even though I agree that if you were to ask people about the humanity of black or brown people that they would give you an affirming answer.

I think the question is, is there a perception of equal value that's evidenced in people's behavior?

And so do we see responses to people, whether it be attitude -driven responses or whether it be degrees of engagement in energy like we see in healthcare?

And so I think that the equal humanity in every way that matters of black, brown, white people in our society is very much in question today.

And not just about kind of just the mere legacy of like kind of institutional implications of historic racism.

But how does bias play out in life, in life prospects? What it means in terms of one's ability to flourish.

And that is a formational issue. That's a hard issue. In some ways it's a hard issue. We don't have enough time to talk about kind of the sociology of bias.

But I do think that we need to recognize that when black people are perceived that they're not perceived as white people in our society.

I don't know if... There we go. This man has figured it out.

Black people, when you see a black person, you don't see a white person. I think we'll have to end it there.

This guy is a genius. When you see a black person, you don't see a white person.

That's what perception means. Does it not? Does it not? Man. All right.

Well, it's 30 minutes in. We are done for today. I hope you found this video helpful. God bless.