12 Days of Charity - Dwight McKissic and Christine Pack - Also Some Upcoming Controversy

All right, well, I wanted to talk about a couple things today. Before we get started,

I wanted to just mention how exciting it is to have legitimate talking heads in the public square talking about whether or not we should ban pornography.

That is remarkable, I think, and it's very encouraging, to be honest. I think that there has been some success moving that over to the window, and I'm glad that this is being discussed.

There are people that I respect greatly that disagree on this topic, which I think is super healthy.

I'm hoping that I can get a panel discussion going on about banning porn, and the goal is to find people that despise pornography with a vengeance, right?

People that really hate it, because if you don't hate it, this is not a discussion for you. But I want people that really despise it but disagree on how it should be handled.

Should it be banned? Should it not be banned? That's the kind of conversation I want to have. We will be doing that at some point, it's just a matter of who's going to be involved that we're going to talk about.

Second thing is, there's been a little bit of a dust -up regarding the soundness of Rosaria Butterfield's teaching on homosexuality and that kind of thing, and I wasn't intending on really doing videos about this.

It's not really my area, although I will talk about it from time to time. But some things have happened, and I think

I've got to have to now, so I'm going to do that as well. It might take a little bit of time, but I'm planning on doing that also, and I also might do that with somebody else too, because it might be a better conversation.

Anyway, but yeah, let's get into the 12 days of Christmas. Yeah, Christmas charity.

Alright, alright. I kind of let the cat out of the bag on this one yesterday. Not intentionally, but Dwight McKissick is going to make the list.

This list is kind of weird, because I actually don't know that Dwight McKissick doesn't like me. I think he actually might like me. I don't know.

But he definitely doesn't like my opinions, and he's definitely been very antagonistic towards me in the past.

There was one time when I was actually going to talk to Dwight on the phone, but it never ended up happening.

I think I did call, and then we never connected, but whatever. Listen, here's what I like about Dwight McKissick.

Dwight McKissick has some very bad opinions. When I say some, that's kind of an understatement.

He has a lot of very bad opinions. So I would be his ideological enemy in many areas, there's no question about it.

But I respect Dwight McKissick. I really do. Because in a time when men thrive on being weasels, using weasel words, and they'll talk for five minutes, and you don't know what their position is on something, like Russell Moore is the best at this, or the worst, depending on how you look at it,

Russell Moore can talk about complementarianism for five minutes, and you have no idea what his real position is.

None. None. He says such gems as, as complementarians, we should care about complementarity.

It's like, okay, thanks a lot, genius. Anyway, and he is kind of a genius, because he's attempting to play both sides of the field.

He's attempting to keep his conservative bona fides while pushing progressive ideologies. That's what he's doing.

It's just that it's very easy to see that for most people. But so I don't respect that at all. Weasel words are something

I loathe. I loathe it. If you want to have no respect whatsoever from a guy like me, use a lot of weasel words.

Dwight McKissick doesn't do that, though. You know, you hear Dwight McKissick talk, and you're like, man,

I disagree with so much of what this guy says, but he really acts like he believes it.

And he is willing to just say it. He's not, he's not going to pull punches. He's not going to nuance things to death.

He's going to say things that I think are flat out wrong, but he says them with confidence. That's not necessarily a good thing.

But I do respect the confidence, and I do respect the, the, the audacity that he has. And I don't mean that in a bad way.

I mean that in a good way. I respect that. And a lot of people on this list for the 12 Days of Christmas charity, that's why

I like them. And Dwight McKissick is no exception. I think that he is a straightforward guy.

I respect that. And I respect him. It's just that simple. Because a lot of his buddies are not like this.

And he is like this. And I really appreciate Dwight being straightforward, being candid, and not having to, like, interpret his words.

Like, you know what I mean? You know what I mean? Like, when you have to, like, interpret, like, decipher and pull apart, like, someone's words just to get any idea of what the heck they're talking about.

You don't have to do that with Dwight. He speaks very plainly. Anyway, so, Dwight McKissick, you may like me, you may not.

I don't know. But I like you. God bless you. All right. Now, I wanted to talk about a thread last night.

Just briefly. Just really briefly. Because this one had me rolling. This is a thread that I saw from Joel Askell.

He was responding to Jewel's Diner. And I'm not going to put it on the screen, because I don't know how much publicity

Jewel's wants. You know what I mean? But if you want to find her on Twitter, you can. I just gave you her name. It's no big deal. But anyway.

So, in this thread, I jumped in, because I thought it was hilarious. They're still talking about the whole

Founders Ministry trailer thing. They're very, very upset about that. They're clutching pearls like you would not believe.

Would somebody please think of the children? That's basically what they're doing. And you remember the thing where they had a little blurry image, and Owen Strawn or someone is talking about powers and principalities.

And so, at first, the criticism was, well, look at what you're doing. You're making her blurry and dangerous with dangerous -sounding music.

And you're making all of the people of Founders clear. So they're the good guys, and she's the bad guy.

And then it was like, oh, and you're saying that she's demonically influenced and demonically oppressed.

And that was almost, I thought that was peak hysteria, right? Like, listen, real talk.

When I heard that, I knew it was spicy, but it never even crossed my mind that they were saying that she was demonically influenced.

And I didn't even know this was Rachel Denhollander. I had heard that name before, but I didn't know what she looked like. And so, you know, they just said, well, it was very clear.

They were calling her demonically influenced. And then now, this is where it's gone. I'm not saying that Jules has gone through this evolution, but I'm just saying this is where the argument is now.

R. Scott Clark here, along with Jules Diner, says that it's not that they were making her the enemy.

It's not that they were saying she was demonically influenced. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. It's that the founders trailer insinuated that Rachel Denhollander was a demon.

A demon. That's what R. Scott Clark said. And then he said, and then he said so that so that he could kind of preempt.

This is this is my favorite. He's going to preempt your response because you're obviously you're going to say that's insane. Obviously, the founders guys don't think that Rachel Denhollander is an angel of darkness, a fallen angel.

And he said, don't try to it's it's wicked to try to gaslight us. And I'm just like, I love the accusation of gaslighting because anyone can make it.

R. Scott Clark, stop gaslighting me. It's so easy to do that. It's impossible to prove. But anyway, so so R.

Scott Clark is saying that they thought the founders guys thought that Rachel was a demon. That's what they were saying. She is a demon, literally.

And just just just to just to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding. I said this.

Hold on a second. I said, seriously, though, the idea that anyone was insinuating that Rachel D is, in fact, a demon, a fallen angel, a spiritual being of immense power in the dark realms is possibly the stupidest thing

I've ever heard in 2019. And then I said, that said, I still like R. Scott Clark and nobody's going to stop me.

And that's true. I still do like him. Anyway, so I was trying to, like, make it as stupid as possible.

So I said, you're saying she's a fallen angel. You're saying that they think that she's a spiritual being of immense dark power in the spiritual realms.

And Jules responds. There is no question that they believe that Rachel Denhollander is demonic, a demon, a literal demon.

That's the new accusation. So so here's where we're at. Founders Ministry says and believes and put forward.

That Rachel Denhollander is, in fact, a spiritual entity of immense dark power that fell with Satan, along with a third of the fallen angels as well.

That's what they're saying. They think the founders ministry guys believe it's really hard to take that seriously.

It really is. I mean, I can at least understand saying she's demonically influenced. They were saying that I still don't think they were saying that.

But at least you could see the logic. But no, no, no, that's not where they're going now. Now they're saying they think she is a literal demon.

I wanted to mention this because there's another person that makes my 12 days of Christmas charity that kind of chimed in here.

And that was Christine Pack. That's right. Christine Pack chimed in. She was, of course, anti founders as well.

At least the founders trailer, I'll say. And I like Christine. I think she's interesting. I really do.

And that might surprise you. I know she doesn't like me because I know this because at one point she had blocked me and then she unblocked me and then she subscribed to my

YouTube channel. And so it's like, well, why would somebody maybe she does like me? I don't know. But why would you subscribe to someone's

YouTube channel like the next day after you block them on Twitter? It's probably to keep tabs on me to see if I'm federal vision.

Anyway, I like Christine Pack for a couple of reasons. Christine Pack strikes me as someone who really wants to do the right thing, really wants to do some work in the kingdom, so to speak, you could say.

And she's willing to put herself out there. This is what I like about her. She's willing to put herself out there, even without a full understanding.

And in some degree, I can respect that. I can respect that because I'll put out videos and I try to put out videos mostly about things that I'm pretty confident about.

But every now and then I'll put out videos that, you know, I'm not that confident about, not to say that I don't believe them.

Of course, I believe them, but I put them out there so that people will push back. And hopefully I can hone my knowledge, right?

And Christine strikes me as someone who does that as well. And that takes some guts because because people will call you stupid, right?

People will say you're an idiot. And if you're if you're too sensitive, I guess

I want to say it's hard to grow. It's hard to grow your ideas if you're not willing to be contradicted or refuted or,

I don't know really exactly the right word. But if you're not willing to allow yourself to be critiqued, it's hard to really grow in anything.

It really is. And Christine, this is one example because I saw this and it was so obvious.

It was such an obvious blunder. And I saw someone correct her and she actually took it with grace.

I mean, and I couldn't find the exact tweet because it's hard. It's hard to search Twitter.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just an idiot. There you go. Anyway, so she was on a rant about Doug Wilson and the

Federal Vision, which is one of her primary focuses, which is hilarious because it's just such a non -issue. It really is just a nothing.

But I have this opinion that a lot of people who critique Federal Vision, their real problem is with like real

Presbyterianism. And not everyone, not everyone, of course, there are Presbyterians that really understand

Presbyterianism that do criticize Federal Vision. And I get that and I'm not saying that they're illegitimate concerns because I have the same concerns a lot of the time.

But a lot of times, especially Baptists, when they criticize the Federal Vision, it's really just a critique of Presbyterianism.

And here's a perfect example. This is one of her scare quotes and she tags it here.

18 minutes and 55 seconds if you want to see this evil heresy. That's my commentary.

She didn't say that. She said, listen to what Doug Wilson said. Quote, if you have one believing parent, your children are saints.

I saw this and I was like, that's like almost a quote from the

Bible. That's almost a direct quote from the Bible. First Corinthians chapter seven, verse 14.

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of the wife and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband.

Otherwise, your children would be unclean. But as it is, they are holy. Now, I'm not saying you have to believe that the way

I believe that, right? I'm not saying you have to believe that the way I believe that. But it means something.

But it means something. And the fact that you call Doug Wilson used the word saints here instead of holy.

I mean, it's the same word, right? So if he were to have replaced this, all of a sudden, this is a good quote.

So if you have one believing parent, your children are holy. That's what saints means, holy. You know what

I mean? So this is just standard biblical theology. And if you're a

Presbyterian, you should have a more full -orbed idea of what this means. Because when your children are baptized, right?

When your children are baptized, something actually happens to them. I'm talking to Presbyterians here. So if you're not a

Presbyterian, of course, you're going to critique this. And that's fine. That's totally fine. But if you are a Presbyterian, you need to understand that something is happening when your children get baptized, something real.

Here's the Westminster Confession on the topic of baptism. It says this, it says,

The efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment of time wherein is administered. Yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, this grace is promised is not only if offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the

Holy Ghost to such as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will in his appointed time.

So there's grace exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost to whoever it belongs to. This doesn't mean that every single person baptized has undoubtedly regenerated.

The Confession says that as well. That's not what it says. It doesn't mean that nobody can be saved without being baptized.

The Confession also says that as well. But there's something real happening with that baptism, right?

And when you have one believing parent, the Bible talks about your children as holy for a purpose.

So if you're a Presbyterian, you have to grapple with that, right?

Obviously, you have to grapple with the idea that your children are in covenant with God in a real way, in a real way, not just like for pretend, not just for appearances.

Like there's something real about that tie that they have to Christ, to the body of Christ.

Now, Baptists, I understand like you, this makes you to see that the grace in baptism is not only offered, but it's really exhibited and conferred that gives you hives.

I get it. I get it. But let's, you know, anyway. So all this to say that I saw

Christine get corrected on this. This is not really a federal vision thing.

It's not really a federal vision thing. And she accepted it graciously. And that's a good thing.

That's a good thing. So I obviously disagree with a lot of her focuses. I obviously don't think that federal vision is this great boogeyman like she does.

And I don't think she likes me because I'm part of Doug Wilson's empire, his evil, evil empire.

But I like Christine and that's that. I think that she's an interesting character on Twitter, Christian Twitter.

Anyway, that was my two people that I wanted to add to my 12 days of Christmas charity.