Welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is Rich Pierce, sitting in for James one more time. You might notice that as I get comfortable once again, after doing a show for the first time in over two years on Tuesday, I'm kind of adjusted a couple things around here. One of them is putting the microphone up a little bit higher so that I'm not constantly hitting it. I'm one of those people I have to talk with my hands and tends to drive me crazy, not to mention other people. So hopefully I won't be doing that any longer. Have you ever been in church and the new pastor is walking through a text? He's walking through this text and suddenly he says something and you think, where did he get that? Where in the world did that come from? It seems, well, you know where he got it from. He got it out of thin air. He just But maybe he didn't. Maybe you're just missing the point and you keep looking and you look and after the service is over, you go up to him and you ask him about it. The problem is now you've done it. Now you're that guy. That's right. You're that guy. And he's got you pinned, pegged right from the beginning. You're the troublemaker. You're the church troublemaker. you don't understand your position here, you see, because he's the pastor and you're not. And what you don't realize is that there is something new in the equation. The old pastor doing things the old way, well, that's not how we do things anymore. And what you need to understand is that the real problem is where he is concerned, he's concerned about what preaches good. James has been down this road before, and he's addressed the issue of what preaches good. But the fact of the matter is, you, you're going to cramp his style, and he knows it. And you're going to be the problem. And you're still thinking to yourself, but wait a minute, where'd you get that? He just pulled it out of thin air. And you need to realize that like what I talked about on Tuesday, like what I talked about over two years ago, he was taught to do this. He was taught this is cool, this is how you do it, and the difference between what James and I encountered with that particular pastor back in the 1980s who was just simply looking for things that preach good, and if I can take a passage of scripture and turn it on its head and make it say something it was never meant to say, but it preaches good, that's really what's important. Today, we're actually in a circumstance where we are seeing this new idea coming out, the phrase thought leader. is becoming more and more popular, and I actually have heard it recently put out there regarding pastors, ministers being referred to as thought leaders. The problem here is the pastor's not a thought leader. You need to get that through your head. the thought leader versus the pastoral. The thought leader's not the guy that's getting up front and doing his Tony Robbins impression. He's not up there being the motivational speaker, and if you see the pastor in that light, you need to get your mind right. And if the pastor sees himself in that light, he needs to get his mind right. There's something broken, and the fact of the matter is, this thinking has been to use another popular word these days, systemically embedded in the church and its institutions for decades. Comes back and is rooted in the preaches good concept, but now we're in that newfangled, really cool idea of the thought leader. Now, before we get into that particular perspective, I want to do a little bit of review on Tuesday, pointing out the chief question that I was asking on Tuesday was, where is your here, Christian? And that has to do with the here that is referenced in Colossians 3.11. Here there is no, and we went through all of that. If you haven't had a chance to view that video, I would encourage you to stop right now, go back and review the dividing line from Tuesday, that would be August 21st, and I would encourage you to go back and view that one first before you continue on with this one. But the question is now turned around, and the question is now for today, where is there here? Where is there here? Because if we look at critical theory, intersectionality, we look at the thought leader mentality, we look at the the pursuit of the interesting and the fascinating and the curious. We need to ask the question, well, we know where we stand when we are the Bible-believing Christian and the Bible-preaching Christian and the Bible-living Christian. That's where we stand. We want to stand where Paul is standing. But the converse of that is we need to ask ourselves the question, where is their here? Where is it that they're standing? Now, before I get into that, I want to make a quick correction. of an error I made on Tuesday. As I was watching it back, you know, one of those moments, I'm going to be turning 59 here in a couple of months, and as I, not that I didn't do this when I was younger, but it seems I'm getting worse about it as I grow older. there is a thought in your mind, but that's not the words that come out of your mouth. And I mentioned that the pillar and foundation of the truth from 1 Timothy 3.15, and I want to I want to correct something on how I said that, because I didn't say it right, and how it's stated in 1 Timothy 3.15 has to do with the church of the living God being the pillar and foundation of the truth. Now, clarifying that as we go forward and as we think of Colossians chapter 3, and we read it in the same way we read Romans chapter 9, And if you're one who wants to read Romans chapter 9 in a convoluted, jump-away-from-it, run-away-from-it, hopscotch-it kind of method, you're going to probably want to do the same thing with Colossians chapter 3, and I'm going to tell you right out, that's an error. You need to go let the flow of thought that is presented and was written down be what guides you through the text. But if the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, the church, as it says here, the church of the living God, okay, then what is the truth? And think about it. What does a pillar and a foundation do? A pillar and a foundation holds something else up. You think about the pillar and foundation of this building, for instance. The foundation is what holds up the pillars. So the pillars are mounted on the foundation so they're solid and they do not move. You can't have a building that kind of shifts around and moves. It's not going to be standing for very long. But what they hold up is the truth. So as we look to the scriptures, as we see the scriptures, this is the standard of truth. These are that which, again, we go back to that sola scriptura concept that we are bound by them. Well, if we're bound by the scriptures and what the scriptures have to tell us regarding life and godliness, they dictate to us how we are to live. Which is interesting because if you go back and look at all of the context of 1 Timothy 3.15, He talks about delaying, he's making a point to Timothy that if he delays, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God. Well, isn't that what Colossians 3 is telling us? How to behave, how we are to behave in the household of God? Putting to death all those things that are worldly, of the old man? and putting on the mind of Christ and having our minds set on things above? Isn't that really what that's about? Well, we don't do that without the truth. So, our job as a people of God is to recognize that as we come together, it is us being the church that we are to be the pillar and the foundation holding up the truth. and that truth we hold up to the entire world. So, as we move into the study today, the question is, where is there here? And again, without digging into a whole lot of the details under the underpin Critical Theory and Intersectionality, in the description from the Tuesday program, I provided a link to an interview that my friend Michael Fallon did with doctors James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian regarding the details of how critical theory really works. And at the same time, they discuss how that actually turns groups that it infiltrates inside out and destroys them from within. And for us, the scriptures really need to be in the conversation and oftentimes Find that there is this And I want to take two two approaches to today I mean the first one has to do with what I'm seeing as a pastoral fascination with the externals a Pastoral fascination with the externals and I'm seeing this not only in the pastors but in the institutions that they've they've been trained by as Well as then they get into the churches that they're pastoring and this becomes a mindset that is quote-unquote, okay and even encouraged, and we're going to dig into that. But the fascination with the externals, things that are outside the scriptures, first of all. We're seeking wisdom here. We're seeking knowledge. We're seeking information that goes beyond the walls of the normal Christian church. These are meant to be noble pursuits that inform us, and they inform us in such a way as to enhance our evangel. Enhance our evangel. The idea here is that if we learn these things, how the world around us thinks and breathes and functions in cultures that we don't necessarily understand by adopting those things, we find a better way of reaching those people groups. That's what this is about. It's presented in a way that it is a method for evangelism and growing the ranks of the church. The problem is, as I presented on Tuesday, if you pursue things that are not compatible with Christianity, and you try to use those things as your evangel, you're going to wind up with a very unrecognizable, Frankenstein-ish result. that doesn't resemble biblical Christianity in any way, shape, or form. Look at liberalism. Look at what has happened to the United Methodist Church. Look at all these churches that are now bringing in speakers on homosexuality and promoting the gay Christian movements and on and on and on. You cannot find that kind of thinking in the pages of the New Testament. You definitely can't find it in the Old Testament. But guess what? At some point in time, the fascination with the externals that go beyond, when I say externals, external from this. So when it goes beyond the pages of Scripture, we keep pursuing those thoughts, pursuing those thoughts, pursuing those thoughts, and then finally, when you look in the rearview mirror, the Bible is on the other side of the bridge, and the bridge is out. It got burned behind you and there's no turning back. Well, there is turning back. There's repentance and turning away from these things. But again, the fascination with the externals is presented to us in the concept of pursuit of noble things and information that goes beyond our walls. the pursuit of these new ideas I call, I want to offer what I call the speculation hypothesis. The speculation hypothesis. I find a common problem, I get the phone calls all the time, I want to know what you think of this or I want to know what you think of that. And what is being asked oftentimes, most often, that subject is eschatology. and they want to know what I think, who is the false prophet, who's the beast, who's the antichrist, and on and on and on. And what is actually being asked of me is I want you to speculate along with me so we can have a conversation. I'll be honest with you, the conversations that I hear sometimes remind me of a couple of nerds sitting around arguing about who wins the battle, Batman or Superman. And of course, everybody knows it's going to be Superman, right? Okay, that's just an aside. But the problem is, is it starts off with a problem that is perceived. There is a perception of a problem, and the solution to that problem, it is surmised, is not found in Scripture. And I think that's where a lot of the critical race folks are coming from. They don't believe that the actual solution to the problem is found in the pages of Scripture. So we have the speculation that is called for, and how it starts is very much like what we find Jesus talking about when he talks about leaven and bread. leavening a little bit of leaven leavens the whole lump. And if you think about the idea of how bread is made, and the fact that in the Old Testament, bread was not to be made with yeast. It was not to rise. And so, you know, if you've ever had matzah or anything like that, matzah bread, it doesn't rise. It's more along the lines of what we in America would refer to as crackers, because it hasn't been leavened. But as the baker takes the lump of dough and he puts some leaven on it, yeast, he then works it in, and a little bit of leaven leavens the whole lump. Well, how does it leaven the whole lump? So you have the concern, the problem is perceived, the speculation of how to solve the problem is then discussed, and then the concern itself becomes greater than the mission. So this is where the kneading of the leaven into the dough, where eventually it becomes greater than the mission itself because it now permeates every bit of the dough or the mission. So, the issue then becomes embedded into the mission and a new mission is now born. Now, If you're not necessarily tracking with me on that thought, I want to offer up a scene for you from the movie The Radicals. The reformer, the Anabaptist reformer, I know some of the reform community may get mad at me for even mentioning Michael Sattler's name or Anabaptist, but this is an important scene that should spell out the problem. And again, it's the speculation hypothesis and how it runs through the whole thing. So the scene is set, he is a weaver, and he is presenting as part of his argument in the face of I'm trying to think, I believe it was Wilhelm Reublen, who wants to get militant, if you will. And Sattler's not having it. So there's a debate going on in this scene, and he's talking about the bad thread in the bolt of cloth. He explains how the bad thread continues through the whole boat, the bolt, and they because they teach it, because they were taught it, and those who taught them were taught it as well. That's the point of my illustration here. So I'm going to play this for you, and we're going to get, let me turn my volume up, and let me play this for you, and we'll be right back. Many of you know I am a weaver. For many years the good Lord protected the world from my obvious talents as a weaver by confining me to a monastery. But somehow, somehow I escaped. And I managed to spin some cloth, and I brought this specimen here today. Tell me, what would you give me for this? A broken barrel. Or a dead goat. You're sensible people. You can see that the cloth is ruined, and you won't waste your good earnings to buy it. One of the first things I learned when I began weaving was that it takes only one bad thread, only one poorly mixed dye to destroy an entire cloth. Like my brother Willem, I'm afraid. I fear for those in prison. I weep for those who have died and will die. Fear even more the consequences of compromise. For if we allow the power of this world to be threaded into the fabric of Christ's Church, all of us... All of us, we've seen the results. Compassion turns to pride. Charity to greed. Truth becomes fabrication, salvation, citizenship. Peace, oppression, and faith in God becomes faith in popes and princes and kings. We must not imitate the world but Christ in all things, even if we are called to the gallows or the grave. When I made this mistake, It cost me only four guilders. If we deceive ourselves now, the price will be eternal. And that ends that clip here. Let me turn off the sound because this computer gets a little bit... noisy as we go along. But I think the point is made there. His statement's got Colossians 3 all through it. And the point is that we need to be a Bible-centered people. And as we start to tease with the novelties of our vain imagination, We find ourselves in the mode of what I call pontificating grand trues while staring at our navels. And I just find this approach becoming more and more common. Here's the problem, folks. You need to take a look at, we're going to look at two different examples today of this kind of thinking, and I want you to focus on the thinking. Don't get caught up in the names that I mentioned. I've got two names that I'm going to use, two folks that I'm going to use as an example, but I don't want you to focus on them. I want you to recognize that there are a lot more folks in Christendom who think like they do than think like us, than think like me, who look to the Scriptures as their soul, infallible rule of faith and practice. Those are my boundaries. If I'm bound by scriptures, then I should have some boundaries in my thinking and in my theology and how I go about doing that. If that isn't the message of Pilgrim's Progress, think about that for a second. Pilgrim's Progress shows us that one stray step leads to another and to another, and before you know it, you're so far off the path that leads to righteousness, the path of the truth, you can't even see it anymore. That's what Michael Sattler's talking about. You know, I'll give you an example, for instance. Have you ever had a car that just won't steer straight? The alignment's just out just enough to where you kind of have to pull it back. Maybe if you're on a tilted road, it'll go straight. But ultimately, if you're on a flat road, it always wants to pull to one side or the other. And so you have to compensate with the steering wheel to keep it going straight down the road. Like that car, the novelty of our imagination as we tease with the externals that go on beyond that which we are beyond the boundaries of Christendom, they will lead us astray. We start going down that road and then we wonder why it gets so rough, we wonder why it gets so bumpy, and we wonder why we sometimes crash. Or we find ourselves in a town like Vanity Fair. wondering how we got here. You've got to think about that stuff. Don't let it become the norm for you. You need to look for that narrow road. I want to walk the narrow road. I don't want to be on the wide way. Don't you? And as we're teasing with the interesting and the novel of thought, Those are worldly things. The world will tantalize us with more than just things like pornography and all the other things that are just, they hit you upside the head. There's those subtle things that the world infiltrates your thinking and changes your worldview in such a way that now you have shifted and you've taken that first step off of the narrow path. You know, you think about how this works, how this starts out. Most folks are familiar with the concept of a news tease. In the news tease, they are what TV news anchors use or say to convince viewers to watch the newscast or to continue watching the newscast. Coming up at 10, man bites dog and lives to tell about it. Or coming up next and they want to string you along to keep you watching and keep your attention focused right with them. And what they're actually doing is they're appealing to your curiosity with the concepts that are interesting. With things that are interesting and they want to gain your attention and they want to keep your attention because that's how they get paid. Well, in the same way as the Church teases with the interesting, the idea, where that goes, is the promotion of new ideas, and those new ideas are, I mean, they're not just, like I use the example, Batman and Superman. That's absurd. Okay? These things are presented to the Church in pursuit of that which is valuable. in pursuit of new concepts and things that, you know what, you really should be thinking about this, or shouldn't we be doing things like this? The problem is, is that they are bringing to you novelties of thought appealing to your curiosity. And I love this one. I heard this last year and it just kind of about fell out of my chair. I like to read so-and-so. I find him really interesting. Yeah. I know that he really doesn't follow the scriptures, but he's a deep thinker. He thinks about things that most Christians don't think about, and yeah, I know he doesn't believe in inerrancy, and he reads the scriptures in a nuanced manner, but I find him interesting, and I think you could learn a lot, and your horizons would broaden by reading him. I read him all the time and I just find him really fascinating. What's just happened here? A vehicle has been introduced to you in the way of the fascination with the liberal author. So you've got a conservative reformed man who's just posited the idea that his conservative flock, and when I use the term conservative, please don't get me wrong, I'm not using that in a political way. There is liberal thought when it comes to the scriptures. John Dominic Crossan would be one example. As he sees it, it's all a parable, dummy. You can go back and listen to that debate and follow his train of thought and the way he approaches the Scriptures. You ever wonder why everything that these guys say seems to be so upside down from how you read the Scriptures? Because they're liberal theologians. A conservative theologian looks to the Scriptures and, like we did on Tuesday, wants to learn from them and extrapolate from the Scriptures information that the Scriptures are actually presenting. But the vehicle that can take you from that conservative way of thinking into liberal worldviews and thoughts and ideas is the interesting. I find him interesting. I think you can benefit from reading him. Your world will grow. Sounds really noble, right? But in point of fact, it's just a tease. It's no different than the news tease. Now, I have some examples here, and as I said earlier, one of those examples is an interaction that I had last month with a well-known professor at a Christian school who posted a comment on Twitter. In fact, she had just simply been reposting something that someone else, again, one of those interesting people, who were more widely read, well-rounded in their worldview, than I would be, she puts the tease out. And I don't want you to get hung up on the name. It is an interaction that I had with Karen Swallow prior. But again, you need to, there are some things here, I'm still after the conversation, I'm still not sure where Ms. Pryor is at on that thinking, but the thinking that was represented in the post, well, let's dig into it and I think you'll be able to follow it. So I want to go ahead and bring that up for you. And yeah, I did, before I do that, I did think about not mentioning Ms. Pryor, but had I blurred that out, you know, we've had a circumstance of folks doing things on video lately where they blurred things out and that really blew up in their face. I don't want that to happen here, so please, I'm not going after Ms. Pryor for this. There was some misunderstanding on my part, and there's still a lot of misunderstanding on my part, but I want to focus on what it was that she was retweeting and break that down so uh... let's see here when i bring that up and we have that on the screen for you now and so we have the example of what i call teasing with the interesting and she will later on respond to me saying that she found the statement interesting and so that's why i thought it was a well an interesting example But I use the term, I think, interesting in the different way that she did, because I found it interestingly wrong-headed. Very wrong-headed. Let's read it. Those who are most vocal about abortion and abortion laws are my white brothers and sisters, and yet many of them don't care about the plight of the poor, the plight of the immigrant, the plight of African Americans. So, As I read this, and this was from a story that was posted in the New York Times, June 6, 2019, you can see that there, and the three individuals that are referenced here. But I guess, I'm not familiar with Luke Bobo, but that is the handle, the Twitter handle that she linked there. So I presume that's where the quote came from. My initial confusion with this was Missing the source at first. I thought she was the one saying this because I didn't I kind of You know as you're doing Twitter the first thing in the morning and you haven't quite had your full cup of coffee it hits you in a particular way and It hadn't quite clicked so I confused her versus them I was missing the source, but I want to break this down and Want to take a closer look at what is it that is being said here and why it's really wrong-headed So because there's so many aspects to this. Okay, so let's Let's break this down. First of all The example of diversity as it is being practiced here in this tweet notice the author Is number one segregating the brethren based on their skin color whites segregating out the poor that the whites don't seem to care about. It says it right there, don't care about the plight of. So the whites don't care about the plight of the poor, the whites don't care about the plight of the immigrants, and the whites don't care about the plight of African-Americans. That's what's stated here directly. My initial objection here is there is a presumption in the tweet that you know what any brothers and sisters care about when it comes to what they're supporting. I mean, think about it. Those who are most vocal about abortion and abortion laws are my white brothers and sisters, and yet many of them don't care about the plight of. Well, how do I express my care for the plight of someone? Well, The primary way is that I'm going to support a particular mission, I'm going to support a particular activity, my church might support that particular activity, and the problem here is, my initial question was, how would you know, based on Matthew 6 and not letting your left hand know what your right hand does, so that your giving will be in secret? There's a contrast here between the hypocrites and how we are to be. So if the white brothers and sisters actually do care about the plight of the immigrant, the plight of the poor, and the plight of the African-Americans, and they're actually doing things about it, if they're submitting themselves to the scripture, how in the world would these three people know that? Oh, well, maybe if if you're a liberal and you don't take that text seriously, then you're busy bragging about the causes that you support and the money that you give them and how much money you give them and all the different things that you do with that. The other side of the coin here is there's also an assumption here that in order for you to care, You're supposed to do this. You must do this. There is a compulsion. So I might have an objection on another level. When did giving become something out of compulsion. Again, a Bible-believing Christian understands 2 Corinthians 9, 6 through 8, understanding in verse 7 that each one is to give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion. So when you dump guilt on somebody and say you need to be giving to X, Y, and Z in the process, that's a violation of 2 Corinthians 9, 7. Ultimately, if we're going to do Holy Spirit-led giving, then the gift, according to this passage that is given out of compulsion, is worthless because it's supposed to come from the heart, not a heart of guilt, but the one who wants to. They've decided in their heart, not reluctantly, under compulsion, but cheerfully cheerfully, and God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work." That's how you're supposed to be giving. That's how this is supposed to work. So there is a grand presumption here on two parts. Number one, that the true believer, no matter what their color, is going to be proclaiming their giving and can be motivated by compulsion and guilt. Both of those premises go directly against how we're supposed to live the Christian life. But as I said on Tuesday, the how we live the Christian life seems to be missing from this logic and this thinking. My reply to this, as I have up on the screen here, was this comment puzzles me greatly. If her white brothers, and this is where my confusion happened, if her white brothers and sisters are giving to others in a manner taught by Jesus, how would she even be able to tell, Matthew 6, 1-4? On the other hand, what are we to think about those who do brag about such things? Well, if you're believing the scriptures, it's not a good thought. It really isn't. But in my initial confusion, I admit I missed the source, I missed the her versus them, and I wound up irritating Ms. Pryor, and I deserved it. But let's look at Matthew 6 here, specifically going down to verse 3, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then, Your father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. Well, what's the contrast? Don't practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. Don't do it like the hypocrites do with trumpets and in the synagogues and on the streets to be honored by others. They've received their reward. And I think if you understand this text, you understand that that reward is very temporary and very, well, it's not a reward that God honors. But let's move on. So Ms. Pryor responded, do you understand that I tweeted the article? Yes. And now I'm kind of interpreting this as a bit of a dodge. I still think it was a dodge, as we're teasing with the interesting. So I'm going to pursue this a little bit more. So the comment was not your own. Okay, I'm looking again. I realize that. So I'm asking the next follow-up question. I presume that you share its sentiment. To which she replies, no and no. I tweeted, here it is, an interesting article with interesting perspectives that I think are worth consideration. You thought they were worth consideration? Do you not see the quotation marks and the attribution? No I didn't, I missed that. My bad. This is how Twitter works, carry on. Okay, I hit a nerve. Okay, I get it. Here's what I thought was interesting about her reply. Liberals write interesting things, liberals write things worth considering, liberals write things we should sit up and take notice of, and liberals write things that expand your world. That's what I took from that response. I don't think they were worth consideration. I think they were wrong-headed. I really do. I respond, trying to get clarification here so you don't share the sentiment. Let's take the word here out of my reply. How is one drawing the conclusions the quote does if the ones being talked about obey Matthew 6? You can't. We've got to drill down on this thought. Think it through. Don't just take it at face value and go, oh, how cool. It's not cool. I see that thinking, and then I see the accolade for it, and I just want to go, what's wrong with your head, Fred? Something's not clicking here, and why not? Because if your mindset is centered on the things of God as found in this book, there's nothing noble in that statement at all, but okay. Let's drill down on it a little bit more. So I ask the question now, perhaps a different angle on the matter. Can one rightly draw this conclusion about people obeying Matthew 6? Would one even know if said people were doing so? How does the quote not draw a grand assumption that can likely be false? And then I follow up again. So now with that on the table, how interesting is this false narrative now? Well, in his prior response, I took it as a perception that I myself want to ask myself how I might correct, particularly as a white evangelical whose first qualification is to get my vote, whose first qualification to get my vote is to be against legal abortion. That does not change even as I ponder whether or not other things can or should. You identify yourself as a white evangelical? Have you read Colossians 3 lately, Ms. Pryor? Honestly, I wanted to ask back to that same question, where is your here at? Where is your here? Because while I laud your concern about standing against legal abortion in our land, you've got to understand, for me, this isn't about how I vote. This isn't about my political activity at all. This is all about how I live the Christian life and submitting myself to the Scriptures accordingly as my infallible rule of faith and practice. And as I do that, there is a moral compass that develops in one's heart. And as you look at the world around you, you see things as a Christian sees things. You mean, I have my mind set on things above, and that changes my heart, and it changes my values, and it changes the way I look at my brethren, and I don't see color, I don't see class, I don't see the walk of life that they came out of. I'm in the church, and we have one thing in common that conquers everything else. Conquers everything else, and that is Christ. that all those other things, to use a somewhat crude biblical term, it's all scubla. It's garbage. Rotting, stinking garbage. And when I dredge it back up and I wear a label that I'm a white evangelical, I am a Bible-believing Christian. And I want others to come to Christ the same way I did, by submitting to the Word of God and repenting of every bit of that garbage, of that scubla. It is a perception I do not share with you, ma'am. I do not. I cannot, because the Scriptures command me to think differently than that. So, the conversation comes to a dead end, and I ask, so your left hand and your right hand are being measured by color? And that's where it died. It didn't go any further than that, and my point was ignored. Voting was the issue, race is the issue, and As we look at this text and we ask, how can any of this thinking be? And we ask, where is there here? I submit to you that there here is not standing in the spot of Matthew chapter 6. It's not. You're not consistent with that. Moving on. Again, please don't get stuck on the players as I presented them to you. Ms. Pryor is not to be berated or pursued over this. I want you to realize that what she had to say and what she expressed there is a value system, a compass, if you will, that represents a great many people out there that wear the label Christian. The problem is, is that wherever they are in here, and I don't know that answer, can't know that answer, wherever they are in here, there is this outward expression of religiosity that does not comport with biblical Christianity. And it is possible that we have Pilgrim who has found himself in Vanity Fair, and the Lord will lead him out of Vanity Fair. But don't get stuck on the players. If you keep looking at that one tree, you're going to miss the fact that the forest fire is much bigger than just the one, and goes far beyond just the one. So, we're pursuing subjects that are not rooted in scripture, and CRT, and we're going to, I'm not trying to put, I don't know where Ms. Pryor fits on the critical theory business. That particular portion of this program was directed at the pursuit of the novel and the interesting things that go outside of scripture, but the scripture actually does address that tweet, that that she shared, that quote that she shared, is head-on, directly addressed in Scripture. But the folks that I think, the person that wrote it clearly doesn't know that. If they do, they don't care. And that's a problem. Now, I'm going to go into another section here where we get more into the issue of critical theory and its institutional foothold on the thinking of a great many people around us. A great many people not only in our churches, but people that might actually be leading our churches. And this is, to me, the chief concern that we really need to dig into. I don't want you to get stuck in conspiracy theories or systemic distractions. Heresies, worldliness, these things all depart from the faith and we need to, instead of looking at how we may perceive them in an individual, we need to focus on the thinking and in the writing and discussions and teachings of the folks who are thinking like this. Okay? The first example here I would like to provide you would be Dr. Walter Strickland of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Again, it's not about the players. There was an interview, James has already addressed the interview, that was given to the New York Times. There was an explanation, and I want to break that explanation down just a little bit more later on, But what bothered me, and this I seem to feel like it was, my concern was different than a lot of other people. A lot of people were very concerned as to his confirmation that he uses James Cone's work in the classroom without mentioning James Cone's name. And for me, I'm going, okay, why am I the only one that seems to be missing the office that he holds? And we're going to get into that. But this doesn't just end here. And in the link, in the description of this video, I am going to link to you an audio recording that was made at Reformed Theological Seminary. I believe that was the Atlantic campus. And again, we come back to the office and we come back to the concept of the ministry that is performed here. And it's my understanding that this was the inauguration speech for the, there's the brochure right there, founded at G3. RTS had a table at G3, and they were giving these out. They were also giving out very fancy, well-done bookmarks. And again, the recording that I'm going to link you to is Carl Ellis' speech at the inauguration of the Center for the Study of the Bible and Ethnicity. Center for the Study of the Bible and Ethnicity. In this brochure, This says, in description of the Center for the Study of the Bible and Ethnicity, that its goal is to equip leaders to minister effectively within multi-ethnic, cross-cultural, and mono-ethnic contexts by fostering an appreciation for the histories and cultures of people groups that are outside of the dominant culture. the center promotes theological education and reflection on these topics and how they inform and impact local and global ministry in the 21st century. And it goes on from there. But again, we come back to the concept, this is all critical theory in action right here, folks. This is critical theory and it's happening in reformed schools. not just Armenian schools, it's happening in Reformed schools. And I submit to you that it has come to a point where it is more widely known because it is already been embedded into our educational institutions for a very long time. If you think about it and you go back the big disturbing thing about the MLK 50 conference from last year was how boldly they came out with it. It was a virtual punch in the face with the level of boldness and when you start Going back, you find out they've been doing this under the radar for a very long time. And so they've grown their ranks within our midst, and MLK 50 was, if you will, them coming out of the closet. And they're now showing us how many places they have a deep foothold, a deep seat in the saddle. and Reformed Theological Seminary is one of those places. So, we're going to get into that. But again, with the thinking of that one bad thread takes over the whole bolt, okay? Just a little bit of leaven leavens the whole lump. So, Let's see here, looking at my notes here, I don't need to cover that. I don't know why I have these duplicate slides. Okay, so I'm going to open up the window back on this particular slide. The interview on November, and this is actually a clip. I've got the source down at the bottom there. I'm not sure if I have it really fine print, so if you cannot read that, here, let's go full screen, and you can read what that says at the very bottom. The source is Real Ideas at Play, Foundational Convictions, Black Theology, and My Journey with James Cone, Dr. Walter Strickland. And there's the URL from the Intersect Project website. Dr. Walter Strickland is Associate Vice President for Kingdom Diversity for Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. And he published this particular explanation of the interview, which the response to the interview literally went viral online. that he made this admission, and this is his explanation of that admission. On November 15, 2018, I was interviewed by Molly Worthen for an op-ed that was published by the New York Times on April 20, 2019. The article included quotes from a nearly 75-minute conversation regarding my experience in the Southern Baptist Convention against the backdrop of racial turmoil in our country. In our conversation, she asked questions about my engagement with the theologian James Cone in light of my stated commitment to Southeastern Seminary's confessional and affirmed statements. I will say, part of this hubbub has to do with so many seminary professors, officers, board members, etc., if I missed somebody in there, who are looking at the seminary confessions and statements and they're finding ways to sign on these things and affirm these things by redefining them in their own minds so that somehow, some way, they can have or state that they have had integrity when they signed it. I happen to think there's a big problem here. Again, I gave the source there. In this statement, in this website, he says, Cone is helpful for me in two primary ways. He was the first theologian I read to engage systemic sin. And two, he impressed upon me the value of having theological dialogue partners from different cultural, economic, and geographic contexts. Nothing wrong with that, right? We all need to be able to talk to folks from a different life experience and different backgrounds. We need to be able to do that. We need to have rational conversations in order to share the gospel, right? Despite my substantive theological differences, being introduced to systemic sin in his work was an important theological insight to understand the expansive impact of the fall on humanity and society." Now, I want to respond to that. The concept of systemic sin or institutionalized sin I think there's some real merit to the concept. It's where you go with that that you need to understand something. And if I'm going to understand any concept from James Cone and import that into my Christian thinking on any level, on any subject, it's a problem. It's a problem. It would be like my looking at Joseph Smith, Jr. and reading and learning from his, getting marriage advice, learning marriage information from him. Or, another example that I posted online in response to this, it would be like using Alphonse Liguori to learn about Mary. In this book here, James wrote this book, Marry Another Redeemer. I'm going to say what, back in... Actually, I need to look. I think it was... Yeah, 1998. It actually goes a lot further back than I thought it did. I'm getting old. I assisted James in cross-checking a number of quotes from Alphonse Liguori, who was nothing short of a Mariolater. This man would have Mary change, he would change the Trinity to the Quadernity, I'm sure of it, or however you want to pronounce that. But if I were to say to you, being introduced to Mary in the work of Liguori was an important theological insight to understand the depth and impact of Mary on the life of Christ and Scripture. If I were to say that to you, you've got to look at how much is poured into that. I have to tell you, in helping James do the cross-references on the quotes on this book, it was very difficult for me to listen to it. It was so much blasphemy up one side and down the other. it was all through there. But I want to make that correlation. That is, I think, a fair comparison to using James Cone's work to learn anything about a biblical concept of any kind. Now, he continues, Worthen asked me in her interview how my dissertation informs my ministry today, and I noted Cone's influence in this area. Specifically, I referenced using Cone's ideas without mentioning him in order to walk around linguistic landmines. My point was not that I hide unorthodox ideas in my teaching, rather that I don't mention his name in order to eliminate stumbling blocks as I show how Scripture answers certain observations about the world that evangelicals sometimes overlook. To which I reply, the purposeful omission of this information is no innocent device. He would like to lay that out, but it's not. It's not. It is no different than if I would be standing in front of that same class teaching on Mary using Alphonse Liguori as my source and simply not mentioning his name and avoiding the more radical conclusions that he draws about, drew about Mary. Now, if you think I'm being unfair here, again, I come back to not so much the fact that he uses Kohn's ideas and references and quotes him, clearly quotes him, okay? I come back to the job that the man holds. And I'm going to link you in this description of this program, I'm going to link you to a the full portion of this video where he describes in this video what it is that he does, what his job description is. This is his own words. I need to open up the volume here, and I'd like you to listen in his own words what his job description is. Walter Strickland. I serve at Southeastern Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. As special advisor to the president for diversity, which is basically chief diversity officer here on campus. And then I also serve as a professor of theology. And so I teach anything from systematic theologies to liberation theologies to contextual global theologies. And I've been doing that for about is my 4th academic year. So, four years, I don't have the date on the particular video that he made with this lady, but think about his job description. He is a special advisor to the president, so he answers directly to the president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Denny Akin, answers directly to him. for the purpose, a subject of diversity, that he is the chief diversity officer of the school. He is a professor of theology, teaching systematic theologies, liberation theologies, contextual and global theologies. And again, I'm going to link in the description to this video so you can see this whole for yourself in what he had to say here. we're back to, we're going to use that word systemic again. In the pursuit of the novel and the interesting and the things that are presumed not to be addressed by the scriptures, we're going to go chase these things down and here this uh... seminary somebody believed that they needed to hire somebody for this job somebody believed that they needed to have a special advisor to the president on these subjects somebody believed that as a supposedly bible believing and bible preaching and bible teaching organization, teaching pastors how to be pastors. Somebody, some board of directors, I mean, this goes much farther down than just the names that are getting thrown around. That's why I don't want to focus on Dr. Strickland. I don't want to focus just on Danny Akin. I want to focus on the fact that this is institutionalized in the thinking and has been. We've just seen the iceberg pop up, and all we're seeing is a little tiny portion of it, and it's been under the surface for all this time, and we're running right into it. He is a professor of theology teaching systematics along with liberation theology. If you don't think that the systematics are being affected by the liberation theology, you need to think again. But again, folks, this is the man's job. This is what he was hired to do. He is simply doing that which he was hired to do. And I don't think you can do those things without embracing at least some or part of James Cone's teaching. You can't. Critical race theory is heavily impacted by James Cone. So you can't teach those subjects without him. You can't. And I believe Dr. Strickland knows that. He also says in this article, and I'm going to put this one back up, this is what I call the capitulation affirmation. The capitulation affirmation. He says, I want there to be no question about my affirmation that the Bible is the authoritative word of God and the foundational text for all that I do. Well, James Cone clearly thought the same thing. But look at the words that are being used here. This is carefully phrased, it really is. Very carefully phrased. Foundational text. What's not here is the idea that it's the sole and fallible rule of faith and practice. If I make that profession, I have to state it much more concisely and much more directly. I have to say that the Bible is my sole infallible rule of faith and practice, not just some kind of foundational text. You know what? I know Mormons that can make that. I know Roman Catholics that can make that affirmation. I know all kinds of liberals that can make that affirmation. John Dominic Crossing could probably find a way to make that affirmation. Oh, the Bible is a foundational text. It's a parable, dummy. It is phrased in such a way as to give the appearance of a strong commitment, but I remind you, I remind you that the way that you handle the Scriptures is a reflection of how you view the Scriptures. The way that you handle the Scriptures is a reflection of how you view the Scriptures. Yet when we appealing to the interesting from those who don't share this view undermines the very profession that he's made here. I'm going to say that again. He wants there to be no question about his affirmation that the Bible is his foundational text, but appealing to the interesting from those who do not share this view, even the way it's phrased here, undermines the very profession that is made. Yet when we compare his other views and this statement to the concept of the sole infallible rule of the faith of the Church, there's something missing here, isn't there? There really is. It's walking right up to the line, but not going over it. It's a carefully worded affirmation or statement. So do we give him the benefit of the doubt? Sure, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. I would say, though, that the man, well, that's a repeat. I've already covered that. And as we wrap up, I want to impress upon you that if we want theological credibility with those who want to hold to the Scriptures as their sole infallible rule of faith, we need to show that by how we treat the Scriptures. Going outside of the Scriptures to obtain an appeal to that which the Scriptures refutes is a de facto rejection of those same scriptures. I'm going to say that again. Going outside of the scripture to obtain and appeal to that which the scripture refutes is a rejection of those same scriptures. Folks, the advocate of critical race theory cannot interact with Colossians chapter 3 directly. They can't. Frankly, I can't see how they don't have to take a pair of scissors to their Bible and cut out the book of Philemon completely. But you can't interact with Colossians chapter 3, not directly, certainly not as a command, not as the boundary by which the Christian must conduct his or herself, whether that Christian comes from Europe, whether that Christian comes from the United States of America, South Africa, from Brazil, from whatever walk of life, from the Navajo tribe or Navajo nation in northern Arizona. the scripture is the same. And when we come to that place together, no matter what walk of life we came to, Colossians 3 tells us that when we come together in Christ, there is a harmony, not a melody. Notice that. It's not a melody that's just one tune going all the way through that everybody must adhere to. It is when we come together in Christ, that all of those backgrounds come together in perfect harmony. That's the words that are used there. In perfect harmony. We are one in that place. And it's not a switch that we can flip on and off when we walk in and out of a building. It is a mentality, a way of life that goes with us everywhere we go. It's supposed to because that's how we share. That is the greatest, most effective evangel that we have is how we live the Christian life out in the world. and the fact that we do so in such a way that there is a testimony that sets us apart from the thinking of the world. And so when you encounter the... Imagine encountering a guy who's into Antifa or a member of Antifa on the street under normal circumstances. Is there something about you that's different than him? It better be. It better be. If it's not, it doesn't matter what comes out of your mouth. You can tell him about Jesus all day long, but if he sees a hypocrite who doesn't actually live what he's saying, he isn't going to care, is he? He isn't going to care. The way that you handle the Scriptures is a reflection of how you view the Scriptures. I truly hope that I've been faithful in doing that today. And I pray, I truly do pray, don't focus on Dr. Strickland, don't focus on Dr. Ellis, don't focus on Ms. Pryor, don't focus on the individuals that I brought up. It's the mentality, it's the thinking that I want you to focus on and realize we have to speak to these people. We have to recognize that we may need to actually evangelize people back into the faith who are teasing with the world and show them, come back to Christ. Come back to a God-centered mentality. Note the error of your ways and come back to that place that has a mind that is set on the things above. Thank you.