Best podcast bar none and as usual agree with most of your content here. One thing I would say to my American friends is this, being from Northern Ireland and knowing what it's like living in a divided country, be very, very careful about politics entering the pulpit. It can have unintended and dangerous consequences..
Rule number one of loving, yet accurate, interpretation: Interpret the words of the speaker in the most charitable manner possible. Rule number two: Context is key. Sister, it seems like you have broken both rules with your comment here. We, obviously, believe the book of Galatians and think that there is a place to say, "You foolish Galatians." You've personally heard Sean speak this way in many of his sermons. What might a more charitable response to our video look like? Is there perhaps something about the overall context of our video that you might not be considering? Finally, one of the great errors of biblical application is to emphasize one truth to the neglect of another. A maturing Christian will recognize both Galatians 3:1 and 2 Timothy 2:25 as inspired and seek to apply the truth in wisdom. While we're quoting scripture, James 1:19 seems relevant: "My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak..."
Jill, Paul wrote this verse to a church that had embraced a false gospel. Either you're accusing us of doing the same, or you're quoting Galatians out of context. Which is it?
@@DefendandConfirmPodcast Is the social justice gospel a false gospel? Obviously Are you embracing it? I sure hope not, but I think you are downplaying and soft peddling the dangers of it…..IN THIS EPISODE. So many are embracing it and leading many astray just like the judaizers did in Galatia and also Peter for not making the distinction clear. Paul did not say keep doing ministry with the judaizers, he said let them be accursed. I fully believe my cite is well within context of your podcast; even if you don’t think it charitable. The social justice movement is committing the Galatian heresy. I’ve answered your question and defended my post…anymore would be pointless just like the recording with A.D Robles.
I asked if you are accusing Sean and I of promoting a false gospel. You responded with "I sure hope not." Does this mean you don't actually know what you are accusing us of? Are you "hoping" that you haven't accused us of embracing a false gospel? Second, can you explain how we have "downplayed" the dangers of CRT? Please give an example of what that means. I can't understand why you would think that.The entire point of this episode, summarized in one sentence, is this: Not everyone in the church who affirms "woke" ideas has embraced the false religion of Critical theory. So our point is, treat brothers and sisters as brothers and sisters, not like apostates or false teachers. This isn't a complex idea. It's also really simple to think of a plausible example of this. We also repeatedly stated that a woke conception of justice is both a danger, and in it's worst forms, anathema. What is controversial about this? What are you objecting to? I'm racking my brain and I can only imagine a few options. Here is all I can come up with: 1. You think anyone who has a single "woke" belief (i.e., systemic racism exists to some extent) has committed heresy and should be disfellowshipped. 2. You don't think a person can have a single "woke" belief, but can only adopt an entire anti-Christian worldview wholesale. 3. You're not sure what you think but you're angry and you assume everyone not as angry as you must be compromising the gospel. I pray that I'm wrong, but my gut is telling me it's the last one.
I agree with you guys, for the most part. I would disagree with how you're using "woke", for example. I think that we see the overreaction from some people in labeling everything and everyone "woke" because we aren't discerning enough to see if the speaker or teacher is actually selling wokeness, or if they are borrowing some of the language & some of the ideas that are found under the umbrella of wokeness. To be sure, neither scenario is good, but it's an important distinction. My personal biggest issue with what's happening today is that a big name in evangelicalism, I.e. Thabiti (since you guys referred to him), can make wild statements borrowing from some of the woke language, and it can (and likely does) effect people all over the world who have an internet connection. Perhaps Thabiti hasn't embraced all of "wokeness" (to include the LGBTQ agenda), but the things he says begin to lead that direction as he borrows ideas & terminology from wokeness. That's the issue, to me, with someone like him is that kind of teaching produces bad fruit. It takes the focus off of Christ, as all false teaching does. The church throughout history has always faced false teaching, yes, but the church throughout history hasn't had social media, podcasts, & TH-cam where bad & false teaching can effect many far & wide in a few clicks of a button. At any rate, that's just my unsolicited opinion. Overall, though, I agree with the need to be more charitable, especially in reformed circles, so-called. Many of us seem to be jockeying for the next epic soundbite, or pithy one-liner Tweet, instead of thinking well of big topics. I appreciate your work, brothers!
This was a great episode. It really made me consider how I think about other Christians. Having been raised in the Word of Faith movement and having come out of that movement, I tend to be cautious about everything. Perhaps the WOF movement is even more dangerous than CRT because WOF is so widely accepted and mainstream. Both I disagree with BTW.
That is a fine and difficult line to walk. Convicting. Thank you!
On a completely unrelated topic, I’ve always thought that Russell looks like Obi-Wan Kenobi.
This was excellent! Thanks brothers for your work!
Great points and reminders about our Christian witness. Side note: Horatio Spafford,* not Horatius Bonar.
Great catch!!!!
Best podcast bar none and as usual agree with most of your content here. One thing I would say to my American friends is this, being from Northern Ireland and knowing what it's like living in a divided country, be very, very careful about politics entering the pulpit. It can have unintended and dangerous consequences..
“You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?” I cite the whole book of Galatians.
Rule number one of loving, yet accurate, interpretation: Interpret the words of the speaker in the most charitable manner possible.
Rule number two: Context is key.
Sister, it seems like you have broken both rules with your comment here. We, obviously, believe the book of Galatians and think that there is a place to say, "You foolish Galatians." You've personally heard Sean speak this way in many of his sermons. What might a more charitable response to our video look like? Is there perhaps something about the overall context of our video that you might not be considering?
Finally, one of the great errors of biblical application is to emphasize one truth to the neglect of another. A maturing Christian will recognize both Galatians 3:1 and 2 Timothy 2:25 as inspired and seek to apply the truth in wisdom.
While we're quoting scripture, James 1:19 seems relevant:
"My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak..."
Jill,
Paul wrote this verse to a church that had embraced a false gospel. Either you're accusing us of doing the same, or you're quoting Galatians out of context. Which is it?
@@DefendandConfirmPodcast
Is the social justice gospel a false gospel? Obviously
Are you embracing it? I sure hope not, but I think you are downplaying and soft peddling the dangers of it…..IN THIS EPISODE.
So many are embracing it and leading many astray just like the judaizers did in Galatia and also Peter for not making the distinction clear. Paul did not say keep doing ministry with the judaizers, he said let them be accursed.
I fully believe my cite is well within context of your podcast; even if you don’t think it charitable. The social justice movement is committing the Galatian heresy.
I’ve answered your question and defended my post…anymore would be pointless just like the recording with A.D Robles.
I apologize for A.D quip…that should have not been said.
I asked if you are accusing Sean and I of promoting a false gospel. You responded with "I sure hope not." Does this mean you don't actually know what you are accusing us of? Are you "hoping" that you haven't accused us of embracing a false gospel?
Second, can you explain how we have "downplayed" the dangers of CRT? Please give an example of what that means. I can't understand why you would think that.The entire point of this episode, summarized in one sentence, is this: Not everyone in the church who affirms "woke" ideas has embraced the false religion of Critical theory. So our point is, treat brothers and sisters as brothers and sisters, not like apostates or false teachers.
This isn't a complex idea. It's also really simple to think of a plausible example of this. We also repeatedly stated that a woke conception of justice is both a danger, and in it's worst forms, anathema. What is controversial about this? What are you objecting to? I'm racking my brain and I can only imagine a few options.
Here is all I can come up with:
1. You think anyone who has a single "woke" belief (i.e., systemic racism exists to some extent) has committed heresy and should be disfellowshipped.
2. You don't think a person can have a single "woke" belief, but can only adopt an entire anti-Christian worldview wholesale.
3. You're not sure what you think but you're angry and you assume everyone not as angry as you must be compromising the gospel.
I pray that I'm wrong, but my gut is telling me it's the last one.
I agree with you guys, for the most part. I would disagree with how you're using "woke", for example. I think that we see the overreaction from some people in labeling everything and everyone "woke" because we aren't discerning enough to see if the speaker or teacher is actually selling wokeness, or if they are borrowing some of the language & some of the ideas that are found under the umbrella of wokeness. To be sure, neither scenario is good, but it's an important distinction.
My personal biggest issue with what's happening today is that a big name in evangelicalism, I.e. Thabiti (since you guys referred to him), can make wild statements borrowing from some of the woke language, and it can (and likely does) effect people all over the world who have an internet connection. Perhaps Thabiti hasn't embraced all of "wokeness" (to include the LGBTQ agenda), but the things he says begin to lead that direction as he borrows ideas & terminology from wokeness. That's the issue, to me, with someone like him is that kind of teaching produces bad fruit. It takes the focus off of Christ, as all false teaching does. The church throughout history has always faced false teaching, yes, but the church throughout history hasn't had social media, podcasts, & TH-cam where bad & false teaching can effect many far & wide in a few clicks of a button. At any rate, that's just my unsolicited opinion.
Overall, though, I agree with the need to be more charitable, especially in reformed circles, so-called. Many of us seem to be jockeying for the next epic soundbite, or pithy one-liner Tweet, instead of thinking well of big topics. I appreciate your work, brothers!
This was a great episode. It really made me consider how I think about other Christians. Having been raised in the Word of Faith movement and having come out of that movement, I tend to be cautious about everything. Perhaps the WOF movement is even more dangerous than CRT because WOF is so widely accepted and mainstream. Both I disagree with BTW.