As a Christian that’s black I need to put this in there. We must MUST let go of our black identity over our unity in the Spirit. In Christ there is no black and white. In Christ we should not look like the world. In Christ and in the unity of His spirit, we should shake hands, pray, laugh, walk and talk with each other in full forgiveness of the past. We are the example. We are the strange ones. While the world fights over reparations, we as the church should have moved past that. If we see injustice of anyone around us we should come to the aid of our brothers and sisters who have been offended and defend them. But this should not be the focus in the church. This is a distraction away from the Gospel. This makes us ineffective as believers and divides us. Please, please, let this go and remember that our identity is not in the world but we are exiles here. Of. Course. It’s. Corrupt. Out. There. But that’s not us. That’s not the church. Please pray about this.
We don't have to let go of our racial identity, we have to thank GOD for it and glorify HIM by it because HE created it. He created the racial variety. Yes, we are pilgrims here but GOD put us in our bodies, which belongs to HIM. I am Christian and I am in unity with the body of CHRIST all over the world but that does not erase the fact that I am a black African (Nigerian🇳🇬) Christian. The Ethiopian eunuch's race and nationality was not erased by his faith in JESUS. He did stop being an Ethiopian after he was born again. We really need to get this settled in our hearts and minds: our racial uniqueness is part of our overall GOD-given design and one of the ways YAHWEH spiced and garnished HIS creation with variety. My blackness is part of my being GOD's creation.
@ emer_warrior_princess I hear that. I'm a white American and went to Belgium to plant a church and as it developed we ended up with people from 35 countries and every color skin there is, if we had a picnic in a park people would literally stare and even once came over and asked- " who are you people"?HAHA, ANSWER: we're just a people from all over the world walking with Jesus celebrating God's love and loving one another, we're just already living the life that we know God one day is going to establish us in forever ( rev. 7:9-12). that church was on fire, super passionate, very evangelistic and full of love and joy. it may sound harsh but i don't even want to hear on this subject from someone who hasn't lived within that for real or led it, because I've found people regardless of color don't truly understand it until then. sister if you're on fb post your page link, I've got a sermon on it to send you.
There is no Black and White in Christ, but there SHOULDN'T be black and white in Church and yet I often feel like I need to abandon my Blackness to find acceptance in church. Reason being, many churches still submit to White supremacist culture while claiming full submission to Christ. Signed, a Black Zimbabwean
Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” - Ezekiel 18:19-20
I appreciate the clarification on what reparations could be - acting on a desire to restore something stolen or denied a person, family, neighborhood, etc. because of the grace of Christ manifested through someone’s heart! Zaccheus is a beautiful example of generous reparation after encountering the grace of Jesus. Giving half of what he owned away to the poor he had previously stolen from?? And repaying 4x what he stole? He truly confronted the harm he had participated in, it’s very convicting.
A couple y'all are reading alot into what Justin Giboney said. You may not agree with him but he articulated his position in a manner that is in submission to scripture. Additionally for all of us in the family of God he is your blood brother give your brother grace especially if you may know the content of his work. Justin Giboney has been given the work of reshaping the way we engage in politics and working towards Christian justice in the public. Brian Davis is a pastor and so his primary call is the edification and the discipleship of the church. Remember that these are good faith debates.
@William Stapp It most certainly is not. The only reason that was your take away is because the TGC based the whole debate on the very presupposition that needs to be debated thus propping up an irrelevant point of contention with a prop debate opponent who not-so-inconspicuously grants the most controversial and important points in the process.
I'm not quite sure how a registered Democrat political hack/cultural marxist perverting God's holy word can be perceived as doing so "in a manner that is in submission to scripture". True Christian believers have another term for that kind of "submission"...we refer to it as rebellion against God. True believers also have a term for "blood brothers" in the "family of God" who engage in the kind of heresy Giboney actively promotes...we refer to them as false teachers, heretics, or goats. And nowhere in my bible does it command believers to regard goats as sheep, or give heretics/goats the grace reserved for true Christian believers. Giboney is a heretic/goat and as such he's to be marked and avoided. [Matt. 7:15-19]. As is the goat providing cover for this Christ-hating, gospel perverting, Democrat activist pretending to be a Christian. You are right about one thing though. He's certainly working towards reshaping how Christians engage in politics....by attempting to dissuade Christian from engaging in the political process altogether or by attempting to convert them into godless, pro-marxist Democrats. Something I'm guessing you don't have the slightest problem with. His day is coming....[Matt. 7:21-23].
Hey TGC, while I appreciate the intentions of these "Good Faith" debates it seems like you're regularly assuming things when having the debate simply by the title of the debate. Framing this debate by asking "How should churches address racial injustice?" automatically assumes there IS racial injustice. Does it seem that at a minimum defining the term "racial injustice" would be a good starting point? And even better having the debate if there even is such a thing as "racial injustice"? And related: on the "Woke Church" debate the question asked was "does Woke Church lead to theological compromise?" It seems better to ask "is a woke church already in theological compromise?" By not even asking that question you give standing for a church to be woke.
@@wesholmes9012 Defining terms is bad faith? Considering whether a premise is valid before debating what the church should do about it is bad faith? I'm sincerely asking.
If it's something like a $300,000 car they then sold and you inherited that sum, then maybe yes. It shouldn't be about race but about specific groups of people that still benefit and those that were deprived. Like in California how they are exploring reparations but said that it must be restricted to descendants of slaves.
On July 4th we celebrate the good that came from the Founders’ decision and actions to start this country. If we can celebrate the good of the past that we had nothing to do with, then we should at minimum be able to lament the wrongs of the past that we didn’t participate in.
Seems like it won't let me post the link but look for a Barna article called "White Christians Have Become Even Less Motivated to Address Racial Injustice"
I'm assuming he is referencing this Barna survey. (Search Barna American Christians Race Problem) Though, his presentation of the statistic misrepresents the data from the survey. It is unfortunate that a statistic that was repeated so many times in a debate was not questioned for its citation, as ought be required by a good faith debate. His first representation of the statistic: "According to Barna Group, less than half of white Christians agree that historically the US has been oppressive to minorities." His second representation of the statistic: "One of the things that I said earlier today was over 50% of white Christians don’t believe that the US has been oppressive to minorities." In reality the survey found the following: In answer to the question, "Historically, the united states has been oppressive to minorities." Among white self-identified christians 48% agree 29% neutral 23% disagree. So, to his first statement, yes, less than half agree with the statement in the survey. But in his second statement, and the way he continued to present the case, no, it is not true that over 50% of white Christians don't believe that the US has been oppressive to minorities. Two things are worthy of note regarding the statistic. 1) The neutral category means neither agreement nor disagreement and should not be lumped into either category. Neither does it mean something in between. It often means that there is some disagreement with the wording, or some nuance that the survey respondent believes the survey question fails to address. For instance, it appears that the survey failed to define minority. Is minority strictly referencing ethnicity? 2) If you will look at the survey data you will see that there were many respondents in all categories that marked "neutral." And, even among minorities there were many who marked disagree. Justin's reference only the white self-identified christians in the survey may prove misleading. Sorry, Keston, for the long response. I know you just asked for a citation. I think this is probably it. I hope that the followup information I made here is helpful. It is certainly not my intention to diminish the severity of concern the church ought to have regarding an apparent blindness to a history (according to this survey) to evil perpetrated upon many minority persons in the history of the United States of America. That said, I do hope that TGC and its debate participants will be more careful and transparent with its handling of data, and that the participants will feel free to question sources.
More than being helpful, I find these "good faith" debates destructive. Not to biblically sound, mature Christians who take Paul's words to heart [Acts 17:11], but rather those who are immature in the faith and biblically unsound. Those who are biblically sound and mature in the faith already know which side they're on [based on scripture], and already understand the viewpoints of the enemy.
@@HearGodsWord It's not me I'm worried about. It's the biblically illiterate, immature Christians I worry about, or those who believe they're saved when in actual fact they're not. There the ones who listen to a debate that involves a gospel-perverting cultural marxist and in doing so think it'll help them to decide which side of the fence they're on. Sound familiar? Let's continue this conversation when you're off the spiritual milk and have moved onto solid food. [Heb. 5:12-13]
There will always be injustice within the mind of the people within the church and outside the church. To make it an ultimatum that if you are not as the church speaking on these terms of racial injustice, then you aren’t living out what it means to do justice. The scriptures have already made it clear that we are all made in the image of God. How one person views another person base on skin color, we as the church cannot control the sinful minds of other individuals. The church cannot change the past. I think with this entire social justice of doing justice isn’t even about justice anymore. It’s about trying to change the sins and minds of a person and forcing them not to be racist and if you don’t do anything or advocate for it, well you are to be blamed also. We’ve all been oppressed, but we must learn to forgive and love, not pout and blame others. That’s exactly what the world of these social worldly movements want, and that same worldview is seeping it’s way into the church. Preach justice! For sure! But also preach forgiveness, kindness, mercy, and grace. These are the characteristics we must do to all of man kind. Do justice love mercy and walk humbly with our God. If we aren’t doing justice with loving mercy and humbly and all we’re doing is blaming and bickering back and forth. Well guess what, you’ll continue to see division and chaos. And instead of the “goal of reaching people with the gospel” you’ve allowed their ideologies and worldview corrupt your own minds and hearts.
Based on the opening statements, I think Giboney and Davis have very different audiences in mind. Giboney seems to be talking to those who deny or seriously downplay the existence of racial injustice and is making a case for the church, broadly conceived, to acknowledge its existence (specifically within the church), repent, and walk in obedience to the Scriptures' many commands to do justice. Davis, on the other hand, seems to focus on those who acknowledge the existence of racial injustice but may have varying opinions on how best the church should respond to it in the world "out there." (He takes what we might call the "local church, personal discipleship" model of engagement.) This makes it appear that they're not answering the same question even though they mostly are. I think we saw something similar with the "Woke Church" debate. So perhaps what we need, then, is a debate on ecclesiology, hamartiology, and public theology; or a debate about how Christians/the church act as salt and light. Something like: "How should the church engage culture?" Or maybe more pointedly: "How should the church combat the effects of sin in the world?" ("The church" in either case could mean individual Christians, local churches, denominations, etc., and sin could be conceived personally and/or systemically.) If you wanted to get even more specific, the debate question would be: "Can sin be systemic, and does our response to sin ever require something in addition to personal evangelism and discipleship?"
This debate missed the mark. Both agreed on basic principles, which is good. What the moderator should have done is asked how to work those principles out in different contexts. So, if you have a principle of not bearing false witness, how do you work that out in a Christian school or a local church when it comes to racial injustice. In the school, you might want to ensure that your American history curriculum is accurate and does not whitewash more uncomfortable elements of our history. In the local church it might involve encouraging congregations to read history rather than buy into the idea that we don't have a pretty big history of oppression. This debate got too mired in abstractions.
A view that distances itself from grace appointed power is disenfranchised from fidelity to the Scripture. Use of Civic power to forge justice is in like manner to Moses before Pharaoh, Esther before Ahasuerus, and Christ before the Pharisees. We use our God given authority not just to shake heaven in prayer but also to shake governments in Civic engagement
Truth: A black guy runs over a parade, killing people and wounding others. He's let out of jail after an hour and is still walking around the street. That is only one example.
How do I show contrition when I haven’t discriminated? I have friends who are of other ethnicities. It would be weird for me to apologize to them. If any group should receive reparations, it would be the Jewish people and they should start with Egypt as they were slaves there for 430 years. And then they could receive more reparations from the Assyrians and then the Babylonians. Then more reparations from the Romans. I just don’t get it. Please advise.
The Jews did receive (forced) reparations from Egypt. They left with tons of Egypt’s wealth and the text is approving of their “theft”. David gave reparations to Saul’s remaining family. I’m not saying that it’s the right path forward, but the inequalities that many people of black ethnicities face can be directly correlated to hundreds of years of slavery and hundreds more of institutional forced poverty and discrimination. The laws suddenly becoming equal does not mean that those hundreds of years suddenly have no impact on hearts, culture, or wealth inequality.
@@JoelFischer Point taken. However, the Israelites plundered the Egyptians at their departure - not 150 years later. Can you imagine many generations after the exodus Israelites returning to Egypt demanding reparations?
I’d say their downward spiral away from sound biblical doctrine started decades ago. I’m just wondering when they stopped pretending altogether that they’re a Christian organization.
@@HearGodsWord This is being promoted as a "Good Faith" debate. It's being promoted by an organization [TGC] that still calls itself a Christian organization though in reality it's anything but. There's nothing "good faith" about this debate, it's a debate built on deceit. This is not two Christians debating on how the church should deal with an issue. It's a Christian debating with a Democrat activist/strategist pretending he's a Christian. The cultural marxist calling for reparations is a wolf. My bible doesn't say to pet, coddle, feed, shelter or debate with wolves, it says to mark and avoid them....period. So again, why is an organization that calls itself "Christian" sponsoring a debate on how the church should deal with an issue, when one of the participants is a wolf seeking to destroy the church?
How as humans do we know what God's justice is? We have one idea of what justice is. "What my ancestors experienced is injustice so you must now work that off so that I am happy and satisfied." That is not justice. That is selfishness and sin. Repent.
What does that mean? Should we not pursue justice for the unborn because the answer is “the gospel”? Should we therefore oppose the overturn of Roe v. Wade? Or is it that abortion is an issue of importance to majority culture Christians and race is not?
Vertical, check out his book “compassion and conviction.” Neither this debate nor his body of work elsewhere demonstrate separation from the gospel. That’s a bold accusation that calls for evidential examples.
@@JoelFischer Well said. Paul didn’t just preach the gospel to Peter when he was prejudicial, but he opposed him publicly on the grounds of misalignment with the gospel.
@@JoelFischer what he’s saying is, the evil that is in man’s heart, including racism of any form, cannot be eradicated outside of the work of the Holy Spirit through the power of the gospel giving new life to the individual. The first man is indeed wordly because he has twisted “justice” into a virtue of his own standard by intentionally not defining the term and then pushing his own agenda of covetousness & envy by pointing to disparities as evidence of “injustice”, despite no analysis given whatsoever to identify underlying discrimination.
He certainly has a nice suit and shoes to be oppressed. I know ad hominium. I was born in 1966. What has been stolen from black people (I won't use African Americans because the majority are not immigrants from Africa and cannot trace their lineage.) since I was born? Nothing. Civil rights changed the laws. So, what am I to feel guilty about now? It was a terrible thing that happened, but I had nothing to do with it nor do I approve of it. I stand with the Christians that stopped it. Every time I hear an argument about this I think, "Sounds like a personal problem to me." I've not always been treated the best either, but I don't make everyone else suffer for it. Take some responsibility. We can't blame our parents for where we are neither can we blame the great, great, great, great, great grandparents of other people for where we are.
As a Christian that’s black I need to put this in there. We must MUST let go of our black identity over our unity in the Spirit. In Christ there is no black and white. In Christ we should not look like the world. In Christ and in the unity of His spirit, we should shake hands, pray, laugh, walk and talk with each other in full forgiveness of the past.
We are the example. We are the strange ones. While the world fights over reparations, we as the church should have moved past that.
If we see injustice of anyone around us we should come to the aid of our brothers and sisters who have been offended and defend them.
But this should not be the focus in the church. This is a distraction away from the Gospel. This makes us ineffective as believers and divides us. Please, please, let this go and remember that our identity is not in the world but we are exiles here. Of. Course. It’s. Corrupt. Out. There.
But that’s not us. That’s not the church. Please pray about this.
We don't have to let go of our racial identity, we have to thank GOD for it and glorify HIM by it because HE created it. He created the racial variety. Yes, we are pilgrims here but GOD put us in our bodies, which belongs to HIM. I am Christian and I am in unity with the body of CHRIST all over the world but that does not erase the fact that I am a black African (Nigerian🇳🇬) Christian. The Ethiopian eunuch's race and nationality was not erased by his faith in JESUS. He did stop being an Ethiopian after he was born again. We really need to get this settled in our hearts and minds: our racial uniqueness is part of our overall GOD-given design and one of the ways YAHWEH spiced and garnished HIS creation with variety. My blackness is part of my being GOD's creation.
@ emer_warrior_princess I hear that. I'm a white American and went to Belgium to plant a church and as it developed we ended up with people from 35 countries and every color skin there is, if we had a picnic in a park people would literally stare and even once came over and asked- " who are you people"?HAHA, ANSWER: we're just a people from all over the world walking with Jesus celebrating God's love and loving one another, we're just already living the life that we know God one day is going to establish us in forever ( rev. 7:9-12). that church was on fire, super passionate, very evangelistic and full of love and joy. it may sound harsh but i don't even want to hear on this subject from someone who hasn't lived within that for real or led it, because I've found people regardless of color don't truly understand it until then. sister if you're on fb post your page link, I've got a sermon on it to send you.
There is no Black and White in Christ, but there SHOULDN'T be black and white in Church and yet I often feel like I need to abandon my Blackness to find acceptance in church. Reason being, many churches still submit to White supremacist culture while claiming full submission to Christ. Signed, a Black Zimbabwean
Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
- Ezekiel 18:19-20
I appreciate the clarification on what reparations could be - acting on a desire to restore something stolen or denied a person, family, neighborhood, etc. because of the grace of Christ manifested through someone’s heart!
Zaccheus is a beautiful example of generous reparation after encountering the grace of Jesus. Giving half of what he owned away to the poor he had previously stolen from?? And repaying 4x what he stole? He truly confronted the harm he had participated in, it’s very convicting.
A couple y'all are reading alot into what Justin Giboney said. You may not agree with him but he articulated his position in a manner that is in submission to scripture. Additionally for all of us in the family of God he is your blood brother give your brother grace especially if you may know the content of his work. Justin Giboney has been given the work of reshaping the way we engage in politics and working towards Christian justice in the public. Brian Davis is a pastor and so his primary call is the edification and the discipleship of the church. Remember that these are good faith debates.
Tremendous point about their ministry contexts. Perhaps these two perspectives, working in “good faith” tandem, can show us a way forward.
@William Stapp It most certainly is not. The only reason that was your take away is because the TGC based the whole debate on the very presupposition that needs to be debated thus propping up an irrelevant point of contention with a prop debate opponent who not-so-inconspicuously grants the most controversial and important points in the process.
I'm not quite sure how a registered Democrat political hack/cultural marxist perverting God's holy word can be perceived as doing so "in a manner that is in submission to scripture". True Christian believers have another term for that kind of "submission"...we refer to it as rebellion against God. True believers also have a term for "blood brothers" in the "family of God" who engage in the kind of heresy Giboney actively promotes...we refer to them as false teachers, heretics, or goats. And nowhere in my bible does it command believers to regard goats as sheep, or give heretics/goats the grace reserved for true Christian believers. Giboney is a heretic/goat and as such he's to be marked and avoided. [Matt. 7:15-19]. As is the goat providing cover for this Christ-hating, gospel perverting, Democrat activist pretending to be a Christian. You are right about one thing though. He's certainly working towards reshaping how Christians engage in politics....by attempting to dissuade Christian from engaging in the political process altogether or by attempting to convert them into godless, pro-marxist Democrats. Something I'm guessing you don't have the slightest problem with. His day is coming....[Matt. 7:21-23].
The description says this is a debate between Justin Giboney and Thaddeus Williams, but it's Brian Davis, not Thaddeus Williams.
Thank you. This has been fixed now!
Admendments #1 Protect your Rights of Free Church ⛪
Hey TGC, while I appreciate the intentions of these "Good Faith" debates it seems like you're regularly assuming things when having the debate simply by the title of the debate. Framing this debate by asking "How should churches address racial injustice?" automatically assumes there IS racial injustice. Does it seem that at a minimum defining the term "racial injustice" would be a good starting point? And even better having the debate if there even is such a thing as "racial injustice"?
And related: on the "Woke Church" debate the question asked was "does Woke Church lead to theological compromise?" It seems better to ask "is a woke church already in theological compromise?" By not even asking that question you give standing for a church to be woke.
This is the definition of a bad faith take.
Come on Aaron, you should know better than to believe the words “good faith” coming from the TGC
@@wesholmes9012 Defining terms is bad faith? Considering whether a premise is valid before debating what the church should do about it is bad faith? I'm sincerely asking.
@@wesholmes9012 - you mean epitome. Definition is about word meaning.
They're addressing topics that are big talking points, no assumptions needed.
So if my great great grandfather stole a car and never returned it, am I on the hook for his theft? Is that how reparations work?
Did you inherit the car and is it still valuable?
If it's something like a $300,000 car they then sold and you inherited that sum, then maybe yes. It shouldn't be about race but about specific groups of people that still benefit and those that were deprived. Like in California how they are exploring reparations but said that it must be restricted to descendants of slaves.
On July 4th we celebrate the good that came from the Founders’ decision and actions to start this country. If we can celebrate the good of the past that we had nothing to do with, then we should at minimum be able to lament the wrongs of the past that we didn’t participate in.
@@pjtibayan
Good point.
@@bradapeters lament yes, repent of no
Can someone point me to the Barna stat that Justin cited on multiple occasions?
Seems like it won't let me post the link but look for a Barna article called "White Christians Have Become Even Less Motivated to Address Racial Injustice"
I'm assuming he is referencing this Barna survey. (Search Barna American Christians Race Problem) Though, his presentation of the statistic misrepresents the data from the survey. It is unfortunate that a statistic that was repeated so many times in a debate was not questioned for its citation, as ought be required by a good faith debate. His first representation of the statistic: "According to Barna Group, less than half of white Christians agree that historically the US has been oppressive to minorities." His second representation of the statistic: "One of the things that I said earlier today was over 50% of white Christians don’t believe that the US has been oppressive to minorities." In reality the survey found the following: In answer to the question, "Historically, the united states has been oppressive to minorities." Among white self-identified christians 48% agree 29% neutral 23% disagree. So, to his first statement, yes, less than half agree with the statement in the survey. But in his second statement, and the way he continued to present the case, no, it is not true that over 50% of white Christians don't believe that the US has been oppressive to minorities. Two things are worthy of note regarding the statistic. 1) The neutral category means neither agreement nor disagreement and should not be lumped into either category. Neither does it mean something in between. It often means that there is some disagreement with the wording, or some nuance that the survey respondent believes the survey question fails to address. For instance, it appears that the survey failed to define minority. Is minority strictly referencing ethnicity? 2) If you will look at the survey data you will see that there were many respondents in all categories that marked "neutral." And, even among minorities there were many who marked disagree. Justin's reference only the white self-identified christians in the survey may prove misleading. Sorry, Keston, for the long response. I know you just asked for a citation. I think this is probably it. I hope that the followup information I made here is helpful. It is certainly not my intention to diminish the severity of concern the church ought to have regarding an apparent blindness to a history (according to this survey) to evil perpetrated upon many minority persons in the history of the United States of America. That said, I do hope that TGC and its debate participants will be more careful and transparent with its handling of data, and that the participants will feel free to question sources.
What I find helpful with these debates is that it helps me argue for the side I'm on, while also helps me understand the other side too.
More than being helpful, I find these "good faith" debates destructive. Not to biblically sound, mature Christians who take Paul's words to heart [Acts 17:11], but rather those who are immature in the faith and biblically unsound. Those who are biblically sound and mature in the faith already know which side they're on [based on scripture], and already understand the viewpoints of the enemy.
@@ct8765 poor you!
@@HearGodsWord It's not me I'm worried about. It's the biblically illiterate, immature Christians I worry about, or those who believe they're saved when in actual fact they're not. There the ones who listen to a debate that involves a gospel-perverting cultural marxist and in doing so think it'll help them to decide which side of the fence they're on. Sound familiar? Let's continue this conversation when you're off the spiritual milk and have moved onto solid food. [Heb. 5:12-13]
There will always be injustice within the mind of the people within the church and outside the church. To make it an ultimatum that if you are not as the church speaking on these terms of racial injustice, then you aren’t living out what it means to do justice. The scriptures have already made it clear that we are all made in the image of God. How one person views another person base on skin color, we as the church cannot control the sinful minds of other individuals. The church cannot change the past. I think with this entire social justice of doing justice isn’t even about justice anymore. It’s about trying to change the sins and minds of a person and forcing them not to be racist and if you don’t do anything or advocate for it, well you are to be blamed also. We’ve all been oppressed, but we must learn to forgive and love, not pout and blame others. That’s exactly what the world of these social worldly movements want, and that same worldview is seeping it’s way into the church. Preach justice! For sure! But also preach forgiveness, kindness, mercy, and grace. These are the characteristics we must do to all of man kind. Do justice love mercy and walk humbly with our God. If we aren’t doing justice with loving mercy and humbly and all we’re doing is blaming and bickering back and forth. Well guess what, you’ll continue to see division and chaos. And instead of the “goal of reaching people with the gospel” you’ve allowed their ideologies and worldview corrupt your own minds and hearts.
Based on the opening statements, I think Giboney and Davis have very different audiences in mind. Giboney seems to be talking to those who deny or seriously downplay the existence of racial injustice and is making a case for the church, broadly conceived, to acknowledge its existence (specifically within the church), repent, and walk in obedience to the Scriptures' many commands to do justice. Davis, on the other hand, seems to focus on those who acknowledge the existence of racial injustice but may have varying opinions on how best the church should respond to it in the world "out there." (He takes what we might call the "local church, personal discipleship" model of engagement.) This makes it appear that they're not answering the same question even though they mostly are. I think we saw something similar with the "Woke Church" debate.
So perhaps what we need, then, is a debate on ecclesiology, hamartiology, and public theology; or a debate about how Christians/the church act as salt and light. Something like: "How should the church engage culture?" Or maybe more pointedly: "How should the church combat the effects of sin in the world?" ("The church" in either case could mean individual Christians, local churches, denominations, etc., and sin could be conceived personally and/or systemically.) If you wanted to get even more specific, the debate question would be: "Can sin be systemic, and does our response to sin ever require something in addition to personal evangelism and discipleship?"
it's annoying cause your comment was actually engaging to both sides and yet the least liked.
This debate missed the mark. Both agreed on basic principles, which is good. What the moderator should have done is asked how to work those principles out in different contexts. So, if you have a principle of not bearing false witness, how do you work that out in a Christian school or a local church when it comes to racial injustice. In the school, you might want to ensure that your American history curriculum is accurate and does not whitewash more uncomfortable elements of our history. In the local church it might involve encouraging congregations to read history rather than buy into the idea that we don't have a pretty big history of oppression. This debate got too mired in abstractions.
A view that distances itself from grace appointed power is disenfranchised from fidelity to the Scripture. Use of Civic power to forge justice is in like manner to Moses before Pharaoh, Esther before Ahasuerus, and Christ before the Pharisees.
We use our God given authority not just to shake heaven in prayer but also to shake governments in Civic engagement
There cannot be a Christian Racist, PERIOD, If such of person exist, such person has NOT understood the Gospel, PERIOD
Anyone know of any additional resources/reading supporting Brian's position?
Nope....
Truth: A black guy runs over a parade, killing people and wounding others. He's let out of jail after an hour and is still walking around the street. That is only one example.
wow what a debate after Giboney's intro. totally not biased at all.
if this was really a debate you would also have people like fuentes who is catholic to confront the political guy
I really appreciated this debate.!
How do I show contrition when I haven’t discriminated? I have friends who are of other ethnicities. It would be weird for me to apologize to them. If any group should receive reparations, it would be the Jewish people and they should start with Egypt as they were slaves there for 430 years. And then they could receive more reparations from the Assyrians and then the Babylonians. Then more reparations from the Romans. I just don’t get it. Please advise.
The Jews did receive (forced) reparations from Egypt. They left with tons of Egypt’s wealth and the text is approving of their “theft”. David gave reparations to Saul’s remaining family. I’m not saying that it’s the right path forward, but the inequalities that many people of black ethnicities face can be directly correlated to hundreds of years of slavery and hundreds more of institutional forced poverty and discrimination. The laws suddenly becoming equal does not mean that those hundreds of years suddenly have no impact on hearts, culture, or wealth inequality.
Dixie, lament is a good start.
@@JoelFischer Excellent points, Joel, and thank you for the measured, biblical perspective you’re bringing throughout the comments.
@@JoelFischer - how much wealth inequality is there between a 7th-generation American black and his 7th cousin back in Africa?
@@JoelFischer
Point taken. However, the Israelites plundered the Egyptians at their departure - not 150 years later. Can you imagine many generations after the exodus Israelites returning to Egypt demanding reparations?
When did TGC start promoting gospel-hating Democrat activists promoting cultural Marxism?
Years ago. Where have you been?
I’d say their downward spiral away from sound biblical doctrine started decades ago. I’m just wondering when they stopped pretending altogether that they’re a Christian organization.
@@ct8765 - oh that's harder to pinpoint :)
So they should have had a debate between two people with the same position? That wouldn't work, would it?
@@HearGodsWord This is being promoted as a "Good Faith" debate. It's being promoted by an organization [TGC] that still calls itself a Christian organization though in reality it's anything but. There's nothing "good faith" about this debate, it's a debate built on deceit. This is not two Christians debating on how the church should deal with an issue. It's a Christian debating with a Democrat activist/strategist pretending he's a Christian. The cultural marxist calling for reparations is a wolf. My bible doesn't say to pet, coddle, feed, shelter or debate with wolves, it says to mark and avoid them....period. So again, why is an organization that calls itself "Christian" sponsoring a debate on how the church should deal with an issue, when one of the participants is a wolf seeking to destroy the church?
“Moral Imagination” 🤔
How as humans do we know what God's justice is? We have one idea of what justice is. "What my ancestors experienced is injustice so you must now work that off so that I am happy and satisfied." That is not justice. That is selfishness and sin. Repent.
The first man sounds incredibly worldly and separated from the good news of the gospel. There's no other answer to injustice besides the gospel.
What does that mean? Should we not pursue justice for the unborn because the answer is “the gospel”? Should we therefore oppose the overturn of Roe v. Wade? Or is it that abortion is an issue of importance to majority culture Christians and race is not?
Vertical, check out his book “compassion and conviction.” Neither this debate nor his body of work elsewhere demonstrate separation from the gospel. That’s a bold accusation that calls for evidential examples.
@@JoelFischer Well said. Paul didn’t just preach the gospel to Peter when he was prejudicial, but he opposed him publicly on the grounds of misalignment with the gospel.
@@JoelFischer what he’s saying is, the evil that is in man’s heart, including racism of any form, cannot be eradicated outside of the work of the Holy Spirit through the power of the gospel giving new life to the individual. The first man is indeed wordly because he has twisted “justice” into a virtue of his own standard by intentionally not defining the term and then pushing his own agenda of covetousness & envy by pointing to disparities as evidence of “injustice”, despite no analysis given whatsoever to identify underlying discrimination.
Vertical View - What is the Gospel?
He certainly has a nice suit and shoes to be oppressed. I know ad hominium. I was born in 1966. What has been stolen from black people (I won't use African Americans because the majority are not immigrants from Africa and cannot trace their lineage.) since I was born? Nothing. Civil rights changed the laws. So, what am I to feel guilty about now? It was a terrible thing that happened, but I had nothing to do with it nor do I approve of it. I stand with the Christians that stopped it. Every time I hear an argument about this I think, "Sounds like a personal problem to me." I've not always been treated the best either, but I don't make everyone else suffer for it. Take some responsibility. We can't blame our parents for where we are neither can we blame the great, great, great, great, great grandparents of other people for where we are.
Jesus wasn't white, he was brown.
@EpiscopalianStandoff They are the Askhenazi and not native Jews of the Arab lands