I am James Hong and welcome to the Surpassing Value Podcast. The fuel and desire for this podcast was born out of a compulsion to flesh out what's been going on in the midst of an ocean of megaphones that may not actually withstand the test of scrutiny. As a signpost theologian, I will do my best to filter out the impurities and point people in the right direction.

For episode number four, I wanted to talk about critical race theory. The reason I wanted to talk about this particular subject is because much of the social justice movement today, and even the worldview held by the masses, is seeped in this thinking. Most people who have their thoughts shaped by critical race theory, which I'm going to refer to as CRT, don't even realize it.

And that's why it's so important to bring it to light. I am not stating that everyone who advocates for some type of justice reform is a critical race theorist. And I'm not saying they should be silenced. However, ideologies do the most harm when they are hidden in the midst of unconsciousness because they are working within your worldview and you don't even realize it.

Therefore, it is important to pin these very slithery ideologies as much as possible so that they can be revealed for what they are. If they're helpful, they should remain. If they aren't, they should be thrown to the wayside. What is interesting and common with many of these ideologies like CRT, and even the term social justice, is that there really is no consensus definition.

There really is no consensus origin. I know because I actually did my research. You have to look at the body of evidence concerning these movements, concerning these ideologies, and seek out the common denominators to ascertain what these ideologies espouse and then based on that make explicit statements. That is why these ideologies are so deceptive and so manipulative.

They could amorphously transform into different ideologies when they fall out of favor. CRT sees everything within a power dynamic. All human relationships begin and end within a power dynamic. There are two groups and everyone is divided into these two groups. You are either the oppressor or the oppressed. The oppressor is always oppressing the oppressed, so if you belong in that category, even if you're not intentionally oppressing the oppressed, you are doing so.

The way we determine who is in what category is based largely on categorizations of race, gender, sex, sexuality, religion, and even ideology. So depending on how many markers you check off the box, that will determine your level of oppression. One could simultaneously be in an oppressor category and an oppressed category.

So there is no exact formula in terms of grouping people. Much of it is relative. I'll give you an example of being simultaneously in an oppressor category and in an oppressed category. A white, straight, female atheist is more oppressed than a white, male Christian. However, the white, straight, female atheist is less oppressed compared to, let's say, the brown, straight, female atheist.

In the example I just gave you, being white is being part of the oppressor category. But there are other oppressed categories that the same person fell under. Neil Shenvey has outlined four premises within Critical Race Theory, within CRT, that is helpful in understanding CRT as a worldview. Neil Shenvey defines worldview as a comprehensive and systematic framework that one uses to view reality.

A worldview is a comprehensive and systematic framework that one uses to view reality. That is a concise definition of worldview that is extremely helpful. Now I am quoting Neil Shenvey and dropping his name because I think he is a brilliant anthropologist, just a brilliant mind. He has written extensively on this particular topic and others.

He has contributed greatly to advancing and uncovering what Critical Race Theory really is. So he gives these four premises and I think if you have the time, you should definitely check them out. If you just Google Neil Shenvey, N-E-I-L, space, Shenvey is S-H-E-N-V-I. Premise #1. Human relationships should be fundamentally understood in terms of power dynamics, which differentiates groups into oppressors and the oppressed.

That's premise #1. Premise #2. Our identity as individuals is inseparable from our group identity, especially our categorization as oppressor or oppressed with respect to a particular identity marker. Premise #3. All oppressed groups find their fundamental unity in their common experience of oppression. Premise #4. The fundamental human project is liberation from all forms of oppression.

Consequently, the fundamental virtue is standing in solidarity against the oppressor. There is another term called intersectionality, I've already talked about it without explicitly referring to it, but intersectionality determines whether someone is an oppressor or oppressed. And those are the markers, those are the boxes that we check off. And those were the race, sex, gender, religion, ideology, sexuality, and more.

So all of this, critical race theory as a worldview, and intersectionality, which tells us which category that we are in, all of this is united within the conversation of moral authority. The more oppressed you are, the more moral authority you have to speak on categories of right/wrong, justice/injustice. Any pushback is going to be stonewalled by stating that the difference of opinion is not rooted in objective fact, but rather the inability of the lived experience.

For example, if a white heterosexual male has a sincere disagreement about policing, a common retort is a lot of times, "Well, because you're a white heterosexual male, that is why you really can't speak on this issue." Now, it might be that this white heterosexual male might have grown up in a dense urban area with no white friends.

Maybe he has all Hispanic friends, or all black friends, or all Asian friends. But those other factors do not come into play within critical race theory. What comes into play is merely the intersectionality identity markers. So the common retort to this white heterosexual male who has a sincere disagreement about policing would just be, "Well, whatever you say carries no weight by virtue of the fact that you are a white heterosexual male." I'll give you another example.

Let's say under this worldview. Let's say you are the son of a rich athlete or celebrity who also happens to be black. You are then more oppressed than the white male heterosexual who grew up in, let's say, a trailer park, born to a single white myth addict mother. So the son of, let's say, a famous baseball or basketball player who also happens to be black would be more oppressed than my buddy who grew up in Detroit, Michigan in a trailer park to a single white myth addict mother.

It is under this framework that we could have even someone like the former first lady, Michelle Obama, the former first lady of the United States, it is under this framework that she can say things like, "White people don't see me." And someone like LeBron James who could say that he is oppressed.

And quoting LeBron James not too long ago, he stated, and I quote, "No matter how much money you have, no matter how famous you are, no matter how many people admire you, being black in America is tough. We got a long way to go for us as a society and for us as African Americans until we feel equal in America." Now I want to say this, I am not saying that Michelle Obama has never experienced racism.

I'm not saying that. I am not saying that LeBron James has never experienced oppression. What I am saying, however, is that the former first lady, Michelle Obama, and LeBron James, and I happen to be an avid Lakers fan. I've been so since 1988. I was eight years old back then.

I'm dating myself, but I've been so since 1988. I'm actually quite thankful for LeBron James coming to LA and giving us another championship. At the very same time, these are two extremely privileged people who are adored by the masses. And when Michelle Obama stated in a podcast why people don't see me, and when LeBron James talked about how it's hard for him to be black in America, they're not talking about a past episode.

They're talking about within the current state that they are in. Contrast this with someone like Marcellus Wiley, again, who also happens to be black. Marcellus Wiley stated the following on his show, Speak for Yourself. It's a talk radio show in reference to the organization called Black Lives Matter. He stated this, and I quote, "In 2020, white supremacy is the mission." That's a lot of digging through minutia right there.

I'm on a show that I'm hosting along with another black guy who is hosting with me who replaced another black guy, and that's just one example of it. So I understand. I respect your space. I respect what you're protesting for, but will you respect others who do not support that same protest?

Marcellus Wiley was also disagreeing with the disruption of the nuclear family that the organization called BLM formally had on their page earlier in the same conversation I just quoted to you. In the example of someone who would be considered part of the oppressed category, but doesn't toe the line, again, Marcellus Wiley happens to be black, Marcellus Wiley would be typically canceled.

He would be canceled. Another example of this is Ice Cube. Ice Cube is not someone who is a Republican, or even likes Republicans. In fact, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that he hates the Republican Party. However, prior to the election, he had offered to work with the Democratic or Republican Party.

The Democratic Party chose not to work with him, stating that they would reach out to him after the 2020 presidential election, while the Republicans worked with him before. This came to light later, and when Ice Cube was asked why he was willing to work with Republicans, his simple reply was that he would be willing to work with any party that would be willing to advance the interests of the black community.

After that, if you know, the media began to shun Ice Cube, and Ice Cube was subsequently mocked on SNL. If you don't know who Ice Cube is, he is one of the founders of gangster rap, wrote songs vilifying the police, and was a vocal critic of the Republican Party, still is.

Ice Cube's only sin was being impartial for one moment in time. In my opinion, you're seeing the same phenomenon with Ellen DeGeneres, who happens to be a white female lesbian, and one of the first lesbians to come out in Hollywood. And you're also seeing this with JK Rowling, a white female feminist who just happened to draw the line when it came to transgenderism.

So going back to CRT, if the difference of opinion is based on lived experience and the withholding of certain ideologies, you could never question the validity of the other. Any pushback will be because of the lack of lived experience based on the markers of intersectionality. A white male could never stop being a white male, a black female could never stop being a black female, an Asian male could never stop being an Asian male, and so forth.

The other thing to point out is that in this framework, we are missing the doctrine of the depravity of man. We're missing that. How are we missing that? Within CRT, some are oppressed and some are the oppressor. Within CRT, some are depraved and some are enlightened. If you belong in the oppressor category, there is no forgiveness for you.

There is only going to be continual penance without absolution. So if you are in the oppressor category, you are depraved. If you are in the oppressed category, you are not depraved. And that's where the uniting of moral authority comes in. And that is why if you belong to the oppressor category, you have no credit to speak on justice or injustice issues.

This goes beyond weeping with those who weep. This goes beyond merely being sympathetic or considerate, which all people should be. All people should be. If you see someone in pain, the idea of being sympathetic towards another's pain is a directive that we should all follow, without a doubt. My point is, Critical Race Theory goes beyond merely weeping with those who weep.

Critical Race Theory is redefining what we see as objective morality. And because under this worldview, under this framework, we are seeking the liberation of the oppressed group, methods such as censoring, insulting, and humiliating are acceptable for the greater good. This is the same reason why we're afraid to post anything remotely controversial, anything remotely conservative.

We're even afraid to like such posts. However, if you belong in the oppressed category, there is room for you to post that and even insult other people who disagree with you. Now, I'm not saying that people who subscribe to being in the oppressed category have never been insulted. That is not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is if you look at the landscape of Hollywood, the media, and social media, that is absolutely true. Again, it doesn't mean that there aren't wingnuts on "the right." It doesn't mean that there aren't wingnuts from "the right" who insult other people. What I am speaking of, however, is the masses and when it comes to this idea of the silent majority, the silent majority, that's where it comes from.

Being against this worldview, being against critical race theory, it doesn't mean the following. I will not deal with this right now. Being against critical race theory does not mean you believe that racism does not exist. Racism clearly exists. It doesn't mean that you do not think sexism exists. Sexism clearly exists.

The same for misogyny, ageism, and every other ism. Being against critical race theory doesn't mean I do not believe discrimination in other forms and in every form does not exist. Clearly they exist. It also does not mean that you do not acknowledge the despicable institution of slavery that existed in American history or Jim Crow.

It doesn't mean that you don't acknowledge that. Clearly they existed, clearly it was despicable, and it was codified. Being against CRT does not mean that one has to assume everything I stated does not exist. In fact, under the doctrine of the depravity of man, we are not at all surprised that something so sinister could have actually been carried out.

The Bible states that all have sinned, that all fall short of the glory of God, that all of us are inherently broken. What I am saying, though, is that that is not the view that critical race theory, that CRT, adopts. Let me say that again, in CRT, the oppressed are enlightened.

The oppressed are enlightened, they are not depraved, while the oppressors must become enlightened and are depraved, but they will never truly be. The oppressors must become allies in order to engage independence, which is activism, but they will never receive true absolution. They can only continue in their penance endlessly in order to merit an acceptance by the oppressed.

Now you can see why this is so inherently dangerous for any society and also the church. You will never have unity if you constantly assume the worst of another person who looks and thinks differently than you. If you always assume the worst of a person, they will become the villain, and anything they do or everything they say, you will assume the worst, and that is not healthy.

That is not healthy, not only for the beholder, but also for the one that's being perceived. I want to park right here, just for a little bit. I'm hoping to devote an episode on what I'm about to say in the future by doing some book reviews on the subject, by amalgamating what on the surface might seem to be contradictory books but are really not.

I think there are some books out there that will give you a fuller view of not only American history in general, but American history as it relates to where we are today. So if I had to recommend a set of books to you, I would recommend to you Up From Slavery by Booker T.

Washington, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass, and/or My Bondage and My Freedom by Frederick Douglass, Strength to Love by MLK Jr., Letters from a Birmingham Jail by MLK Jr., The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein, Intellectuals and Race by Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell, Discrimination and Disparities by Thomas Sowell, and White Guilt by Shelby Steele.

There are other books out there, but I think if you do want to do a deep dive into American history as it relates to some of the issues that we're facing today, that would be my starter pack that I would recommend to you. To the extent that it matters to you, Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele are both black and as far as I know are not Christian.

Thomas Sowell is probably the greatest economist of our generation, maybe ever, and he is a scholar over at the Hoover Institute at Stanford. Shelby Steele is also an academician and has written considerably on race issues. Booker T. Washington and Frederick Douglass were both former slaves. Along with this, I would also highly recommend that if possible, you just build relationships with people maybe you normally wouldn't have a relationship with, even if it means being completely outside of your comfort zone.

People, after all, are not confined to merely books. People are not just a collection of facts. And let me say, seeing people merely as synthetic classifications like race, gender, sexuality, and the like has been much more harmful than beneficial. To put it bluntly another way and more specifically, and hopefully this doesn't surprise you, not all black people think alike, much in the same way that not all white people think alike, or all brown people think alike, or all Asian people think alike, or all men think alike, or all women think alike, or all young people think alike, or all old people think alike, or insert whatever classification you want to here.

Black people are not a monolith. And I know for many it is out of compassion that you want to act and formulate your ideas a certain way. But be careful that you do not infantilize any group of people or any other synthetic classification of people. I say this because in some conversations I can tell, again unintentionally, many are using black people and poor people interchangeably.

Now, it's nearly universally out of compassion, but nonetheless the equivocation is many times more harmful than you might see. Just because famous politicians state such derisory ideas does not make it so. If you do believe that, you've probably never been to Baldwin Hills, Ladera Heights, or Windsor Hills. Now, circling back, why is this dangerous for the church and society, in particular to the church?

It's dangerous because it is a worldview that will cause you to literally disobey God's commands. And that's the irony of it all. Out of compassion and a misguided notion to obey God, you end up disobeying God, and many times hurting the very people you are trying to help and/or others.

It's a compassion without knowledge. It's a zeal without sound doctrine. I want to take some time to illustrate that. We are not to bear false witness or report, right? We are not to bear false witness or report. Christians in particular shouldn't say, "Well, I don't care whose fault it really is.

I want to be kind and gracious, so I'm just going to blame cops. I don't care about the facts." Christians of all people should not be doing that. But how many times have we heard or seen on social media some form of wanting to stand in solidarity with a group of people?

So we'll hasten to blast our moral judgments without understanding the totality of what actually occurred, thereby contributing to the disinformation going out there. Somehow we think it is noble to have some sentiment of doing away with objective facts in order to, again, stand in solidarity. Don't get me wrong, like I said earlier, we should weep with those who weep, but we do not sacrifice truth in the process.

We should weep with those who weep, but we should not violate God's commands in the process. Love rejoices with the truth. Exodus 23, 1-2 states this, "You shall not bear a false report. Do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not follow the masses in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute." Exodus 20, 16, "You shall not bear a false witness against your neighbor." So in Exodus 23, 1-2, you are not to bear a false report.

You are not to join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. But if you rush to judgment without knowing all the facts, and you're wrong, isn't that exactly what you're doing? Exodus 23, 2, "You shall not follow the masses in doing evil. You shall not follow the masses in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude." Don't follow the masses, and do not follow the multitude in order to pervert justice.

And that happens digitally, and I understand, for many, it is simply out of compassion. But in particular, as Christians who have the Word of God, we should not sacrifice truth in order to accomplish some perceived noble end. "We are not to be partial to the great or to the poor." Leviticus 19, 15, "You shall do no injustice in judgment.

You shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly." Let me say that again. Leviticus 19, 15, "You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly." Imagine how passionate God is concerning partiality, that He would tell us not to even be partial to the poor.

You would think that if there's one group where we could be partial to, it would be to the poor. But God says in Leviticus 19, 15, that you are not to be partial even to the poor nor defer to the great. This is echoed in Deuteronomy 1, 16-18, "Then I charge your judges at the time, saying, 'Hear the cases between your fellow countrymen, and judge righteously between a man and his fellow countrymen, or the alien who is with him.' You shall not show partiality in judgment.

You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not fear men, for the judgment is God's. The case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it. I commanded you at that time all the things that you should do." We are to judge righteously.

Verse 17, "You shall not show partiality in judgment." Do not show partiality in judgment. Again in verse 17, "Do not fear man." Leviticus 19, 16 states that we are not to hate our countrymen. You shall not go about as a slanderer among your people, and you are not to act against the life of your neighbor.

I am the Lord. You are not to go about as a slanderer among your people. There's a lot of slandering now, isn't there? One half of the country is slandering the other half of the country. Because one person thinks differently than you, you slander them. Democrats hate Republicans. Republicans hate Democrats.

We hate each other. So right here in Leviticus 19, 16, God tells us to not go about as a slanderer among your people. You see how this worldview could cause us, out of compassion, to disobey God's word? Isn't that ironic? I'm going to go on here. Ezekiel 18, 19-20 says, "The son shall not bear the father's iniquity." Ezekiel 18, 19-20, "Yet you say, 'Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity?

When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all my statutes and done them, he shall surely live.' The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity. The righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself." How much of today's talk is exactly that?

The son bearing the iniquity of the father? How much of it is based on that? How much of our hatred within this country is based on what the father did? And what's interesting in Ezekiel 18, 19 is that even at that time, the mindset was to blame the father.

In verse 19 it says, "Yet you say, 'Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity? Why shouldn't he?'" That type of incorrect thinking is exactly what has got a hold of this entire country. The entire country is saying, and this worldview, CRT, is saying, "The son should bear the punishment for the father's iniquity." But God says, "When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all my statutes and done them, he shall surely live." So if you're black, white, yellow, red, brown, or whatever other color, whatever other gender, whatever else, what other synthetic classification that we group ourselves in, if you have observed all the statutes, he shall surely live.

The person who sins will die. That's what God says in Ezekiel 18, verse 20. We are also to forgive and love. We are also to forgive and love. Mark 11, 25, "Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions." Ephesians 4, 32, "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ has also forgiven you." But under this worldview, forgiveness is not high up on the list.

It is not high up on the list. What about elements of love? First Corinthians 13, 4-7, "Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous. Love does not brag, and is not arrogant. Does not act unbecomingly, does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth, bears all things, gives all things, hopes all things, endures all things." Are you bearing all things, believing all things, hoping all things, enduring all things if you automatically assume an action taken by another person is due to some evil intent?

If you automatically assume that, are you practicing love? Or are you taking into account a wrong suffered? Are we rejoicing with the truth if we say, "Screw the facts"? We're also to pray. We're also to pray for, love, and evangelize even to the hated in our society, Mark 2, 15.

"Notice even that he was reclining at the table in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners were dining with Jesus and his disciples. For there were many of them, and they were following him." In Christianity, we are not united against another race together. We are in fact one people.

Now, keep in mind here, when it talks about the sinners and the tax collectors, they were the hated in society, but they actually did commit transgressions. It's not as if the tax collectors and the sinners were completely innocent and society hated them. They in fact did commit wrongdoing, but for these people, there was no mechanism of forgiveness.

In the eyes of society at the time, it was okay to hate them and not extend forgiveness. Are there a group of people in our society that the culture says is okay to hate, and we just go along with it out of pressure to conform? I'm going to say something controversial here to make my point.

If you're a Christian and you're listening to this, and most of you listening to this are Christian, if not everyone, Derek Chauvin, the cop who put his knee on George Floyd, who should be prosecuted for what he did, who should receive justice, and by justice, I mean a guilty conviction.

He should. But let me ask you, anyone praying for him? Anyone praying for him? According to the Bible, shouldn't we be praying for people like him who committed a grievous wrong, who should go through the criminal justice system, who should receive a conviction for his crimes, but even someone like him, shouldn't we be praying that he comes to know God, that he comes to know our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?

You know what else illustrates this, and as I'm just kind of speaking into the mic, it comes to mind? Amber Geiger. She was the female cop. Amber Geiger walked in on someone else's apartment, thinking it's her own, shot and killed a black man. His brother, his brother at the sentencing, told Amber Geiger, who's a white female cop, "I forgive you.

I forgive you." This was the younger brother. "I forgive you. I forgive you." And then he went and he hugged her. And people were criticizing him for not continuing to hate on Amber Geiger. Now if I was the brother, if I were him, and I continued to hate on Amber Geiger, I don't think anyone can blame me.

I wouldn't blame him if he just continued to hate on Amber Geiger. I wouldn't say, "Oh my gosh, what's wrong with that guy?" I would understand. I would completely understand having a brother myself. At the very same time, I am incredibly encouraged, uplifted and fed by that man's actions.

And he told her that he was able to forgive because of the power he has in Jesus Christ. I was blown away by that. I was extremely blown away by that. And I want to get you his name. I have to type it in. It was Botham Jean was the victim.

And the brother was Brandt Jean, B-R-A-N-T-T, Jean, J-E-A-N. I was blown away by what Brandt Jean did. So I want to say this. I want to say this. Luke 5:32, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Just like the tax collector who couldn't even look up to heaven versus the religious priest who inwardly said, "I am so thankful that I am not like the other." It was the tax collector who went home justified.

Colossians 1 19-22 says this, "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross, through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless beyond reproach." When we are reconciled to God, we are reconciled to each other.

And it was Daryl Harrison, Virgil Walker, Monique Dusson over at the Center for Biblical Unity, Daryl Harrison and Virgil Walker over at the Just Thinking Podcast. Races do not reconcile, hearts do. Races do not reconcile, hearts do. Colossians 2 8-9 "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit.

According to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ, for in Him all fullness of the deity dwells in bodily form, we are not to be captive to godless ideologies. We are not to be captive to the world's philosophy. We are not to be captive to every new wind of doctrine or every new phenomenon.

We are not. We are not to lose sight of the gospel. We're not to be in just some state of being. We are to magnify the hope of mankind through the gospel. Our good works should adorn our message and not silence it." I bring this up because one thing I've noticed embedded in the secular social justice movement, along with many others, is that it is completely anti-Christ in nature.

If you don't believe me, try going to a rally and sharing the gospel, telling people you're a Christian. Try doing that. Test to see how well received your message will be. I'm not sure if you've seen the clip of a group of protesters in DC, but there are a group of white BLM protesters who invade a diner, and there are patrons outside of this diner, and these white BLM protesters begin shouting in the face of a female patron who is eating outside.

They are trying by force to have her raise her hand in solidarity with them, but she is politely refusing to do so, but they're getting pretty violent. They're not hurting her, but they are shouting at the top of her lungs, surrounding her, and there are maybe 50 of them surrounding her, shouting at her, where her own voice is being drowned out.

The ironic thing is, a week prior to that, she was marching for their cause, and inexplicably, she would later state that even though she agreed with their cause and their ideology, in general, she couldn't bring herself to raise her fist in that moment because she was being forced to.

In that moment, she just knew it was wrong. So in any case, as she's refusing to raise her fist politely, one of the white female BLM protesters shouts in her face, "Are you a Christian?" Let me tell you, that is not coincidental. That is not coincidental. If you don't believe me, go ahead to a search engine and you'll find that clip.

Anything, any worldview, any phenomenon that takes you away from Matthew 28, 19 to 20, if it takes you away from that, shouldn't it give you some pause? Matthew 28, 19 to 20, "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.

And lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." That was the last thing our Lord stated before He ascended. Perhaps we should give it its proper weight. Perhaps we should give it its proper weight. Thanks for making it to the end. I'll continue to try to make the journey worth it.

To Him be honor, glory, and eternal dominion. James Longout. (upbeat music)