Should The Gospel Coalition acknowledge its pedophilia problem? If the answer is no, why not? What if their parents were child molesters? What criterion should we use to decide that members of the organization are not responsible for a family history of pedophilia? This question applies not only to TGC, but to every pastor and congregant who has advocated for those living now to atone for their forebears’ racism.

Even if they each have their flaws, there isn’t much to say about the debate participants. Demars isn’t a believer in wokeness, but he is oblivious to the harmful depths to which it has entered the Church. McLaughlin’s presence, on the other hand, is a clear indication of TGC’s current feelings.

The list of mistakes made by both participants (and the moderator) is long and well worth the time it takes to correct them. Yes, they could have sincerely believed in the thoughts they expressed. They may have genuinely meant to influence both their counterparts and the audience. However, the most essential takeaway from their appearance is that they were irrelevant. They (and anything they had to say) had no bearing. We must turn to the ringleader of this carnival for the truly culpable person here. The Gospel Coalition as a whole.

It could be a long time before a rational theory explains how TGC’s credibility problems arose in recent years. It’s been fascinating to watch as one mistaken step led to another. This sham of a debate will not suffice to address that. It’s difficult to suppose an open and honest debate will ever take place with this group, but at the very least, the ideas they allow to circulate require an unfiltered reaction. And the best reaction to TGC must be an unequivocal and uncompromising declaration of what is true in the woke debates, as well as a categorical rejection of what is untrue.

This is necessary so that TGC is aware of the argument and what has to be addressed. Not caricature sideshows with sweet sounding qualifiers like “good faith” put on them and hoisted up to pass for a debate. So, without further ado…

“All men have sinned,” according to the context. It is not a catch-all for some aggrieved group to place arbitrary responsibility on someone else without regard for their acts, culpability, or behavior. This is never taught in the Bible. It is not a declaration that you are guilty of a specific wrongdoing simply because a significant portion of society is affected by recollections of it. To even hint that it does is to deceive. There isn’t a single woke “pastor” or “Christian” today (including McLaughlin) who instructs their flock to “admit” to “inherent pedophilia,” for example. They don’t believe in it, and using it in a race discussion when they wouldn’t use it in a pedophilia discussion exposes their own deception.

Second, progressivism has a tendency to reduce the description of its principles to the most hazy of concepts. So it’s no wonder that McLaughlin uses this ruse to claim that woke-ism (as it’s popularly understood) merely means “to be aware” of racism and its historical ramifications. It makes it seem like being woke simply means being aware of a problem. It assumes that woke-ism requires nothing more of you, particularly in terms of what you must become in order to appease it. This is the same ruse used by socialists when they claim that socialism simply means “when people help other people.” The idea that we are unaware of racism in America is actually very amusing in a society known for its obsessive discourse on race.

Thirdly, it goes against biblical teachings that you have some responsibility to atone for your parents’ misdeeds. It’s critical to break down what this looks like here. Every Christian is a Christian because he was once a sinner who was redeemed by grace and sanctified to live the life that now leads him closer to a God who is genuinely Lord and in whose image he must seek to live. It is a deception to believe that once you have gone through the process of salvation and sanctification, your next responsibility is to go back and repeat the procedure for the sins of your father, mother, great auntie, or second cousin twice removed, and so on. It is not only outrageously unbiblical, but also irritatingly ridiculous. That is blood guilt. And to be blunt, blood guilt is a gutter trash worldview.

Lastly, accusations against anyone must be accompanied by a rigorous exercise in providing detail. Accusations do not have merit just because it is possible to throw them up in the air and hope that some superhuman force will instill their legitimacy in man’s heart. TGC must repent where they have permitted (and in some cases, made) accusations of racism at the church without providing a comprehensive explanation. If they refuse to repent, they should grow a backbone, enter the arena, and defend themselves.

I’m almost positive there are other ways to expand on this list. I’m not claiming to be the best source of information on this subject. It’s simply that at some point, I don’t want to wait till I have some kind of competence or articulation on the subject. Particularly because none are required. This acceptance of an un-Christian mindset by a Christian body must be questioned. Anyone who is aware of its existence should challenge it.

In the end, when sin and virtue are practiced collectively within any tribe, they have weight. That much is certain. That, however, makes no difference to God’s demands on the individual. You appear before God at the judgment seat to give an account for your life. For the sake of your father’s life, no. It is for your own virtue that you will be rewarded in the end. It is your own sin that will condemn you in the end. As firmly as we teach that God has no grandchildren, we must also acknowledge that the devil has none.