In this first part on this discussion on racism, I began by emphasizing what unites Christians. If you haven't read that post, then I encourage you to do so before reading this one. I highlighted three major beliefs that all Christians (particularly evangelicals) share:
The Gospel of Jesus Christ
The Importance of Scripture
The Centrality of Love in the Christian Way of Life
These three core beliefs, I contend, form the presuppositions by which we should interpret racism and how to respond to it. Of course, in our current cultural climate, words such as "race," "racism," "justice," and the like are being thrown around a lot. If we are to respond to something, then we must understand what it is. For this second part, I will attempt to answer four main questions:
What is race?
What is racism?
Should we be surprised by racism?
How should we respond to racism?
As I discuss each of these questions, I will inevitably compare what I think is the Christian's proper response to these things with the world's response, which, as we see in Portland, Oregon as well as other major cities in this country, seems to involve substantively more violence and destruction than one might expect, if one were trying to strive for a better world and country. This response of groups such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa has its own underpinning in a set of presuppositions, and these presuppositions are false. Again, see my post on critical theory for that discussion. Overall, however, I want to focus on how Christians can respond with the light of the gospel and Jesus Christ. I hope to make abundantly clear that for Christian, teachings such as is being propagated by the media and these groups is not welcome. We ought not to tolerate these ideas in our churches.
What is race?
In the United States, most people, if they were to see me standing beside a person of a darker hue of skin, would call that person black and me white. If not black and white, then perhaps they would call me Caucasian and the darker person African-American. The person of a yellower hue is Asian-American, of the light brown hue Hispanic. Why is this way of categorizing human beings so commonplace? We tend to categorize people this way without question. It's the way that we learned to categorize people, via differences in physical characteristics, from our childhoods until now. Why is that?
It probably wouldn't surprise many to learn that the concept of race has a history going back hundreds of years. We all know about the American Civil War. Yet it may surprise readers to learn that the concept goes back only a few hundred years, originating in the 17th century. Race, as we've come to understand it today, is a modern concept. Prior to the advent of modern natural philosophy, influenced as it was by the Enlightenment, people did not think in terms of racial differences between people. Even early examples of so-called "proto-racism" were undergirded by the notion that differences in physical characteristics can and do indicate cultural and religious differences.
So what is that modern concept? According to Michael James and Adam Burgos in their article on race in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, this concept has historically involved dividing humanity into distinct groups based on five criteria:
Races reflect differences in biological foundation, or essences, between different racial groups (i.e., racial essentialism).
Biological foundation generates discrete social groupings, such that members of one race share characteristics with each other not shared by members of another race.
Biological foundation is inherited, such that one's race is traceable through ancestry and genealogy.
Genealogical investigation reveals the geographic origin of the races.
Inherited biological foundation manifests itself in physical (e.g., skin color, eye shape, etc.) and sometimes behavioral phenotypes (e.g., intelligence or delinquency).
To summarize, the concept of race has historically been a taxonomic concept, a way of "scientifically" categorizing human beings and tracing their origins. Because of this, it was believed that perceived differences in the capacities of those with different physical characteristics was attributable to differences in race. Things like lesser intellectual capacity, a greater affinity for submission, and laziness were considered to be factors of one's inherited essence and were therefore unchangeable, a concept that James and Burgos call "deterministic biology." That is, one's capacities were determined by one's biology.
Among scholars, it is believed that the first explicit example of this concept can be found in an essay called "A New Division of the Earth" (1684), written by the French physician Francois Bernier (1625-1688). In this essay, Bernier divides the human race into four different "Types of Race," with each type distinguished from the other on the basis of differences in physical characteristics that, according to Bernier, could not be attributed to differences in geography or environment but rather to differences in the blood and sperm.
Eventually, debates about race mainly centered around a debate between two competing views of human origin: polygenesis and monogenesis. Polygenists believed that humans had emerged from distinct ancestral roots. Monogenists believed that all human beings had descended from a common ancestor, either because of a belief in the story of Genesis in the Bible or because of a small human population located in one area such as the African continent. With the popularity of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859), with its theory of common descent, the debate fizzled out in favor of the monogenists.
So the monogenists, even if they were not Christians, still held that all races were nonetheless human beings, as opposed to different species altogether, yet they still tended toward racial essentialism. A clear example of this can be found in Immanuel Kant's essay "Of the Different Human Races" (1775, revised in 1777), in which he affirms monogenesis and attributes racial difference to environmental and geographical differences while, at the same time, claiming that these environmental and geographical differences have a kind of deterministic effect on these races. Therefore, he curiously affirms that the appearance of the "Negro" is due to environment and geography and yet, at the same time, affirms that this environment has made him "lazy, indolent, and dawdling."
In summary, the modern historical concept of race attributes perceived differences in physical and behavioral characteristics to differences in race. Because of this, there is an assumed concept of "deterministic biology," according to which one's biology determines one's capacity. It is not surprising, then, that during the period of colonization of the New World by the West, this philosophy was used to justify the subjugation of indigenous peoples to hundreds of years of slavery and injustice. Practically no one, accept for the odd white supremacist (in the usual sense of the word) and perhaps Nick Cannon, believe this anymore, and for good reason.
What should Christians think of this historic concept of race? It is clear that this concept has had great impact on American history, and not for good. Remember the second belief out of the three that we have discussed: the importance of Scripture. Let's take this concept of race and subject it to biblical truth.
In Genesis 1, we read about God creating everything that exists. Everything is His creation, and as His creation, it is good. After creating human beings, He says that His creation is very good. Humans have a unique place before God because they have been made uniquely in His image. We read in Genesis 1:27 (NASB):
"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
God created Adam and Eve, and all people living today are descendants of Adam and Eve, equally made in His image. In this sense, we can affirm monogenesis. As image-bearers, our stature before God is equal and our value equal, and that image is to be respected out of reverence for the Creator. Differences in physical characteristics make no difference whatsoever. So to deny one's stature and value before God as an image-bearer and justify mistreatment, discrimination, and prejudice on that basis is a grievous sin before God. American slavery, in its ties with this modern concept of race, was rotten to the core and had to go. Virtually no American today disagrees with this.
There is, then, a fundamental equality of all human beings with one another as image-bearers before God. To point to differences in physical characteristics and then argue for an essential inferiority of some people is a grievous sin before God, a denial of the imago dei. Christians should emphatically reject it and work to rid themselves of biases that might come from continuing to think in these terms (what critical theorists will call "implicit bias").
In this sense, the Christian can agree with the critical race theorists who claims that there is nothing objectively real about race. Critical race theorists espouse this notion that race is a social construct. It is not real in an objective or biological sense, but it is real in the sense that societies construct these concepts and individuals within these societies internalize them. Therefore, even if I don't see myself as white, my neighbor may see me as white and think of me in a certain way because of that. The same goes for any hue of color. Again, there is some legitimacy to this claim, I think. We can affirm that race is not real in that objective sense and even that the way in which societies construct these ideas can have an effect on how we think, but I'd want to emphasize what Scripture says in order to change those societal ideas. Therefore, even if I am seen by my society as white (and therefore, in this cultural moment, as privileged and racist), I refuse to believe this about myself. The category, as a result of modern western philosophy, is not recognized by Scripture and is therefore not part of the Christian worldview.
Some will argue at this point that I'm espousing something called "colorblindness," a refusal to see one's skin color and how it contributes to one's status in society. I reject this accusation. Clearly, one's skin color can and has affected how one is treated in society. However, I refuse to believe that there is an essential difference between me and my darker brothers and sisters in Christ. I refuse to believe that my darker brothers and sisters in Christ have some access to truth about how to serve the Lord that is unavailable to me because of the color of my skin. I refuse to believe that this difference in skin color makes any difference as to how I should see my brothers and sisters and love them as Jesus loves them. And I refuse to believe that my skin color bears any significance with regard to how I worship my God in heaven. The Bible doesn't need critical race theory to judge it. Actually, it's quite the other way around. I refuse to believe that I need some external worldview espoused by those who deny Jesus' name to tell me how to serve the Lord. Christians need to grasp this more firmly. If someone who already denies His name tries to tell you how to serve Jesus, ignore that person. Jesus and His Scriptures are your standard, not someone who isn't His anyway.
That doesn't entail that we shouldn't recognize skin color. In fact, we should celebrate it as part of God's good creation. Humanity is a multicolored and multifaceted tapestry that God has created to love Him and others, and the Church should recognize that beauty without fixating upon it. It is a wonderful and good thing, but it is not everything. By placing differences in physical characteristics, which are real, in their proper place and worshiping the God who created them, we recognize skin color while remaining faithful to Scripture.
What is racism?
As with race, the word racism is thrown around all the time without definition in our current cultural climate. If we're to believe those who espouse critical race theory, anything and everything, from individuals to certain Judeo-Christian values, are racist and need to be dismantled in pursuit of racial justice. So what is this sin, for which there is seemingly no forgiveness in our culture?
Historically, racism has been defined by the espousal of classical race theory. In other words, racism has been thought to involve the belief that, because of some inborn nature of race, certain people were inferior to others. Generally speaking, it was thought that non-whites were inferior to whites. This prejudice against another group, because of the color of their skin, is considered racism under this more historical definition. For instance, the Merriam-Webster dictionary has defined racism as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." When this belief is acted upon, then you could see why it would lead to prejudicial actions against that "inferior" group, including mistreatment and discrimination.
Because of the influence of critical theory, however, with its Marxist roots, many are now questioning whether we should think of racism in this way. The Merriam-Webster dictionary has incorporated into its definition the new definition, now espoused by critical race theorists, which defines racism as "a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles" or "a political or social system founded on racism." Notice the subtle movement from defining racism in terms of the beliefs of an individual to defining racism in terms of a political system. No longer is racism defined as a moral flaw in the individual; now it is thought to be a property or characteristic of a whole society, endemic to how the society as a whole is built. This is what is meant by the term "systemic racism."
This movement from racism in its historical sense to systemic racism has radically transformed race relations in the United States. It is built on this notion that blacks in the United States are a class distinct from whites and that whites uniquely benefit from systemic racism, whereas blacks are negatively affected (i.e., white privilege). Because of this, it does not matter whether or not any individual is racist. Since the system as a whole is racist, blacks (and non-whites generally) are harmed by it, and therefore, we must tear down the whole system in order to end this harm. So you can see that how we define racism radically changes how we respond to it.
So which is right? Is racism an individual problem, or is it the system? This, I think, is a false dichotomy. That is, the question makes it seem like there are only two options and couldn't be both or a third option. In this case, I think that Christians could grant elements of both options. The issue isn't an either/or, but it has to do with emphasis. Let me explain.
Is sin primarily an individual issue, or is it endemic to a system? If we're discussing which comes first or which is primary, then the biblical answer would seem to be that sin is an individual issue. Romans 3:23 says that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Sin corrupts the heart, out of which we are motivated to commit heinous deeds. In Matthew 15:18-20, Jesus says (NASB):
"'But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.'"
Jeremiah 17:9-10 reflect this when it says (NASB):
"The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it? I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds."
The Lord cares deeply by the heart and judges the heart, knowing that from it come good and evil deeds.
At this point, one might say, "Yes, but obviously a system itself can be unjust." Absolutely true. One of the biggest problems in the major prophets involves the officials in the cities using their power to steal from the poor and widows. Many times in Israel, worship of idols had been established by the king. Injustice is often a product of a system in which those with power subjugate those without it, yet still our Lord emphasizes the heart. Why? The answer is almost too simple to bring up: sinful people build kingdoms. In any political system run by sinful human beings, there is always the danger that power will be used not for the good of people but to harm and manipulate them. When Israel fell into sin (as it did many times), very often the Lord's response was to establish a good king, a man who was near to Him and loved Him and would follow His statutes. This is why David is chosen over his more able brothers, because the Lord searches the heart (see 1 Samuel 16).
The problem for critical race theory is that it not only defines the problem badly but then responds to it badly, since, from the ground up, it espouses a false set of presuppositions from the beginning. Because of Marx, critical race theorists believe that the system will change the individual. This is why the Left tolerates and even supports destructive and deadly riots, since they are seen as a result of the unjust system. But Scripture supports exactly the opposite. Only by changing individuals will you change the system.
The primary problem of racism is a problem of the heart. We look at those who don't look like us as "other" when God has created all of us in His image to love Him and love neighbor. Critical race theory simply presents that same division under the façade of racial justice and justifies the sinful hearts of sinful people by blaming their sin on a system that they can attack with vitriol. All the while, sin is heaped on sin, and people in their depravity call this progress. Brothers and sisters in Christ, not us. Let's present what it means to be truly transformed to a culture that yearns for unity but cannot achieve it.
So racism, as with every sin, is primarily an issue of the heart. That does not entail that sin cannot be codified in law, as has often happened in American history. But it will change how we respond to racism, including those instances of codification.
Should we be surprised by racism?
I included this question after reflecting on the vast cultural focus on racism in the past couple of months. I remember when, not too long ago, many evangelicals were wrestling with how the Church had treated those who identify as homosexual. The overwhelming critique was that the Church had treated homosexuality as the sin, while failing to focus on sexual sin in every form. For this reason, those who struggled with unwanted sexual attraction to members of the same sex, even as they identified as Christians, often felt singled out and stigmatized within their own churches, which prevented them from going to their pastors and other brothers and sisters to receive healing and transformation.
I bring this up because, as I reflect on those criticisms, it occurs to me that homosexuality had been stigmatized in the 1980's and 1990's, particularly during the AIDS crisis. Stigmatization coming from the culture is often very sinful and nasty, involving hatred and mistreatment. Is it possible that the stigmatization in the culture had made its way into the Church? Many evangelicals have responded to this critique by giving up the idea that homosexual sexual acts are sinful and condemned in Scripture, which is a mistake. But it also seems to me that to stigmatize one sin as particularly egregious is also a mistake. If we consider sexual sin alone, it seems like pornography is a much larger problem in the Church, and it's flying largely under the radar. All sin is evil in God's sight, and the Church should, with love and conviction, seek to purify herself in preparation for the return of Christ.
Homosexuality is an example of a sin that, though particularly stigmatized at one point, is now celebrated in the culture. But what would happen today if a Christian, assuming he is born-again and not merely professing faith, were to join a church in the United States and it were to be revealed that he harbors hatred in his heart for those of another skin color? How would the congregation handle that? How about the pastor? What if, God forbid, this were to become public on social media? Is the sin of racism now stigmatized in our culture?
Let me be very clear. It is just as wrong for a church to ignore sin as it is for a church to act as if an individual sin is the worst one could ever commit. We should seek to bring correction to every sin that we commit with humility, love, and reverence for the Lord. Yet I worry that rejection, rather than correction, is in the racist's future in the American church. Outside pressure to separate oneself from any accusation of racism (with all of its cultural consequences) may well push those who struggle with these biases, even in an unwanted way, out the door of the Church. If this happens, it will be tragic, since the Church was always meant to be a place of healing and sanctification for those seeking the Lord's face together.
I became a follower of Christ in the ninth grade and attended high school in a small rural public high school in the South. I knew people who identified as homosexual, and I knew people who were explicitly racist. I heard more instances of the "N" word in high school than I'd care to recollect. Yet no particular sin, either sexual or racial, surprised me, since the Scriptures tell us that all of humanity is sinful. When I read the Scriptures and then go about my daily life-in school, at work, at the grocery store, etc.-I expect to encounter sinful people. Why would I be surprised by any particular sin? In my experience in campus ministry, men have confessed various sins to me, and it is a comfort, I hope, for them to know that they're not alone and that there is hope for transformation in Christ. Because all of us are sinful people, none of us are incapable of anything. That is a humbling thought, even when I meet someone who commits sins that I've never committed. So what? I could have committed those sins.
I am willing to confess that I've harbored sinful thoughts about people of a different skin color before. I do not like that I have, but I'm also not sure that anyone hasn't in this culture. God has forgiven me of those sinful thoughts because of the blood of Jesus Christ given on my behalf, and I have been sanctified by looking to Scripture to tell me about the imago dei, and therefore the inherent value, of all people equally. Scripture and the Holy Spirit, not critical race theory, has transformed how I see others.
Finally, racism is not particularly special inasmuch as what it is. That is, it is simply a particular manifestation of tribalism. Ever hated someone because of their nationality? Ethnic background? Their favorite football team? Whenever people divide and hate over secondary and unimportant attributes that say nothing about their status as image-bearing persons, death and destruction are the result. That is not a result of modern natural philosophy. Just look at Cain and Abel. So, whereas it may be hard to find instances of racism in Scripture, instances of the kind of hatred that racism represents abound in Scripture. As with every sin, this is a result of the Fall, and it will be destroyed under the judgment seat of Jesus our Lord.
How should we respond to racism?
Finally, the answer to this question follows from everything I have discussed in the first part as well as everything up to this point in the second part. Once we have defined the presuppositions important to the Christian worldview, we must then define race. Once we have defined race, then we must define the problem of racism. Now that we've defined racism within the proper context of the universality of human depravity, how should we respond to racism?
It seems to me that we have to avoid two positions that, though they differ, share in some of their assumptions and logical consequences. On the one hand is "deterministic biology," which is the term James and Burgos use to describe the view that one's biology determines one's capacities and behavior. This is the historical view of race, which is by far out of favor in our culture. On the other hand is what I will call "deterministic sociology," which is the view of critical race theory that one's socio-cultural position determines one's capacities and behavior. This view divorces moral acts from personal responsibility, thereby justifying sin and maligning what God calls good. Deterministic sociology is also just as divisive for the Body of Christ, since it sees race not as objective or biological but still just as real and determinative for how one is to view others based on the color of their skin.
So we need to avoid deterministic biology on the one hand and deterministic sociology on the other. How, then, should Christians think of race? Here, I think that we can affirm two convictions. First, we need to recognize that Scripture does not recognize racial difference or division and, as such, the Church should not divide over race. We are one in Christ. Second, instead of being "colorblind," the Church can celebrate physical differences, such as differences in skin color, which are part of God's creation and therefore good.
What about instances of racism? Critical race theorists tend to support the worldview by pointing to instances of perceived racial bias or disparity. Remember that the central claim of critical race theory, however, is that racism is primarily a property of an unjust system, not a moral flaw in an individual. In the first part of this post, I stated that my goal is to supply the right presuppositions by which we can interpret race and instances of racism. Critical race theory supplies presuppositions of its own, but these presuppositions are false. Because of this, the claims of critical race theory, which undergird the worldview, form an interpretive framework by which critical race theorists interpret perceived instances of injustice. Because of this, no particular instance of injustice can provide evidence for the claims of the worldview, since this would be question-begging, or arguing in a circle. I plan to explain this in more detail in an upcoming post, but be that as it may, because of this, critical race theorists are mistaken in pointing at policies such as redlining in support of the claim that American society is built on systemic racism and white supremacy.
If I am right about this, then I think that this puts the Christian in a very good position with respect to the culture. Clearly, people suffer from wrongs done to them because of their physical characteristics, such as the color of their skin. I have plenty of friends who have told me their stories. When I hear these stories, I am saddened and angered by the sin in the wrongdoer's heart; sin is destructive and deadly and will always do what it can to violate God's image in a person. Yet I also understand that this is both not a surprise, given the fallen world in which we live, and that the answer to this grievous sin before God is the gospel of Jesus Christ, both for the wrongdoer and for the wronged.
Why emphasize that the answer of the gospel is there for both the wrongdoer and the wronged? When we are made alive in Christ Jesus by His atoning death, we understand that we could never be wronged more than we have wronged Jesus. Therefore, while I want to "weep with those who weep" (Romans 12:15), I also want to remind my brother or sister that the debt owed to him or her pales in comparison to the debt forgiven by his or her Savior (Matthew 18:23-35). The gospel frees the wronged to love and forgive the wrongdoer and to desire his or her salvation! It also reminds the wronged not to return evil for evil, but with a blessing instead (1 Peter 3:8-9). It reminds the wronged to love his or her enemy and pray for him or her (Matthew 5:43-45). So many Christians have decided to instead respond to injustice by adopting the tactics of the lost, which involve heaping evil upon evil and destruction upon destruction. If that is you, repent now and pray for mercy and forgiveness and remind yourself who your Lord is, what He has done for you, and what He calls you to.
The wronged also need the gospel in order to heal. You were called derogatory names. You were insulted. Your dignity was denied. But what that person said is not true, and God has told you who you are, that you are His child and that you have been redeemed for the work of His Kingdom. Leave vengeance to God (Romans 12:19) and pray for that person.
At the same time, the gospel provides hope for the wrongdoer. Come on, brothers and sisters! Neo-Nazis need Jesus, too. White supremacists are no different from you and me. We are all sinners before a just and holy God, and had it not been for His grace given freely to you and me, we would have been doomed, and rightfully so, to eternal punishment. If you resent that comparison, then perhaps you are guilty of self-righteousness. My hope is that the gospel can be offered with love to the white supremacist, not some political platform!
So the gospel allows us both to weep with those who weep and to rightly interpret sinful acts as sinful so as to avoid the false presuppositions of critical race theory. Because of that, we need to recognize that not all claims of racially motivated mistreatment are valid. The God of Scripture does not tell us to believe the one who claims to be wronged no matter what. We are to judge on the basis of two or more witnesses or lines of evidence (Deuteronomy 19:15). And let's remember and be sober about the fact that to claim wrongdoing or evil motivations where there is no evidence is itself a sin, a violation of the commandment not to bear false witness (Exodus 20:16). Let's be discerning and wise about this.
Within the Church, let's recognize anew our unity in Christ. We are one body with many parts. God's will is to bring together men and women from every tribe and every nation (Matthew 28:16-20), and that means of every color and physical characteristic, too. Only the gospel can obliterate social boundaries and unite people who were once in enmity against each other (Ephesians 2:11-22). The idea that there should be racial division, even and especially in the name of "racial justice," within the Body of Christ is absurd. Brothers and sisters, refuse to be told by a lost and dying world how to worship our Lord. Refuse to be divided by a "hollow and deceptive philosophy" (Colossians 2:8). Tenuous unity is not enough. Make explicit what unites us and stand firm (Ephesians 6:10-20).
And make no mistake. The culture won't like this because, if we live this out, we won't look like the culture. Let me remind you of Jesus' promise to His disciples in John 15:18-25 (NASB):
"'If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, "A slave is not greater than his master." If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well. But they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their Law, "They hated Me without a cause."'"
Likewise, Paul teaches the same in 2 Timothy 3:12-13 (NASB):
"Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived."
Rejoice, brother and sister! You are God's child! So they'll hate us. But we have the truth and hope for a dying world. So don't be surprised but rather encouraged. When we live joyfully in His will, people will be attracted, but others will hate us. I have no doubt that some will read this and be moved to anger and hatred. Please, reflect on that and on the gospel on which my words are, I pray, based. But I won't be bothered by it, by God's grace. He has called us to it and will be with us through it.
That is it for this post! Though it is long, I hope that brothers and sisters, as well as those who don't believe in Christ, will read it and be edified by it. This has been the result of a few months now of deep reflection and prayer, as well as research. I am motivated by love for my brothers and sisters and for the Lord. I believe that critical theory is the apologetic issue of our day. I believe that God has called me (and many others) to be defenders of the truth, and this is one form of that battle that has raged for the entire history of the church. I am humbled by the thought that God gives me, sinner that I am, this privilege to serve Him.
Please share this post with others and discuss it. I believe that content like this (and there's much more to come) will be vital in the coming years for the well-being of the Church. If you agree, please get the word out and be willing to combat this yourself. Hopefully, my content will aid in that, with the small amount of impact that God has given me. If you disagree, I welcome discussion conducted with love. Feel free to subscribe to Holistic Apologetics and comment here, or you can reach out to me on Facebook or by email. Thanks for reading!