and campaign – Protestia

AND Campaign Leader Says White Churches Who Don’t Want to Pay Racial Reparations are Arguing With God

Justin Giboney is the founder of the AND Campaign, a wishy-washy organization that seeks to strike a middle ground between the democrats and republicans by always leaning toward the former, as well as a prominent The Gospel Coalition (TGC) contributor.

In a talk with David French as part of the Good Faith podcast, Giboney says that all white Christian churches owe racial reparations, even new ones who weren’t directly involved with it or who have no history with it, and that anyone who suggests otherwise is just trying to get off on a ‘technicality.’

French: The Protestant church in the US is just a whole bunch of brand new institutions, right? You’ve got all kinds of non-denominational churches that have sprung up in storefronts, for example. They have a history, but it might be to 2011, you know, that particular church? What do you say to a lot of these much newer Christian institutions? There’s all kinds of them in an evangelical spaces that have exploded and grown up since the end of slavery, since the end of Jim Crow. And they’re gonna look at you and say, ‘Justin, what are you talking about? We, my institution that I had, I’m a part of, had nothing to do with it. I have had nothing to do with it. Yet. This institutional analysis doesn’t make any sense to me, because we’re not at a seminary that benefited from slavery. We’re a church that started with 23 people and an old, you know, an old 7/11 building 15 years ago, what do you say to us along those lines?”

Giboney: I would say that you’re part of a culture and institutions that have benefited in general, right? So you know, whenever we look at sin, whenever we look at Christian ethics, you got to look at the spirit of it. Because if we want to get out of something, if we want to be overly technical and be lawyers, like you and I are, we can do that. I wouldn’t do that with God, though.

And I think if you really look at the spirit of, honesty, if you really look at the spirit of what the ethic is saying, have I in direct or indirect ways had a benefit? And even if I didn’t, have somebody been, has something been taken from somebody? What is my responsibility? So yeah, we can get technical, we can say, well, you know, ‘if you look at this, we didn’t exactly you know, we weren’t the ones, we shut this organization down and started something new’.

Yeah, but the benefits of that old institutions still flow in one way or another to the new institutions, right? Even if it isn’t a line item in the budget, right? There’s still ways that that flow from one of the other.

So you got to look at the spirit of it, and Christians know that in other in other spaces, we know that in other situations, but we want to get very technical and just find ways to get out of it. You can convince yourself with that. I would be worried that you could convince God that. And so we need to look at a little bit different

The And Campaign's Justin Giboney says American churches, even if they were formed as late as 2011, should still calculate how much they owe in racial reparations, because "benefits" from a hypothetical "old institution still flow, in one way or another, to the new institutions." pic.twitter.com/h30oSZcB5e
— Woke Preacher Clips (@WokePreacherTV) August 3, 2022

Former ‘AND Campaign’ Chief Strategist Proposes Act of Congress to Make Abortion Federally Legal

Former AND Campaign chief strategist Michael Wear, a progressive Democrat activist who was President Obama’s campaign strategist and who has been featured on The Gospel Coalition and written for the ERLC, has written an article titled “This is How To End Abortion Politics as We’ve Known It”

In the post, he suggests that in light of the toxicity from Roe v. Wade being overturned (after 50 years and with 63 million babies dead) a compromise is in order to keep the Republic from killing each other, noting: “What would be healthier for our politics is for Congress to ask the extremes to accept something they don’t like, as a change from the current tact of asking the majority in the middle to choose between two extremes.”

The law hasn’t been overturned for two weeks, and already Wear is suggesting a “sustainable compromise” on the ability of states to make baby butchery the law of the land again, proposing:

“… a federal ban on abortion post-viability with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest (the ceiling); the legalization of abortion up to a certain early-stage in a pregnancy (somewhere, perhaps, between eight-fifteen weeks, depending on the makeup of the coalition to support such a bill; the floor); the codification of the Hyde Amendment; the codification of robust conscience clause protections; a prohibition of federal laws overriding state restrictions on abortion as proposed by the WHPA; and a mandate that states ensure reasonable access to a safe abortion provider.”

Put another way, the leader of the supposedly pro-life organization wants to make it impossible for any state to abolish abortion. Instead, every state must make baby-murder legal for cases of rape and incest up to birth and between 9 and 15 weeks for everyone else. He’s proposing this to “provide a framework that makes the post-Dobbs, post-Roe landscape sustainable, objectionable to activists on both sides, but too delicate to upset.”

Call us crazy, but we don’t want a compromise that is objectionable to us. We want a landscape where those who are trying to kill the babies are perpetually wailing and gnashing their teeth on account of being unable to execute their grotesque, Mephistophelean plots. We want a landscape where every day they weep bitter, resentful tears that they can’t kill the babies, and Wear here is seeking to codify child-butchery for all the citizenry? Is this a joke?

Specifically, he wants this done because “such a deal could place abortion in our politics where it is in the politics of most European nations—sometimes a second or third-tier issue, but never an issue around which their politics revolves.”

Right. Because the state-sanctioned murder of millions of babies should be a “third-tier issue.” Wear would never allow this in cases of child sex abuse, where all states must allow sexual abuse of children to be legal, but only up to six years old. He would never allow this for slavery, where people have a right to enslave people in all 50 states, but cannot own more than 8-15 at a time. He’d fully and forcefully repudiate that. But killing babies? That should be reduced to the same importance and consideration as arcane tax breaks or specific trade policies and tariffs, apparently.

Wear concludes that one of the reasons why the American public has so identified with Biden as a person is because he has “poignantly described how the issue has bedeviled him” and that “Speaker Pelosi (who has similarly wrestled with the issue of abortion throughout her career) (Editor’s Note. No she hasn’t) could transition our nation into a new era.” free of the encumbrances of this divisive issue.

Editors Note. This article originally stated that Wear is the chief strategist for the AND Campaign, based on his biography on his website, but new information indicates that he is the former chief strategist. This article has been updated accordingly.