Your Definition of a Fundamenlist

[Yeshua1]

(1) I was generally agreeing with Dr. Bob. He wrote a perceptive comment that the fundamentals (which I happily embrace by conviction) simply make one orthodox. The difference is that fundamentalists live with the "Bible in one hand, sword in the other."
(2) It is something of a broad brush, which is to be expected when you are trying to figure out the difference between those who are simply orthodox and one's who are fundamentalists. Fundamentalists have historically retreated from engaging with those in Christendom with whom they disagree, but when they engage, they attack.


I was around when the Fundamental Baptist Forum was created. It was designed to be a safe space for those who wanted to separate themselves from those with whom they disagree. Yet, the same people who created this little cocoon didn't just stay here, they came out and attacked others. It still happens today.

I have largely ignored this forum, except to see what people are discussing. I rarely participate, since I understand that this is supposed to be a safe space for people who think a certain way. However, when you posted the forum introduction in your comment to AustinC earlier in this thread, I noticed that it is ITSELF a massive BROADBRUSH attack on persons who don't think a certain way:


I have never claimed that the Bible is ANYTHING BUT "true and accurate" and I certainly don't question Jesus ("the Word of God") nor Christian scriptures ("the word of God"). In fact, I am CONSTANTLY appealing to scripture, more so than most whom I debate who gladly embrace the label of fundamentalist. So by the standards stated here, I am entitled to participate.


Notice the words here... The official description of this group claims that there are "liberals" (always used pejoratively around here) roaming through other forums who don't "agree that the Bible is true and accurate, and... question the Word of God." The statement also encourages group members to "battle" those who are outside the group if they feel led.

Sorry, but I guess you are blind to the hypocrisy. You accuse me of a broad brush attack on the forum and quote the forum description that essentially states what I have stated, using a broad brush attack.

Think that the main difference is that we do not see the Gospel as being the "social Gospel", but the "saving Gospel"

 

[Yeshua1]

But despite your defense, you did attack fundamentalists broadly in a forum specifically designed to rule that out.

Are you aware of the many kinds of fundamentalists there are? Almost any generalization about fundamentalists is bound to be mistaken. There are:

Bible Baptists
GARBC
FBF types
What is commonly called "the Sword crowd"
Bible Presbyterians
Missionary Baptists
IFCA
John MacArthur--no longer with the IFCA, but told my uncles he was a fundamentalist
Some in the SBC who call themselves fundamentalists, but others who are but eschew the term
etc., etc.

This is NOT to bash any Kjvo, but how many of those groups listed would align with that teaching?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Examples please?

Lots of examples from my personal experience, here are just three:

(1) I have a former close friend who got angry at me because I had some different convictions involving the qualifications of someone for the pastorate, based the age and marital status. At the time, I was 22-years-old and asked by a very small rural church to pastor the congregation. I wasn't looking for a pastorate at the time, but I promised I would pray about it while I supply preached for them over the next month. I was led to accept the position, even though my expenses would be higher than my salary (I made $62.50/week), moved to the town 47 miles away from where I went to college, and began working hard in the community to evangelize and build up the church. My former friend was enamored with a preacher who claimed that one could not be a pastor unless one was at least 30-years-old, married with children (children meant that God approved of you), and the children were old enough (no definitive age) to not only come to faith, but also make adult decisions. The next time I saw him, he confronted me with a friend of his I did not know, and proceeded to name my "sins" -- they included 'taking the position for selfish glory', taking the position 'to get wealthy', 'ignoring God's clear teaching to be more than 30 years old', and 'ignoring the teaching of [the teacher he liked]'. I tried to talk to him about it, but he said he was only there for me to repent, no to try to talk my way out of it. I did not repent of what Jesus had called me to do, so he 'excommunicated' me and spread stories around my hometown how I had "rejected Jesus" and should be ostracized. That was 33 years ago and he still refuses to even speak with me until I repent of those "sins" as well as not being KJVO, a "sin" he discovered about a year after my excommunication.

(2) I used to be close to a leading figure of the SBC (his name is on my ministerial license) and I found myself in backroom meetings where he and other leaders were talking strategy and politics to get rid of the "liberals" in the SBC. At the time, I was all for it until I heard who some of the so-called "liberals" they were targeting and what the allegations that they had cooked up were. I spoke up, mentioning that I knew some of those persons (most of them were my current college professors) and knew what they believed and taught. I asked for the evidence that they believe (or in some cases, didn't believe) what was alleged. I was immediately branded a troublemaker, and found myself on the outside of the group because I thought that Christians shouldn't speak dishonestly about others or play deceptive politics.

(3) I worked with a number of fellow seminary students in secular employment and one of them embraced the label of fundamentalist. We had a couple of good conversations about spiritual things during breaks and moments when we were doing manual labor, and he wanted to have a discussion of "The Doctrines of Grace." One day we talked about Calvinism -- he was a double predestination guy -- and I was not a five-point Calvinist, although I had (and have) a lot of appreciation for some aspects of Reformed thinking and insights. He became quite cold to me and began a series of pseudo-logical extra-biblical arguments to prove that one could not be a disciple of Jesus (or even saved) unless one embraced the truth of hyper-Calvinism, since one who is of the elect will receive the truth of God readily. I patiently explained why his beliefs were mistaken, but he finally concluded I was a non-elect "counterfeit Christian" and became hostile toward me for the rest of the time he worked with our team, barely acknowledging me except to attack me. He also believed that children being born into one's family showed God's approval, so when his wife's first pregnancy ended in miscarriage, it struck him very hard. He was hurting so much (and feeling person guilt) I tried to express sympathy and help him in his grief, and he still refused, getting angry with me for trying to associate with him. I left him alone and he eventually quit working for us and went on with his life. It was a very sad situation.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Think that the main difference is that we do not see the Gospel as being the "social Gospel", but the "saving Gospel"

I believe in the whole gospel, which is "saving" and "social." Do you?

I evangelize all the time, but I also don't leave out doing good. Faith without works in dead.

 

[Baptist Believer]

But despite your defense, you did attack fundamentalists broadly in a forum specifically designed to rule that out.

Was Dr. Bob "attack" fundamentalists with his statement, the "Bible in one hand, sword in the other?" You also claimed that fundamentalists, by definition, "must include militant defense of the fundamentals." You and Dr. Bob are the ones who originally used the words "militant" and "sword." You know there is also a fundamentalism of the left, where those who do not subscribe to classical liberalism are attacked, ostracized, and vilified. Its a sociological phenomenon, not merely a "conservative" phenomenon.

Are you aware of the many kinds of fundamentalists there are?

I'm aware of, and have been in contact with, many different kinds of fundamentalists. But I'm certain you know more about the movement than I do because of your family history and your longstanding immersion in the subculture.

Almost any generalization about fundamentalists is bound to be mistaken.

Of course, but the point of this thread is to figure out what is a fundamentalist. Obviously, it is not orthodoxy (as Dr. Bob noted), so it is likely the way fundamentalists (separate from / react toward) the larger Christian and secular cultures.

There are:

Bible Baptists

I have had good relations with them.

GARBC

A close friend and his wife are GARBC.

FBF types

I have known an ex-FBF person. He was so damaged by his specific experience (cult-like pastor involved in sexual immorality) that he didn't go to church for a long time. I don't think his experience was typical, but I have no other frame of reference.

What is commonly called "the Sword crowd"

I used to be a member of a church where most members were Sword of the Lord devotees.

Bible Presbyterians

I don't have any experience with them.

Missionary Baptists

A friend of mine pastors a Missionary Baptist congregation in Arkansas that is KJVP.

IFCA

A former church was associated with IFCA.

John MacArthur--no longer with the IFCA, but told my uncles he was a fundamentalist

He is definitely a fundamentalist. I am quite familiar with MacArthur, and a number of people I know are devoted to his teaching and commentaries.

Some in the SBC who call themselves fundamentalists, but others who are but eschew the term
etc., etc.

I know a hundreds of these people.

I went through that exercise just to point out that I am not ignorant of fundamentalism. Everyone I know from these groups either was or is militant and willing to swing the "sword" hard at people who disagree. The only way I maintain relationships with many of these people is that they are spiritually mature enough to know that one can be a true Christian without being a fundamentalist. I'm sure then look upon me as a "weaker brother," to borrow again from Dr. Bob.

 

[AustinC]

But despite your defense, you did attack fundamentalists broadly in a forum specifically designed to rule that out.

Are you aware of the many kinds of fundamentalists there are? Almost any generalization about fundamentalists is bound to be mistaken. There are:

Bible Baptists
GARBC
FBF types
What is commonly called "the Sword crowd"
Bible Presbyterians
Missionary Baptists
IFCA
John MacArthur--no longer with the IFCA, but told my uncles he was a fundamentalist
Some in the SBC who call themselves fundamentalists, but others who are but eschew the term
etc., etc.

Clearly there are fundamental truths in the Bible that all redeemed believers will hold.
Trinity
Jesus as Messiah and promised one.
Salvation by grace alone.
Justification by faith.
These are fundamental to the gospel.

However, having grown up in an IFCA environment, I found many in the denomination were living under law rather than grace. They looked at the Bible and added a whole bunch of do's and don'ts. For me, I grew up with don't drink, don't smoke, don't play cards, don't dance. These things were added to the gospel and turned in to "fundementalism." The Bible college I attended had all sorts of rules intended to create pius people who had, by their own discipline, put to death their evil passions. Unfortunately this lead to a culture of demerits in the school where people looked for loopholes around the rules while not getting demerits and thus maintaining piety in the eyes of leadership.
Thus, it is a great exercise to try define fundamentalism. Is it laws of piety added to the gospel (essentially Pharisaic) or is it confined to the fundamental theological positions of the body of Christ?

 

[atpollard]

I evangelize all the time, but I also don't leave out doing good. Faith without works in dead.

• Feeding the stray cats in your neighborhood.
• Taking a stray cat into your home and making it part of your family.

Which is "good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them"?

 

[MB]

Clearly there are fundamental truths in the Bible that all redeemed believers will hold.
Trinity
Jesus as Messiah and promised one.
Salvation by grace alone.
Justification by faith.
These are fundamental to the gospel.

It's funny you believe you are saved by Grace alone yet Justified by faith.
MB

 

[John of Japan]

Was Dr. Bob "attack" fundamentalists with his statement, the "Bible in one hand, sword in the other?" You also claimed that fundamentalists, by definition, "must include militant defense of the fundamentals." You and Dr. Bob are the ones who originally used the words "militant" and "sword." You know there is also a fundamentalism of the left, where those who do not subscribe to classical liberalism are attacked, ostracized, and vilified. Its a sociological phenomenon, not merely a "conservative" phenomenon.

My statement on "militant defense" is based on the historical roots of the movement. I don't feel I was broad-brushing, but simply defining. Broad-brushing is when you attribute negative aspects to a wide range of people. I don't consider militant defense of the faith to be a negative.

I'm aware of, and have been in contact with, many different kinds of fundamentalists. But I'm certain you know more about the movement than I do because of your family history and your longstanding immersion in the subculture.

Of course, but the point of this thread is to figure out what is a fundamentalist. Obviously, it is not orthodoxy (as Dr. Bob noted), so it is likely the way fundamentalists (separate from / react toward) the larger Christian and secular cultures.

I have had good relations with them.

A close friend and his wife are GARBC.

I don't have any experience with them.

A friend of mine pastors a Missionary Baptist congregation in Arkansas that is KJVP.

A former church was associated with IFCA.

He is definitely a fundamentalist. I am quite familiar with MacArthur, and a number of people I know are devoted to his teaching and commentaries.

I know a hundreds of these people.

I went through that exercise just to point out that I am not ignorant of fundamentalism. Everyone I know from these groups either was or is militant and willing to swing the "sword" hard at people who disagree. The only way I maintain relationships with many of these people is that they are spiritually mature enough to know that one can be a true Christian without being a fundamentalist. I'm sure then look upon me as a "weaker brother," to borrow again from Dr. Bob.

Fair enough

I have known an ex-FBF person. He was so damaged by his specific experience (cult-like pastor involved in sexual immorality) that he didn't go to church for a long time. I don't think his experience was typical, but I have no other frame of reference.

I pulled this out from the above to comment separately.

I'm surprised at this. I've known many FBF types, but do not know of this case of immorality. But as you must know, such cases are certainly not limited to fundamentalists.

I used to be a member of a church where most members were Sword of the Lord devotees.

Pulled this out separately, also. (I'm separating. )

Nowadays among fundamentalists, "the Sword crowd" does not simply mean someone who followed the original Sword under John R. Rice, but someone who adheres to the more modern version under Shelton Smith--much narrower and KJV focused. However, I must admit that in Bauder & Delnay's recent book, One in Hope and Doctrine, they use it for the original revivalist movement (p. 305).

 

[John of Japan]

This is NOT to bash any Kjvo, but how many of those groups listed would align with that teaching?

Several. But the BBF in particular is split nowadays on that.

 

[John of Japan]

...

Thus, it is a great exercise to try define fundamentalism. Is it laws of piety added to the gospel (essentially Pharisaic) or is it confined to the fundamental theological positions of the body of Christ?[/QUOTE]
No, it is not "laws of piety." There are legalists among fundamentalists, that's true. But simply having standards of behavior is not a form of legalism, or else every church with a constitution would be legalist.

 

[Baptist Believer]

• Feeding the stray cats in your neighborhood.
• Taking a stray cat into your home and making it part of your family.

Which is "good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them"?

I suppose it could have something to do with cats, but that is trivial.

I am motivated -- and we are all obligated -- by teachings such as these:

--
Micah 6:8
"What does the Lord require of you but to do justice and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

Isa.1:11–17
“What are your many sacrifices to Me?”
Says the Lord.
“I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
And the fat of fattened cattle;
And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats.
When you come to appear before Me,
Who requires of you this trampling of My courtyards?
Do not go on bringing your worthless offerings,
Incense is an abomination to Me.
New moon and Sabbath, the proclamation of an assembly—
I cannot endure wrongdoing and the festive assembly.
I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts,
They have become a burden to Me;
I am tired of bearing them.
So when you spread out your hands in prayer,
I will hide My eyes from you;
Yes, even though you offer many prayers,
I will not be listening.
Your hands are covered with blood.

“Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight.
Stop doing evil,
Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Rebuke the oppressor,
Obtain justice for the orphan,
Plead for the widow’s case.

Matthew 25:31-46
“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, but the goats on the left.

“Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? And when did we see You as a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of Mine, you did it for Me.’

“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, you accursed people, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or as a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for Me, either.’ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
--

If you don't do these kinds of good works, by God's command, you should not consider yourself a disciple of Jesus.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I'm surprised at this. I've known many FBF types, but do not know of this case of immorality. But as you must know, such cases are certainly not limited to fundamentalists.

That one person is my only known experience with that group, so (as I noted) I don't think his experience was typical. And immorality and cult-like control is definitely not limited to fundamentalism of any variety.[/QUOTE]

Pulled this out separately, also. (I'm separating. )

I don't mind.

Nowadays among fundamentalists, "the Sword crowd" does not simply mean someone who followed the original Sword under John R. Rice, but someone who adheres to the more modern version under Shelton Smith--much narrower and KJV focused.

Yes. They looked upon my New American Standard Bible as a weaker translation. I had a number of people urge me to use the KJV instead to eliminate "confusion" when I quoted scripture.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Your charge of "Phariseeism" is an old one and a nasty one...Saying we are Pharisees simply avoids the issues.

I think Pharisees often get a bad rap. There were good ones and bad ones, but they engaged with Jesus instead of ignoring him or separating from Him. Many became disciples, like Nicodemus. Others became enemies. They were zealous for the Law of God and wanted their religious life to align with God's purposes.

 

[John of Japan]

I think Pharisees often get a bad rap. There were good ones and bad ones, but they engaged with Jesus instead of ignoring him or separating from Him. Many became disciples, like Nicodemus. Others became enemies. They were zealous for the Law of God and wanted their religious life to align with God's purposes.

This is all true, but the usual usage of the term nowadays is pejorative. (Contemporary usage is how lexicographers define words.)

 

[Yeshua1]

Lots of examples from my personal experience, here are just three:

(1) I have a former close friend who got angry at me because I had some different convictions involving the qualifications of someone for the pastorate, based the age and marital status. At the time, I was 22-years-old and asked by a very small rural church to pastor the congregation. I wasn't looking for a pastorate at the time, but I promised I would pray about it while I supply preached for them over the next month. I was led to accept the position, even though my expenses would be higher than my salary (I made $62.50/week), moved to the town 47 miles away from where I went to college, and began working hard in the community to evangelize and build up the church. My former friend was enamored with a preacher who claimed that one could not be a pastor unless one was at least 30-years-old, married with children (children meant that God approved of you), and the children were old enough (no definitive age) to not only come to faith, but also make adult decisions. The next time I saw him, he confronted me with a friend of his I did not know, and proceeded to name my "sins" -- they included 'taking the position for selfish glory', taking the position 'to get wealthy', 'ignoring God's clear teaching to be more than 30 years old', and 'ignoring the teaching of [the teacher he liked]'. I tried to talk to him about it, but he said he was only there for me to repent, no to try to talk my way out of it. I did not repent of what Jesus had called me to do, so he 'excommunicated' me and spread stories around my hometown how I had "rejected Jesus" and should be ostracized. That was 33 years ago and he still refuses to even speak with me until I repent of those "sins" as well as not being KJVO, a "sin" he discovered about a year after my excommunication.

(2) I used to be close to a leading figure of the SBC (his name is on my ministerial license) and I found myself in backroom meetings where he and other leaders were talking strategy and politics to get rid of the "liberals" in the SBC. At the time, I was all for it until I heard who some of the so-called "liberals" they were targeting and what the allegations that they had cooked up were. I spoke up, mentioning that I knew some of those persons (most of them were my current college professors) and knew what they believed and taught. I asked for the evidence that they believe (or in some cases, didn't believe) what was alleged. I was immediately branded a troublemaker, and found myself on the outside of the group because I thought that Christians shouldn't speak dishonestly about others or play deceptive politics.

(3) I worked with a number of fellow seminary students in secular employment and one of them embraced the label of fundamentalist. We had a couple of good conversations about spiritual things during breaks and moments when we were doing manual labor, and he wanted to have a discussion of "The Doctrines of Grace." One day we talked about Calvinism -- he was a double predestination guy -- and I was not a five-point Calvinist, although I had (and have) a lot of appreciation for some aspects of Reformed thinking and insights. He became quite cold to me and began a series of pseudo-logical extra-biblical arguments to prove that one could not be a disciple of Jesus (or even saved) unless one embraced the truth of hyper-Calvinism, since one who is of the elect will receive the truth of God readily. I patiently explained why his beliefs were mistaken, but he finally concluded I was a non-elect "counterfeit Christian" and became hostile toward me for the rest of the time he worked with our team, barely acknowledging me except to attack me. He also believed that children being born into one's family showed God's approval, so when his wife's first pregnancy ended in miscarriage, it struck him very hard. He was hurting so much (and feeling person guilt) I tried to express sympathy and help him in his grief, and he still refused, getting angry with me for trying to associate with him. I left him alone and he eventually quit working for us and went on with his life. It was a very sad situation.

I can see of all of those were situations where they were wrong, but there were MANY teachers and professors in the SBC who held to views such as limited inspiration, spiritual resurrection, so were some bad apples needed to weed out at Seminary levels!

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe in the whole gospel, which is "saving" and "social." Do you?

I evangelize all the time, but I also don't leave out doing good. Faith without works in dead.

I believe that the Church message is that jesus saves lost sinners, and gives to them eternal life, but we are not commanded as a Church to be into social engineering, such as illegal aliens, redistribution of honestly earned wealth, and Blm and getting woke up and Critical race baiting!

 

[Yeshua1]

Clearly there are fundamental truths in the Bible that all redeemed believers will hold.
Trinity
Jesus as Messiah and promised one.
Salvation by grace alone.
Justification by faith.
These are fundamental to the gospel.

However, having grown up in an IFCA environment, I found many in the denomination were living under law rather than grace. They looked at the Bible and added a whole bunch of do's and don'ts. For me, I grew up with don't drink, don't smoke, don't play cards, don't dance. These things were added to the gospel and turned in to "fundementalism." The Bible college I attended had all sorts of rules intended to create pius people who had, by their own discipline, put to death their evil passions. Unfortunately this lead to a culture of demerits in the school where people looked for loopholes around the rules while not getting demerits and thus maintaining piety in the eyes of leadership.
Thus, it is a great exercise to try define fundamentalism. Is it laws of piety added to the gospel (essentially Pharisaic) or is it confined to the fundamental theological positions of the body of Christ?

reminded of the time was an Elder in the AOG, and was told that a fellow Elder was caught smoking back of the church, and also saw another taking their family to see a movie! They wanted me to rat them out, but told them your Gossip behind their backs far worse then their sins!

 

[Yeshua1]

My statement on "militant defense" is based on the historical roots of the movement. I don't feel I was broad-brushing, but simply defining. Broad-brushing is when you attribute negative aspects to a wide range of people. I don't consider militant defense of the faith to be a negative.

Fair enough

I pulled this out from the above to comment separately.

I'm surprised at this. I've known many FBF types, but do not know of this case of immorality. But as you must know, such cases are certainly not limited to fundamentalists.


Pulled this out separately, also. (I'm separating. )

Nowadays among fundamentalists, "the Sword crowd" does not simply mean someone who followed the original Sword under John R. Rice, but someone who adheres to the more modern version under Shelton Smith--much narrower and KJV focused. However, I must admit that in Bauder & Delnay's recent book, One in Hope and Doctrine, they use it for the original revivalist movement (p. 305).

Would John R Rice distance himself if alive from current Sword of the Lord?

 

[Yeshua1]

I suppose it could have something to do with cats, but that is trivial.

I am motivated -- and we are all obligated -- by teachings such as these:

--
Micah 6:8
"What does the Lord require of you but to do justice and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

Isa.1:11–17
“What are your many sacrifices to Me?”
Says the Lord.
“I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
And the fat of fattened cattle;
And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats.
When you come to appear before Me,
Who requires of you this trampling of My courtyards?
Do not go on bringing your worthless offerings,
Incense is an abomination to Me.
New moon and Sabbath, the proclamation of an assembly—
I cannot endure wrongdoing and the festive assembly.
I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts,
They have become a burden to Me;
I am tired of bearing them.
So when you spread out your hands in prayer,
I will hide My eyes from you;
Yes, even though you offer many prayers,
I will not be listening.
Your hands are covered with blood.

“Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight.
Stop doing evil,
Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Rebuke the oppressor,
Obtain justice for the orphan,
Plead for the widow’s case.

Matthew 25:31-46
“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, but the goats on the left.

“Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? And when did we see You as a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of Mine, you did it for Me.’

“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, you accursed people, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or as a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for Me, either.’ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
--

If you don't do these kinds of good works, by God's command, you should not consider yourself a disciple of Jesus.

the cure for society ills is not Blm, nor getting woke up, nor Crt, but the message of the Cross of Christ!