"DEI embraces the Marxist ideal of social justice and is group oriented. It functions on the theory that although different people have different and unequal starting points in life, everyone should be guaranteed an equal outcome. Anyone perceived as having had a disadvantaged starting point, such as minorities, the poor, LGBTQ, immigrants and so on, should be given priority in hiring and promotion so there is an equal outcome. The noted philosopher and historian Dr. Thomas Sowell, who happens to be Black, says DEI is "essentially a fancy word for group quotas." He points out that the term is often used to admit students to colleges and to place people in positions of authority based on their group identity rather than their individual abilities and qualifications. He goes on to ask, What is the end they are trying to achieve? If I am having brain surgery and a world-renowned brain surgeon is scheduled to do the surgery and I find out he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, am I to reject him and insist on a surgeon from a poor family who struggled to become a brain surgeon even though he does not have the experience or reputation of the original surgeon?" - Eddie Hyatt
Skipping over the Marxist boogeyman, if you feel the need to point out that your source espousing racist ideas happens to be black, it is obvious you think this cleans up your racism. It does not. It is the equivalent of saying, "I am not a racist because I have a black friend." The definition Eddie uses for DEI is also a trope. DEI is NOT providing an equal outcome, just an equal opportunity. Can it be abused? Absolutely. Can people be promoted who did not earn it? Absolutely and I have seen such. People can also be promoted outside of DEI however, for a myriad of false reasons. This does not however mean all DEI somehow results in such corruption. Eddie knows this of course, as does Mr. Sowell. Kristin Crowley has a 25-year career helping and saving people, so maybe the jackasses of the world need to step off and stay in their lane. Either way, how is this a Christian imperative? How is this rubbish being written for a Christian magazine? Why are MAGA pastors like Shane Idleman posting this nonsense ad nauseum? Is Eddie or Mr. Sowell charging that Kristin Crowley does not have the experience or reputation of some unidentified but more qualified white straight male? Sowell's analogy is asinine. This entire argument is racist, sexist, and beneath a Christian discussion. Especially when people are dying. The reason why the NAR and GOP want us talking about DEI, is they do not want us talking about the actual cause of these fires - climate change. So, destroying God's creation? Good thing. Making sure people have equal opportunity? Bad thing. Somehow, this is all being marketed as "Christian."
"I recently spent one week in the Baylor Scott & White Hospital in North Texas, where I was treated by a very diverse staff of Asian, Hispanic, Black and white nurses and doctors. There was no obvious ethnic majority. My primary doctor, I assume, was Muslim since his name was Mohammed. Nonetheless, regardless of who was treating me, I could rest assured that I was getting the best treatment possible because BSW does not practice DEI. The hospital hires its staff based on competency and qualifications, not the group with which they identify. I will avoid a hospital that practices DEI and hires its staff to fulfill group quotas. The same is true when I fly. When I board an airplane and look into the cockpit, I don't care about the race, sex or skin color of the pilot and co-pilot. My only concern is "Do they know how to fly this airplane?" Were they hired to fulfill a quota; or were they hired because they were the most qualified applicants?" - Eddie Hyatt
Let us first look at the utter stupidity of the first scenario. So, because his hospital does not practice DEI, that means Mohammed must have been promoted through the ranks without prejudice or preference? How does he KNOW that? He does not know that of course. Maybe the person responsible for that promotion was themselves Muslim and gave preference. Maybe he had a friend who gave him the promotion. The problem with the NAR narrative on DEI is it ALWAYS assumes that any practice of DEI resulted in someone being promoted who did not deserve it and conversely, any organization that does not practice DEI must be entirely on the up and up. That is infantile in its assumption and analysis. The core feature in both of these silly assumptions is the demonizing of DEI. As for the second silly scenario, it would be really bad if an airline promoted pilots based on anything but qualifications. These are major corporations that have open books on things like that. Pilot certification is overseen by the Federal Aviation Administration. What these false narratives are designed to do is make people reflexively think that someone black, brown, or different than you, must be less qualified. Take for example Fred Mathis, former white male deputy fire chief in Los Angeles. Mr. Mathis was investigated in 2022 for overseeing the agency operation center during the Palisades fire while intoxicated. He retired days before the investigation ended so he could avoid any discipline and received a 1.4-million-dollar payout on top of a $225,000 pension. While these facts are public record, I would not pass judgment because I was not there. It is interesting that the drunk white male deputy fire chief appears to be a non-issue but the woman who has no blemish on her 25-year career is the reason why we have these fires raging in LA, right.
"While we as Christians are to care for the poor and lift those who are disadvantaged, we cannot guarantee their outcome. That is a personal thing on their part and will depend on the choices they make and how they spend their time. The Bible is clear that God holds each of us individually responsible for our choices and actions. Ezekiel 18:20 says, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." In the Parable of the Talents told by Jesus in Matthew 25:14-30, we see that each person was unique and received "talents" based on their individual ability. Later, each was rewarded or punished according to their own actions or inaction. The Parable of the Talents obviously reflects a meritocracy, and Paul echoes this same principle in 2 Corinthians 5:10 where he says, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad." In the early days of our life and ministry together, Sue and I heard the Lord say, "Be the best you can be." In other words, don't try to be like someone else or try to outdo someone else. And don't measure your own success by someone else's accomplishment. Be the best you can be, and you will hear Him say, "Well done, good and faithful servant" (Matt. 25:21b). We must stop comparing ourselves with one another. Instead of practicing DEI, we should be encouraging every person to be the best they can be and to develop their individual and unique gifts. God Himself will then promote them as He did Joseph, moving him from slavery and prison to being the ruler of Egypt. If the entire church will take this approach, individual members will find personal fulfillment and also find themselves part of a healthy, functioning body of Christ." - Eddie Hyatt
There are so many racist dog whistles and idiotic statements here. First of all, DEI does not guarantee outcome anymore than any other Human Resources organizational principle. Anything can be corrupted. Look at the vile nature of what Eddie is espousing here. Sure, Christians should care for the poor but make sure you keep them poor! Christians should lift up the disadvantaged but not over white, straight males! The Delta Airline pilot who showed up hammered and carrying a bottle of J??germeister before having to fly from Scotland to NYC was white. That does not mean that all white pilots have a drinking problem any more than it means that because DEI might be abused in one municipality it must be in all of them. This false dichotomy Eddie keeps setting up is so transparent. In his NAR mind, the man that got the five talents must have been white. Two talents must have gone to Mohammed, and the one talent must have clearly gone to a minority, who just was not as talented as the white man who got the five. That is the assumption Eddie keeps selling because to him if the one who gets the five talents is black, it must have been that he didn't deserve it and should have gotten the one talent. Stop comparing ourselves to others? How else do we judge who should be promoted? Who does deserve recognition? You want a healthy, functioning body of Christ? Start with not hating people. Start with avoiding disinformation and propaganda. Start with not assuming things about people you never met and clearly do not understand. Start with the gospel, and finish with the gospel. Get out of the cultural/political business and stay in your lane.
That brings us to the second topic for today, free speech and censorship. Please remember the same framing applies. Political forces on the right have co-opted the NAR, dominionist, apostate church. Whenever you find yourself on the same side as Charisma News for example, maybe you need to reconsider your position. It always astounded me when John MacArthur reopened his church at the height of COVID and started taking very NAR positions. I was stunned that he could be so deceived and then when he sat down with Charisma for an interview, I was blown away. That is how insidious NAR theology can be. Like we saw when it comes to DEI, the position many Christians, some of whom I greatly respect, are taking on the Facebook decision to remove fact checking just blows my mind. It is so obvious in its NAR-ness. Let us start with the 200-billion-dollar man, Mark Zuckerberg and his motivation. God does not ascribe to Machiavellian theology. The ends do not justify the means. Let me break this down. From 2016- 2020 the cultural mood was one of grave concern for all of the disinformation that was infecting our discourse. Facebook was one of the greatest purveyors of bat-poop crazy conspiracy and dangerous disinformation. Zuckerberg implemented fact checking in response to this as a business decision. This has always been represented as "censorship" by the right-wing lunatics in this country, but they were not censored. They were allowed to continue to spread bile. They just had to deal with a fact check being posted with it. In their world of alternate facts, the truth is anathema. What was the reason given by Donald Trump for not participating in debates? He didn't want to be fact checked. Why did he cancel his 60 minutes interview? Because he didn't want to be fact checked.
Fast forward to this year and we see Zuckerberg making another business decision. He had been threatened by the incoming president, including a threat of life in prison. So, Mark went down to Mar-a-Lago, kissed the ring, donated a million dollars to his inauguration, added Trump ally Dana White to his board, and suddenly had an epiphany that maybe fact checking was overrated. How do we know this was a capitulation and not a revelation? Even Trump admitted such by saying Zuckerberg's change of mind was probably because he threatened him. Are these positive developments that should be celebrated by this country or more specifically by the church? Is Jesus, the way the truth and the life, accepting of disinformation? Take for example one of the most egregious lies of the election season. That Haitian immigrants in Ohio were eating pets. Never mind that this nearly destroyed a largely Christian community. People who were already devastated by the earthquake that made them flee their homeland. Never mind that they were asked to come to Ohio to fill the jobs that the locals could not fill. Never mind that they have become responsible and respected members of their community and attended the local churches. One psycho from a white supremacy group started the rumor and it spread to Facebook and Twitter. The real problem is Christians were all too willing to help it spread. Just like there are victims of false teaching, there are victims of disinformation. Why would we as Christians be celebrating the removal of fact checking? Don't hand me the right-wing talking point about how it was slanted. It was only as slanted as the disinformation. If 80% of the lies come from one side, then that side should see 80% of the fact checking.
