Samuel Sey

My Father and My Son

My father abandoned me before I was born, being a bad father is something I’m deeply afraid of. Before my son was born, I was anxious that since my father didn’t love me, perhaps I also wouldn’t love my son. But to my joy, I adore my son, by the grace of God. I would never abandon him or harm him in any way.

I recently published a vague post on X (or Twitter) this week. The tweet said:
I had to discipline my son tonight. It’s not the first time, but I’m heartbroken. It’s necessary, but I hate it so much. It’s especially difficult since he’s such a good boy. He’s such an easy boy to parent. But he’s still a sinner, and since I love him, I must discipline him.
Thousands of atheists and progressive “Christians” on social media are accusing me of hurting and abusing my nearly 5-month-old son. Some believers have also resorted to all kinds of assumptions and accusations.
I’m deeply disappointed with these people. I should have known I was too vague. I should have known better. I’ve explained my foolish tweet to a few sincere people who’ve reached out to me in love, but I think it’s good for me to write this article to explain what my tweet was about.
When I said I had to discipline my son, I meant I had to do sleep training. It’s really as simple as that. I wish I had used the word “sleep training” instead of “discipline,” but I couldn’t remember the word. Even when I was trying to explain what I really meant in my tweet to some people, I said “sleeping habits” and “disciplining him in terms of bedtimes.” 
Read More
Related Posts:

What Happened to the Asbury Revival?

I hope the people who supposedly had a powerful encounter with God at Asbury aren’t chasing after signs and wonders (Matthew 12:39). I hope they’re not chasing for a new high. Though the churches near Asbury haven’t been impacted by the “revival,” I hope somewhere, at a church, they’re listening to ordinary preaching that produces an extraordinary change in one’s soul. 

It’s been a year since the beginning of the Asbury “revival” in Wilmore, Kentucky. Last year, from February 8th to February 24th, up to 70,000 people visited Asbury University’s chapel to experience what they called an “outpouring,” an “awakening,” or a “revival.”
For two weeks many of the tens of thousands of people who visited Asbury responded to altar calls and witnessed “prophecies,” “speaking in tongues,” “casting out demons,” and “faith healing” at the chapel.
It was one of the biggest news stories at the time. It received attention from every major news outlet from CNN to Fox News. Conservative political commentators like Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, and Charlie Kirk also talked about it on their shows.
What was happening at Asbury immediately became a sign of hope for Christianity and conservatism in America. Therefore, for some, the Asbury “revival” quickly became a test of the sincerity of some people’s relationship with God.
One revivalist preacher compared the Asbury revival to the Ark of the Covenant. He said:
“Do not pay attention to ‘arm-chair quarterbacks’ writing and critiquing Asbury Revival. They are much like Uzzah putting their hand on the ark. Let God do in this and through this moment what He desires and wills.”
Another preacher responding to those who expressed caution about the revival said:
“This revival is revealing the hearts that have lost intimacy with the Lord.”
When I shared my concerns about Asbury, I received hundreds of comments saying:
“You sound like a Pharisee questioning Jesus,” “The Pharisaic legalist mindset is showing up, just like when Jesus showed up and didn’t fit their mold,” “I find this so sad. Reminds me of the religious leaders in Acts,” “You’re a Doubting Thomas,” and “You’re blaspheming the Holy Spirit.”
Another comment said:
“I have no doubt God is going to use this movement to change churches and people.”
So a year later, what happened to the Asbury revival? Has God used the revival to change churches?
This week I called churches near Asbury University in Wilmore, Kentucky asking if they’ve experienced significant additions to their church membership or major changes in the lives of their church members because of the “revival.”
Every representative of the churches I spoke to said: “no.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Some Conservatives Hate CRT for Wrong Reasons

Candace Owens has been one of the most vocal conservative critics of Israel since Hamas’ terrorist attack against Israel last month. On her podcast and social media, she’s shared many of the myths about the state of Israel and its role in the conflict with Palestine. For instance, she’s claimed Israel is segregating Palestinians the same way America segregated black people. She mentioned the disparities between Palestinians and Jews in Jerusalem and said, “It just made me feel as a black American and knowing my own history that this isn’t freedom to me.” That reasoning and rhetoric is straight from the woke playbook. 

Not every conservative hates critical race theory for the right reasons. That’s why some so-called conservatives have become woke on Israel.
It shouldn’t be surprising. Two people can hate the same thing for different reasons. For instance, Ibram X. Kendi and I hate white supremacy for different reasons. I hate white supremacy because I hate all kinds of racial discrimination. However, Ibram X. Kendi hates white supremacy because he hates some kinds of racial discrimination.
This is why in his book, How To Be An Antiracist, he says:
“If racial discrimination is defined as treating, considering, or making a distinction in favour or against an individual based on that person’s race, then racial discrimination is not inherently racist. The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist.”
In other words, he believes racial discrimination against black people is unjust, but racial discrimination against white people is justifiable.
So Kendi hates white supremacy for the wrong reasons. He doesn’t hate white supremacy in principle.
In the same way, a vocal minority of conservatives like Candace Owens hate critical race theory for the wrong reasons. They don’t hate it in principle. That’s why they’re repeating woke talking points against Jews and Israel.
A few years ago I wrote an article about the relationship between antisemitism and social justice ideology. I explained that Hitler justified the holocaust by claiming Jews were parasites who had infiltrated Germany and in their greed, they oppressed “Aryan” Germans and forced them into poverty while Jews lived in privilege.
If that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s precisely what pro-Hamas and pro-Palestine groups are saying about Jews. This is why pro-Palestine rallies are filled with Nazi sympathisers.
Since woke ideology is filled with antisemitic tropes that label Jews as oppressors, it’s consistent that woke activists have adopted an anti-Israel stance. It’s inconsistent, however, for anti-CRT conservatives like Candace Owens to mimic woke talking points against Jews and Israel.
Candace Owens has been one of the most vocal conservative critics of Israel since Hamas’ terrorist attack against Israel last month. On her podcast and social media, she’s shared many of the myths about the state of Israel and its role in the conflict with Palestine.
For instance, she’s claimed Israel is segregating Palestinians the same way America segregated black people. She mentioned the disparities between Palestinians and Jews in Jerusalem and said, “It just made me feel as a black American and knowing my own history that this isn’t freedom to me.”
Read More
Related Posts:

When Did God Become a Human?

At one point, the most precious person in the universe was the size of a poppy seed. So when people advocate for abortion at any point in pregnancy, remember when God became a human.

At some point in time, the son of God became the son of man. Do you know when that happened? Do you know when the hypostatic union happened? Do you know when full divinity embodied full humanity?
When did God become a human?
It’s an important question. Just as it’s impossible to understand the hope of Resurrection Sunday without understanding Easter Friday, it’s impossible to understand the hope of Christmas and Jesus’ birth without understanding his incarnation.
Jesus’ incarnation, birth, death, resurrection (and return) are the sum of the gospel. Meaning Jesus’ incarnation is part of the good news, so we need to understand it.
The incarnation is part of the Christmas story. It’s about God becoming human—or as the Bible says in John 1:14, God becoming “flesh.” It’s about the miraculous conception of Jesus in his virgin mother’s womb.
Many of us take Jesus’ incarnation for granted. So many of us fail to understand why it’s so crucial. God became human because humans sinned against God. Jesus becoming fully human while fully God was the only way for him to become the mediator between God and humans (1 Timothy 2:5).
Jesus’ incarnation is the answer to the question: how can a holy God forgive humans for breaking his law? How can a just God forgive sinners without punishing the sin? Just as a good judge can’t simply forgive a murderer no matter how remorseful they are, God can’t simply forgive our sin—he has to punish it.
Read More
Related Posts:

Is It Ever Okay to Kill a Baby?

Ohio’s pro-abortion movement has proposed a constitutional amendment called ISSUE 1. Ohioans will vote on the amendment on November 7th. If the majority of people in Ohio vote “yes” on ISSUE 1, it will amend the state’s constitution and make transgender mutilation and abortion a constitutional right for all residents, including minors.

Is it ever okay to kill a baby?
I know the question is absurd. Basically, everyone has the same answer: no, it’s never okay to kill a baby.
But what if I added more context? What if the baby sleeps in his mother’s womb, instead of a crib? What if the baby is still a few days or hours away from being born?
What if I changed my wording? What if instead of asking “Is it ever okay to kill a baby?”, I said: is it ever okay to abort a fetus?
Keep in mind that the meaning of the words hasn’t changed. The word “abortion” means terminating or killing a fetus. And the word “fetus” means a pre-born baby.
So, though the meaning of the words hasn’t changed—have your answers changed? Do you still believe it’s never okay to kill a baby?
Ignore the euphemisms, pro-abortion people believe it’s okay to kill babies. It’s as simple as that. They are neither pro-life nor pro-choice. They are pro baby-murder.
Read More
Related Posts:

Why I Am Not A Christian Nationalist

Christian nationalists should stop making the fallacious claim that conservative Christians who reject Christian nationalism do not want Christian nations. Just as people can reject the concept of antiracism while hating racism, Christians can reject the concept of Christian nationalism while wanting Christian nations.

We were all unfamiliar with the term “Christian nationalism” until a couple of years ago. However, some people are demanding that we should agree its ideology.
Most of us had never heard of the term until the media blamed Christian nationalism for the January 6 riot at the United States Capitol Building in 2021. The media attempted to make Christian nationalism synonymous with evangelicalism. That seemingly prompted all sorts of professing Christians to embrace the term.
From what I’ve read, there are 4 or 5 kinds of Christian nationalists. In a sense, this is mostly why I am not a Christian nationalist. I don’t think it’s wise to describe myself as a Christian nationalist when some of the people who embrace that label are completely unbiblical.
If the term was older than 2 years in mainstream culture, I would probably think differently. But I don’t think it’s worth fighting for a relatively new word with so many connotations.
The different kinds of Christian nationalists include: the New Apostolic Reformation movement, some theonomists, Kinists, and according to leftists: all Christians.
The New Apostolic Reformation is generally a more political version of the Word of Faith or prosperity gospel. It’s made up of professing Christians who believe humans lost dominion over the earth to Satan after Adam’s sin. According to them, God has restored the offices of apostles and prophets to lead Christians to take back dominion from Satan that rightfully belongs to humanity. They say there are 7 areas that Christians need to regain dominion over. The government is one of these areas.
However, there’s an entirely different group of Christians who are also calling themselves Christian nationalists: theonomists. Simply, theonomists believe God’s judicial laws for Israel in the Old Covenant are the standard for all nations. Therefore for some theonomists, “Christian Nationalism” seems like a simpler term to describe their beliefs.
I recently wrote an article about a group of professing Christians called Kinists. I said, Kinism is an ideology within some Reformed circles that teaches that a person’s so-called race makes them “kins” or related to people within their racial group. According to Kinists, all white people have a shared ethnicity and culture that should be preserved. Therefore they support racial segregation in communities and families. Meaning, they’re especially opposed to “interracial” marriage.
Kinists have also taken the Christian nationalist label.
Read More
Related Posts:

Why Some Evangelicals Are Embracing Racism

Sin is sin, on the right or the left. Kinism is just as evil as critical race theory. So Kinists are not our allies. They’re just as opposed to Biblical views on race as critical race theorists. 

Just as leftists use America’s history with white supremacy to justify anti-white racism, some “evangelicals” are using critical race theory to justify racism against non-white people.
Pressure from critical race theorists has convinced many evangelical leaders to become ashamed of the gospel and they’ve embraced anti-white racism. In the same way, through bitterness against critical race theorists, some anti-woke evangelicals have become dissatisfied with Biblical theology and they’ve embraced racism against non-white people.
Like Sadducees and Pharisees, despite their opposing views—these two groups have one major thing in common: they’re refusing to submit to Jesus’ authority.
Worldliness isn’t a leftist trait. It’s not just progressive “Christians” who can be deceived by unbiblical views on race. Satan is cunning. If he’s able to deceive Puritans into embracing white supremacy, he’s able to deceive conservative protestants into embracing Kinism.
Kinism is an ideology within some Reformed circles that teaches that a person’s so-called race makes them “kins” or related to people within their racial group. According to Kinists, all white people have a shared ethnicity and culture that should be preserved. Therefore they support racial segregation in communities and families. Meaning, they’re especially opposed to immigration (not just illegal immigration) and “interracial” marriage.
Just as most Big Eva leaders (mainstream evangelical leaders) do not embrace every facet of critical race theory, not all Kinists embrace every facet of Kinism. However, their soft form of Kinism isn’t any less destructive than a soft form of critical race theory.
These Kinists are significantly smaller in number and influence than professing Christians who’ve embraced critical race theory. However, they’re less uncommon than you might think.
Until recently, all the racist words I’ve received since I started writing on race 8 years ago have come from critical race theorists. However, a few months ago—especially after I called out Stephen Wolfe—I received hundreds of racist words from Kinists on social media, especially since I’m a black man married to a white woman.
Stephen Wolfe is one of the most influentual Kinists in evangelical circles. He’s the author of the popular book, The Case For Christian Nationalism. On Twitter last year, he said:
“while intermarriage is not itself wrong (as an individual matter), groups have a collective duty to be separate and marry among themselves…there is a difference between something being sinful absolutely and something being sinful relatively. Interethnic marriage can be sinful relatively and absolutely.”
He’s since deleted those tweets. But his tweets are consistent with his words in The Case For Christian Nationalism:
Read More
Related Posts:

The Coming Persecution

LGBT ideology cannot co-exist with Christian theology. It cannot compete with the loving, hopeful, freeing gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it suppresses Christianity through persecution. It arrests Christians for preaching the gospel. It criminalises speech against homosexuality and transgenderism. And it charges people like Päivi Räsänen for quoting the Bible on social media. 

Don’t be surprised if one day you are on trial for quoting the Bible on social media.
If that seems unthinkable, you should know it’s already happening to some Christians in other parts of the world. Like tropical storms that devastate Caribbean and South American nations before hitting American soil, there is a coming persecution that is already affecting Christians around the world.
If things do not change, American Christians will suffer the same storms. There are already warning signs.
The Bible says,
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. (1 Peter 4:12)
Christians have become accustomed to getting banned (or shadowbanned) on social media for our beliefs, but it seems strange to think that one day we could be arrested for quoting the Bible. 
But that’s what happened to Päivi Räsänen, a member of parliament in Finland. 
She has been an elected official since 1995. She was the chair of the Christian Democratic Party from 2004 to 2015, she was minister of the interior from 2011 to 2015, and she is a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland with her husband, who serves as a pastor. 
In June 2019, Päivi tweeted a picture of Bible verses and questioned her denomination’s partnership with an LGBT Pride event. 
The prosecutor general in Finland opened an investigation against her. In April 2021, the prosecutor announced three charges of hate speech against Päivi—one charge for the tweet, a second charge for a 2004 pamphlet on sexuality for her church, and a third charge for a 2019 radio debate on sexuality.
Alliance Defending Freedom International supported her defence at a district court, and in a unanimous ruling in March 2022, the court dismissed all charges against her.
Read More
Related Posts:

You’re Fearfully and Wonderfully De-trans

If you’re detrans, you won’t be healed unless you believe in Christ and repent. Regret isn’t repentance. Regret won’t give you hope, repentance will. When the Bible says Jesus’ wounds have healed Christians, it’s talking about spiritual healing. It means our souls have been born again or made spiritually alive.

Some people have been celebrating their LGBT sins for an entire month. Others, however, will regret their LGBT sins for their entire lives.
One of these regretful LGBT people is a detrans girl named Clyde Fallon. In a Reddit group for detrans people, she said:
“I’m a 17 year old girl with a flat chest, a deep voice, a visible Adam’s apple and some facial hair … I’m angry, I’m sad, I’m mad, I’m depressed, I’m hurt. I am grieving I feel remorse. I can’t deal with all this pain. I lost my breasts … There’s no reason for me to continue to live … Will I ever [b]e happy again? Please tell me it is possible … I can’t deal with all this. I want a Time Machine so badly … I want my body back so badly. Pls give me hope.”
There are over 48,000 members in that Reddit group, and they all have similar stories of shame and despair.
The Bible says pride leads to destruction. That is true for all LGBT people, especially transgender youth, whose bodies have been destroyed by puberty blockers, and breast and genital mutilations. LGBT pride leads to destruction.
However, if you’re detrans, I want you to know there’s hope. You’ve destroyed parts of your body, but you haven’t destroyed who you are. Doctors can change your body and voice, but they haven’t changed the most important thing about you.
Your doctor changed your appearance, but they didn’t change your identity. You’re the same person your mother held in her hands the day you were born. And you’re the same person your creator knitted together in your mother’s womb.
In Psalm 139:13-16, King David said:
“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.”
You are fearfully and wonderfully made by God. You are God’s idea. You are God’s design. You are God’s wonderful work.
Read More
Related Posts:

White Fragility Is Pro-Racism

Robin DiAngelo writes like a white supremacist, and according to her concept of white fragility, it would be racist for her to reject my accusation—according to her own silly standards, she would have to agree with me that she’s indeed a white supremacist.

When I was a boy in Ghana, I once had a massive nail pierce through my foot, and I suffered through a makeshift surgery by my mom without anaesthesia.
And that was significantly more enjoyable than reading this book. It’s astonishingly bad.
White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism is one of the bestselling books right now, and it’s one of the worst books I’ve ever read.
White Fragility was released in 2018 by sociologist and anti-racist Robin DiAngelo. The book became a best-seller immediately after it was released. However, since George Floyd’s murder, it’s become the most recommended anti-racist book in the world.
In White Fragility, Robin DiAngelo attempts to explain why white people, especially “progressive” white people, do not believe they’re racists. In the book, she defines white fragility as any rejections—including sincere rejections—by white people against accusations of racism.
She says: “None of the people whose actions I describe in this book would identify as racist. In fact, they would most likely identify as racially progressive and vehemently deny any complicity with racism. Yet all their responses illustrate white fragility and how it holds racism in place.”
For that reason, she says: “white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color.”
That’s probably the only thing from the book I agree with. She’s right—except she doesn’t know she’s referring to herself. White “progressives” cause the most daily damage to black people, and this book is a good example of that.
I read White Fragility over four days, and it damaged me in each of the four days. The book is more damaging than any massive nail to my foot.
Robin DiAngelo has managed to accomplish the difficult task of writing a book that is simultaneously anti-white and white supremacist. And yet, it’s the bestselling book on racism today.
What does it say about our culture when one of the most racist books I’ve ever read is considered by many to be the best book on racism?
We’re apparently so distracted and so deceived by false definitions of racism, we’re seemingly no longer able to discern what real racism looks like. And that’s one of the major problems with White Fragility and anti-racism ideology, it redefines racism and sin to predictably destructive and disastrous conclusions.
Anti-racism is synonymous with critical race theory, or more broadly, social justice ideology. Anti-racism is a commitment to eliminating practices and policies, sins and systems that anti-racists declare as racist.
In anti-racism ideology, racism isn’t an enticing sin, it’s an entity—or as DiAngelo references in the book—“an omnipresent phenomenon.”
And by that definition of racism, it’s not difficult to notice the religious overtones of anti-racism. Anti-racism is just pro-racism appearing as an angel of light. Anti-racism is an anti-Christ ideology that uses racism as a means to fight supposed racism. It’s an ideology that labels good as evil and evil as good. And it’s in direct opposition to Christianity.
In White Fragility, Robin DiAngelo says: “a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.”
Professing to be wise, Robin DiAngelo became a fool. Professing to be anti-racist, she became a racist. White Fragility is a racist and an anti-white book. And if we really lived in an anti-black culture like DiAngelo claims, her anti-white book wouldn’t be a bestseller.
But anti-racists like Robin DiAngelo do not hate racism, they only hate, supposedly, anti-black racism. And yet, like many “progressives”, her anti-white racism manifests in a condescending form of white supremacy. Anti-racist rhetoric is remarkably similar to white supremacist rhetoric.
Anti-racists and white supremacists agree that a person’s skin colour is the most significant thing about them. They agree that a person’s skin colour shapes who they are. And anti-racists agree with white supremacists that white people are more privileged than black people—except they say so with pity, not pride.
Read More
Related Posts:

Scroll to top