All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 16, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
36:09
Ep. 319 - The Dumbest Boycott Yet

Leftists call for a nationwide boycott on CVS. The reason is astoundingly stupid. Also, David Hogg claims that it's easier to get an AR-15 than cold medicine. And we'll discuss the recent trend of Christian leaders leaving the faith. Date: 08-16-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Maybe you saw this report yesterday that President Trump has apparently repeatedly inquired about the possibility of buying Greenland.
You know, that big, that big hunk of ice up north.
And now, I think personally this is exactly the kind of weird but actually pretty good idea that I hoped Trump would have a lot more often.
I was hoping for Trump to, in my best case scenario, Trump would, in his presidency, have a whole bunch of ideas that make you go, Well, maybe.
Like, that kind of reaction is what I was hoping we would get.
And there hasn't been enough of that, in my opinion.
There's been, you know, this.
Space Force was one of those.
The first time you heard it, you're like, really?
Well, actually, pretty good.
So we want, I mean, if you're going to hire someone like, if you're going to elect someone like Trump to be president, then I think buying Greenland is exactly the sort of thing, the sort of idea that we would hope he would bring to the table.
And it could be great.
I mean, Greenland has natural resources.
They've got like polar bears, I think, or penguins, one of the two.
At least they have moose.
I don't know.
Actually, I don't know what Greenland has.
I honestly have no idea.
But just like everybody else, I have no clue.
But it would at least be fun to brag about at the UN meetings.
We could say to the other UN ambassadors, you know, oh, hey, we just finished that Greenland deal.
No big deal.
We just doubled the size of our overall landmass.
No big deal.
Whatever.
What are you up to?
What are you doing?
So we could at least do that.
But then comes outrageous news, just as we're all Beginning to really like the idea of owning Greenland and enslaving its inhabitants.
I mean, that was really, that was sort of my add-on.
I thought maybe we could do that as well.
But we don't have to do that.
Just an idea.
Just an idea.
Then the Greenland government, which consists of, you know, three guys in an igloo, they emerged from their igloo and they issued a statement.
They said, Greenland is not for sale.
That's what they said.
Well, okay then.
I guess we're going to have to do this the hard way.
You know, we don't have John Bolton in the White House for no reason, if you get my drift.
Okay, you could do it the easy way or you could do it the hard way.
And it looks like Greenland wants to do it the hard way.
I think it may be time, if you know what I mean here, it may be time to spread some democracy and freedom in Greenland.
Hint, hint, wink, wink.
Honestly, you could send one SEAL team in, not actual, well, maybe actual SEALs, or Navy SEALs.
You could send one team in and they could conquer the whole country by dinnertime.
Maybe there'd be two casualties, one guy slips on the ice, another guy gets trampled by a caribou, but other than that, I think it'd be fine.
Greenland just has to decide how it wants to play this.
The ball's in your court, Greenland.
Your court, which is about to be our court, one way or another.
All right, so we'll keep an eye on that, but exciting stuff, exciting stuff.
So I want to discuss, and look, I know that I say this all the time, but I want to begin today by talking about what is potentially the most embarrassing and possibly the stupidest boycott ever.
Ever.
And it happened yesterday.
And I know that's saying a lot.
But I really think, I don't think I'm exaggerating this time.
No hyperbole.
We'll talk about that in just a moment.
But first, a word from our friends at Dynatrap.
You know, it's summertime, and to have your home invaded by pests, by flies and bugs and everything, that can really ruin the vibe.
It can really, it can harsh your buzz, as the kids would say.
I guess there's a little bit of a pun there, too, with the bugs.
I didn't even do that on purpose.
I just ruined it though by pointing it out and dwelling on it like I am right now.
And besides, who knows where those flies were last?
You know, they carry germs, they carry diseases.
And so when they're landing on your food, they're in your kitchen, you gotta think about that.
That's why we'd like to thank our sponsors over at Dynatrap.
Dynatrap is the leading manufacturer of outdoor mosquito and insect traps.
And now they've come up with a solution.
They're bringing all that know-how inside and dealing with the problem
where I think it really matters, and that's inside your home.
And that's what the Dynatrap Flylight, The Dynatrap Flylight works day and night to attract and trap flies, fruit flies, mosquitoes, other pesky insects.
And, you know, it really works.
We've been using this stuff for weeks now and we haven't had any problem at all with bugs in the house.
And that's saying something because we have three kids that are constantly leaving the door open.
No matter what we say, they're always leaving the door open.
And, um, but we haven't had a problem.
So you can get yours now at Dynatrap.com.
That's d-y-n-a-t-r-a-p.com.
Enter the promo code Walsh and receive 15% off any of their products.
I'm telling you, you gotta get this.
And it's not like one of those little sticky paper things.
It's just, it looks like a little subtle nightlight that you plug into an outlet and you forget about it
and it takes care of the problem for you.
Dynatrap, the safe, silent, simple solution to household insect control.
All right, so yesterday, the hashtags boycott CVS and CVS denies care were both trending on social media.
And if you went and checked those hashtags, you would have found lots of people panicking that CVS was denying them birth control, CVS was attacking women's access to birth control, CVS was attacking women's health, CVS was blocking access to birth control, CVS was preventing women from getting birth control, CVS is anti-women, CVS is killing women, CVS is evil.
This is all the stuff you would have seen on Twitter.
And the ACLU obviously jumped in on the action because there is no outrage too petty for the ACLU.
If there's a petty outrage anywhere, they're going to be there on the scene.
NARAL, the extremist pro-abortion group, they were on the dog pile as well.
Well, why?
What did CVS do wrong?
Now, you might assume, when you see this, you would think, oh, they must have, what are they, hiked their prices on birth control a little bit or something like that?
No, it's even dumber than that, okay?
I told you this is the dumbest boycott of all time.
That's not an exaggeration.
Get ready for this.
The boycott began with a startup company called Pill Club, which is a pill delivery service.
And if I could, a side note for a moment to remark on the fact that it's creepy yet appropriate
that something called Pill Club exists in modern America.
But in any case, Pill Club, as I said, is a startup company, they deliver pills.
Well, Pill Club is in a dispute with CVS because their contract with CVS came up
and CVS wants to renew that contract with lower reimbursement rates,
meaning Pill Club would get less money from CVS for delivering CVS's pills to customers.
.
And that's it.
That's the whole thing.
That was the reason for a nationwide boycott.
One pill delivery company will be getting slightly less money for delivering pills.
And this somehow translates to women being prevented from using birth control.
I mean, it's just... I don't think I've ever seen a boycott that is this wholly unjustified and pointless.
There have been a lot of unjustified and pointless ones, but I've never seen it this bad before.
So let's follow this logic all the way through.
If CVS is charging PillClub more, or rather they are paying PillClub less, then that means PillClub will either have to charge its customers a few bucks more or stop delivering CVS pills entirely, worst case scenario.
Which means that if you're a woman who has PillClub delivering you birth control pills, you're either going to have to pay a little bit more or find a different delivery company Or, God forbid, leave your house and go to the store yourself to pick up the pills.
And somehow this minor amount of energy, being asked to put in this tiny little bit of effort to leave your house—you leave your house all the time for things.
So now all you gotta do on your way home from all the other things you're doing, stop by CVS to pick up your birth control pills.
That now is an attack on your very health and well-being.
Guys, this birth control thing is just so absurd at this point.
We've now reached a point where a woman is being attacked and being prevented from using birth control if the birth control is not transported directly to her door for cheap.
If she has to pay a little bit more or leave her house, then she's being persecuted.
Meanwhile, all the women who complain that they can't afford... Here's the thing.
If you are a woman in modern America, and you're claiming that you absolutely cannot afford birth control, I don't believe you.
I'm sorry, I just don't believe you.
I think you can afford it.
I really do.
I think you can.
I certainly think you can leave your house to get it if you really need it.
Or make other arrangements.
But I think, even aside from that, is this idea that, ah, it needs to be freer, it's too much.
Stop it.
Just stop.
We live in a country that runs on consumerism.
All of us.
We're constantly buying things we don't need.
It really doesn't matter, even if we're not talking about birth control.
Whatever it is you're claiming you can't afford, 99% chance you can definitely actually afford it.
It's just that you've prioritized other things.
Now, if we're talking about a Lamborghini or a six-bedroom mansion, then yeah, most of us can't afford that stuff.
But if we're talking about just sort of everyday average items, saying you can't afford it, you probably can.
The women who complain that they can't afford birth control and who claim that it's a basic health necessity on top of it, how many of them have Netflix subscriptions?
How many of them have Spotify subscriptions?
How many of them have unlimited data plans?
How many of them buy essentially a whole new wardrobe every year?
I'd like to see that Venn diagram because I'm betting that Venn diagram is basically just a circle because all of that is jumbled together.
Of course, the whole idea As I said, the whole idea that anyone can't afford birth control is ludicrous.
Anyone can afford it.
Because, by the way, when we talk about birth control, that is a category that includes not just pills.
That also includes, you know, things that you can buy at the gas station.
Right?
So, again, the idea that there are people who simply cannot afford anything like that And so we have to get the prices down or give it out for free, otherwise we're gonna have all these unwanted pregnancies, so-called unwanted pregnancies and so on.
It's just ridiculous.
You know, I think that probably the majority of people can afford it just fine on their current income and it's not a problem.
People who are a little bit more strapped for cash, you know, maybe you cut out a few discretionary expenses if it's important to you.
A lot of this just comes down to priority.
But we all have expenses that we could cut out if we needed to.
But this is even... I guess now we're at a point where you need the birth control for free, it needs to be brought to your house, it needs to be brought in your door, walked up the steps, placed into your palm with a glass of water, anything aside from that, and you're being murdered, essentially, by the patriarchy.
I mean, come on.
It's just completely ridiculous.
All right, by the way, I love this tweet from David Hogg.
Moving on.
David Hogg says, it's harder to get cold pills than an AR-15.
Something needs to change.
It's harder to get cold pills, like Sudafed or something, than an AR-15.
Something needs to change.
Now, I don't know where David Hogg lives, but apparently in his neck of the woods, in his part of the country, you can go to the grocery store and buy an AR-15 for $6, and you only have to show the cashier your driver's license, and you're in and out in three minutes.
I want to know, what grocery store is this?
What grocery store sells AR-15s for $6?
And no background check.
All I got to do is just, you know, I go to the 16-year-old cashier, says, can I see your ID?
Look, show them my ID, and I'm out of there.
Where is that happening?
The way the left talks about guns and so-called assault rifles and so on, it just makes it really clear that they have literally no idea what they're talking about.
They've never looked into this.
They have no clue what is actually involved in buying a gun.
What was that?
Famously, I think Barack Obama claimed famously, what was it that he said?
He said that, if I remember correctly, he said it's easier to get a gun than a library book or something.
He said it's harder to get a book than a gun.
Wasn't it?
I gotta look that up.
I'm pretty sure it was a book.
This kind of comparison where it's, well, it's harder to get X than a gun, liberals are doing this all the time.
And the comparisons just keep getting more and more ridiculous.
Harder to get a book than a gun.
No, to get an AR-15, let's start with the fact that they're very expensive, which is a barrier for entry for a lot of people.
A lot more expensive, now that's something that you really might not be able to afford, unlike birth control pills, or contraception of any kind.
They're expensive.
There's a background check involved.
You can't just walk into a place, buy an AR-15, and you're out in two minutes.
That's not how it works.
If people like David Hogg would take the time to do just a slightest amount of research into what they're talking about, they would discover this.
All right, here's something else from, this is an interesting report from the Daily Wire.
Interesting slash hilarious.
It says, the Journal of One New York University's Women's and Gender Studies Program So you know it's gonna be good.
This is a journal from a New York University's Women's and Gender Studies program.
You know whatever's gonna happen.
Whatever comes next, you know it's good.
It's published a paper that insists that milking cows is comparable to sexual abuse, emotional trauma related to pregnancy, and non-consensual hormone treatment.
Oh my gosh.
The paper... Oh wow, okay.
And this is not a joke, apparently.
This is real.
The paper is titled, Readying the Rape Rack, Feminism and the Exploitation of Non-Human Reproductive Systems.
It was included in Dissenting Voices, published and edited by the Women's and Gender Studies Program at the College at Brockport State University of New York.
Ryan notes that the author and intern for Brockport's Women's Studies Department,
Ryan is a, is a, Celine Ryan, who's writing for Campus Reform.
She says, an intern for Brockport's Women's Studies Department asserts that she must discuss
the under-researched feminist aspects of animal agriculture, adding, the same way women's health has been at stake
for years, a dairy cow's reproductive system has been poked and prodded.
The author writes, throughout our lives, we are offered an idealized image of dairy cows,
where these animals graze on beautiful pastures, have room to sow and play,
and are comforted in spacious areas in which to sleep.
We are presented with images of a life well lived, but when it comes to the deaths of those same animals, the picture-perfect story comes to a grim reality.
dairy cows are forcibly impregnated or raped and blah blah blah. Okay, anyway, it goes on from there.
So this is a feminist issue with feminists now comparing themselves to cows apparently.
It's actually interesting because over the last few days, during the email portion of the show,
we've been talking about factory farming because A vegetarian emailed me a few days ago and tried to say that I shouldn't be so dismissive of the vegetarian argument, because even if I don't agree with it, it's not irrational.
And I said, when it comes to criticisms of factory farming, that's certainly not an irrational criticism.
I think that there's something to be said about that.
So, if you want to make a criticism of factory farming, there are so many avenues you could explore, there's so many arguments you can make, yet somehow this person managed to make the craziest and most delusional argument possible.
That's good stuff.
All right, what else?
Well, there's this story about Tlaib and Omar being banned from Israel.
I was going to do a whole thing on this, but I realize I don't care that much.
Israel can do what it wants.
Makes no difference to me either way, honestly.
And that's my analysis, I guess.
I was going to go into a whole thing, but I think you've heard enough people probably talk about it.
Frankly, I find the subject boring.
So, we'll move on.
And in fact, we'll get right to emails.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
There are a bunch of good emails, so I want to give time on a Friday for the emails.
This is from Jake.
Says, uh, great overlord of this multiverse and other multiverses.
Yesterday, you gave the example of a 16-year-old boy dating a 49-year-old man that was highlighted on Pink News.
You talked about how, aside from the gay aspect of this story, it's inherently evil for a young person to date or marry an old person.
So, as a Christian, I ask myself, is it actually wrong to have such a large age gap with someone you're dating or married to if neither person is underage?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there's some minimum age involved, like 18 or 21.
Biblically speaking, is there any reason why an 18-year-old morally shouldn't date or marry a 50-year-old, assuming they are opposite genders?
What about 18 and 35?
Where's the line?
I agree it's weird and goes against our cultural norms for now, but what is the biblical argument for being so evil if it's consensual and neither person is underage?
I've heard before, though not proven fact, that Jesus' mother, Mary, was probably in her earlier mid-teens and his father, Joseph, was probably in his mid-30s when they got married and had Jesus.
If that's true, we'd have, let's say, a 15-year-old marrying a 35-year-old.
Is this a reasonable age gap?
Technically, Mary would have been underage by our standards.
Just curious what your thoughts are on this and where you draw the line.
Always appreciate your insight.
Well, I don't think I said it's inherently evil for a young person to marry an old person.
I certainly don't think that.
But when you talk about age gaps, and what we were discussing yesterday, just to be clear, this was a story in Pink News, which is a gay news site.
They were celebrating the story, the quote-unquote relationship between a 55-year-old man and a 22-year-old guy, except that they had been quote-unquote dating for six years, which means they started quote-unquote dating When he was 49 and the kid was 16.
That is clearly, not just inappropriate, but that's sexual abuse.
And then you add on top of that, it's bad enough given the ages, but you add on top of that the fact that this guy, even at 22 he looked like he was about 10.
So you can imagine what he looked like when he was 16.
What does that tell you about the sexual proclivities of this older guy?
So that clearly is wrong.
However, I don't think I ever said that it's inherently wrong for there to be some sort of age gap between two people who are in a relationship.
It's just that there's a difference, right?
There's a difference between, say, someone who's 35 being married to someone who's 50.
There's a difference between that and even something like 35 and 20.
Now, at 35, to be in a relationship with a 20-year-old, that's legal.
Nobody could say it's illegal, but I do think that oftentimes it can be just the difference in maturity.
You know, I guess that's what it comes down to.
The maturity gap between a 55 and a 35 year old is very small, and it may be non-existent, because you get to a certain point where you've grown, you're an adult now, you've been an adult for a long time, and you've just experienced life, And so the difference between you and that's why at 35 you could get along with someone who's 50 and as a peer, really.
But some of these age gaps you're talking about here, 18 and 35, you mentioned.
Well, the maturity gap between an 18 year old and a 35 year old is going to be enormous.
I mean, I'm 33 right now.
And I think back to myself when I was 18, I was basically a whole other person.
The difference between me now at 33 and when I was 18 is so vast that it feels like it wasn't even me.
At 18, I might as well have been five years old, maturity-wise.
So that's why it can be in some cases.
Now, maybe there are exceptions.
You could have a 20-year-old who's just really mature and has their act together.
I'm not saying there aren't possibly exceptions.
I just think that You know, for someone who is significantly more mature and experienced to be in a romantic relationship with someone who is significantly less experienced and mature, then I think that's where it can be strange.
Even if it's perfectly legal.
All right, this is from Ben, says, Dear Future Overlord, what is the funniest verse in the Bible?
I believe it is Proverbs 27, 14.
Every time I read it, I laugh.
However, if I'm wrong, I will submit to your authority and will proclaim your correction as the actual funniest verse in the Bible.
You know, I think that there's a lot of great things to be said for the Bible, of course.
It is the Word of God at the end of the day.
But I would like it if there's a little bit more comic relief.
There's not a lot of that.
If I had to point to the funniest verse in the Bible, for me, and I hope I'm not venturing into blasphemy here, the verse of Jesus cursing the fig tree I've always found kind of funny.
I understand the symbolic significance of it and everything, but just on a human level, it just seems like the kind of thing that I might do if I was God.
Where you want to take a fig from the tree and it doesn't have figs, and so you get ticked off and you curse the tree.
And in one of the Gospels, it tells you that the apostles are standing there and they're saying, Jesus, the thing's not in season, that's why.
They're trying to explain because they don't understand.
So I think from what makes that funny is, is from the apostles perspective they don't understand the
symbolic significance of the cursing the fig tree so from their perspective Jesus was
just ticked off and in a bad mood so he cursed the fig tree just for the sake of it which is
you know i think it's kind of funny all right um this is from ken says i know this may sound
harsh but after hearing your discussion about marty's deleted tweet i got to thinking that's marty
samson who deleted it It was actually an Instagram post, not a tweet.
He's the lead singer of a well-known Christian rock band who posted something on Instagram saying that he's doubting his faith and is on the verge of leaving his faith behind.
That's what we're talking about.
Ken says, all of his complaints seem to be about how other people weren't doing things for him.
People weren't talking about fallen pastors.
People weren't talking about contradictions.
People weren't talking about miracles.
He's a leader in his church, if not his global community.
It behooves him to teach people these things.
It seems he is in a unique position to go and learn solid doctrinal truths and then to convey those truths in song.
Just because it's deep doesn't mean you can't sing about it.
For hundreds of years, writers of hymns have dealt with deep theological and complicated doctrinal issues and put it to song.
Instead of complaining about how other people weren't dealing with deep theological issues, he should have been discovering those and then singing about them.
Though he's 40 years old and I don't think he's qualified as a millennial, I think he's been too influenced by them.
This seems to be, and I hate to say this, one of the aspects of a younger generation trying to come to grips with what is their job and what is everyone else's job.
They said the same thing about Gen X when I was in my 20s and 30s, that we're useless, we don't know how to work, we're lazy, and we'd rather just sit around all day instead of doing something productive.
And here's what all those baby broomers and those great generation folks told me.
Get your butt up and go to work.
If he doesn't like it that the leadership, which he is a member of, isn't talking about those things, then he should take it upon himself to step in and talk.
It's not for him to sit there and complain that the ball is just sitting there on the five-yard line and no one running it in, pick it up and run with it.
Yeah, I think you make a good point here.
And I don't deny it.
And I said yesterday, a lot of these issues that he's struggling with, apparently, are serious issues.
He's dealing with the problem of evil, alleged contradictions in the Bible, apparent contradictions in the Bible, other things like that.
Those are serious issues, very deep issues.
There's nothing wrong with struggling with them.
I think it'd be weird if you didn't struggle with them.
As a Christian, if you've never had a point in your life where you really stopped and dwelled on those problems and felt troubled by them.
But I just think that shows that you're not really taking your faith all that seriously
and you're not thinking through things.
So there's nothing wrong with that.
And as I said yesterday, I think there is a problem with pastors not addressing these
issues from the pulpit.
There are exceptions, and in fact I have an email from someone who's a pastor who touches on this.
Maybe I'll get to that in a minute.
So there are exceptions, but for the most part these are issues that on the sort of popular mainstream Christian level aren't discussed, and I think that is an issue.
Now as you point out, He was a member of the popular mainstream Christian scene and a leader of it, and so he should have been one of the ones bringing this conversation up.
And I agree.
And that's why I think, although the questions he raises are reasonable questions and good questions and we should try to address them, I'm not trying to absolve him of all responsibility.
Of course, I don't do that.
And at the end of the day, whether you're the leader of a Christian rock band or not, no matter who you are, even if these issues aren't being addressed in church, It does.
As you said, it behooves us to go and pursue those answers.
I just think we shouldn't have to pursue them quite as much.
Because this is what churches should be doing.
It's one of the main things churches should be doing, in my view.
All right, this is from Thomas.
We have two emails from two different Thomases.
This is from Thomases.
Hey Matt, I was a CO on Rikers Island until I retired about two years ago, and it's not uncommon for COs to sleep on the midnight tour.
It seemed to me that some COs took it for granted that it was a given that they would sleep.
Some housing areas had spas, inmate suicide prevention aids.
I guess SPA is a...
Is the acronym there?
in there who were supposed to supplement our tours of the area and let us know of any problems
with any inmates.
I never really trusted SPAs and I would have preferred to have them locked in on the midnight
tour.
I was pretty vigilant in making my tours with my trusty rechargeable stream light.
Hey, you never know.
Also, we were taught that an inmate could hang themselves from low places as well.
On Rikers, like at MCC, there was tons of mandatory overtime.
A common refrain from the captain would be, you're stuck.
In other words, put an H on your chest and handle it.
In some jails on Rikers, COs would get stuck four out of four days.
Most COs on Rikers work a four and two day rotation.
Four days on, two days off.
You also work Also, many work the wheel, which is a different shift every week.
Also, I was thinking, could Epstein's broken bones have come from him possibly thrusting his head forward a bunch of times, possibly to overcome his instinct for survival, and perhaps that might explain the shrieking that supposedly occurred.
We'll never know, but it would make for a good movie, like The International, which I watched the other day, but it was only available on pay-per-view, and I was feeling cheap that day.
Thanks for that added note at the end.
Your perspective and insight as a former prison guard is valuable.
So that's interesting and slightly concerning to know that sleeping on the job among prison guards is so common.
Not sure I'm a huge fan of that.
But the idea that he could have broken his own neck by thrusting his head forward, it's possible.
It just seems implausible to me.
It seems very implausible.
The kind of force that would be required to do that.
But you just, you don't hear about it very often.
People thrusting their head back and forth and breaking their neck in the process.
Again, possible.
I think implausible.
So no matter what, whatever the explanation is, whatever happened, it's definitely, it's something somewhat incredible happened.
We're only left, for a guy, especially given the situation, And given the importance of this person, importance because of the information they have, for him to be able to break his own neck, that would be an incredible turn of events.
The other possibilities, which may include, for instance, you know, someone getting to him, paying off prison officials or whatever would be involved, that would also be incredible.
And so now it's just sort of which explanation is more incredible, and I guess it's left to each individual to decide that.
This is from the other Thomas, who is the pastor I mentioned before.
He says, Hi Matt, I never missed your show and I appreciate you being upfront about things the Apostle Paul called hard to be understood.
As an independent Baptist pastor who frequently covers apologetics, the harmony of the Gospels, and seemingly confounding questions from the pulpit, I can tell you from experience that only a very small percentage of Christians actually retain or work to retain such technical information.
I think that's why many pastors avoid these things from the pulpit, because they figure, what's the point?
However, some such as myself still do address these things in pulpit ministry, because even if the people don't often retain it, at least they know now that there are explanations if they want them.
This increases their faith, even if they don't allow their knowledge to be increased so much.
They end up knowing explanations exist, they just can't articulate them like you or me.
Just imagine if all Christians learned to articulate difficult things about the Christian faith.
Perhaps we'd have retained a little more respect over the years.
The other reason I still address difficult things in a pulpit is because of trust in leadership.
These people will know that I'm going to tell them the truth because some of these issues we deal with don't have a slam-dunk answer.
A leader willing to say, we don't fully know that proves dishonesty.
I like what Ravi Zacharias says, God has put enough into this world to make faith in him a most reasonable thing, but he has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason alone.
Faith and reason must always work together in that plausible blend.
Thanks for all you do.
That's probably one of the reasons why pastors don't address, pastors aside from yourself and the minority who do, the reason why, that might be one of the reasons why most pastors don't address these difficult issues is because, I guess as you say, they figure what's the point.
I think though, more common reason, I think probably there are a lot of pastors who don't, just don't think about these things either and don't understand them enough to talk about them.
Don't study it, just don't take it seriously.
I think that it's very clear to me that there are a lot of church leaders in this country who have an understanding of the Bible that is very paltry and pathetic.
And so all they can really do is give you talking points and cliches and surface level because that's as far as their own understanding goes.
So I think that's part of the problem.
And I think that there's also a cowardice among some pastors, that they don't want to get into these deeper issues and problems.
They especially don't want to, as you said, with some of these things, there isn't a slam-dunk answer.
There isn't really an answer at all.
You get into the question, you think about it, you dissect it, and at the end of it, you're left still with a question.
And that's okay, because we're not going to understand everything in the universe.
But I think there are some pastors who are afraid of that.
And so they don't want to talk about it.
But either way, I think all these excuses are bad, because this is what you do as a pastor is exactly what pastors need to be doing.
What's the point?
If you're not addressing the questions that really matter, and that people are the kinds of things that really trouble people, at least trouble the people who bother to think about them.
If you're not addressing that, then why even get up there and say anything?
What is the point?
If you're going to avoid all of the difficult questions related to faith, then I just think that you're in the wrong profession entirely.
You might as well go.
Go be a used car salesman.
There's just no reason for you to be doing this.
Not you specifically, but pastors in general.
So, I like what you're doing.
I think you're being a little too generous maybe to some of your pastor friends who don't do the same thing.
I think this is exactly what needs to be done.
Something like, you know, There's the issues with the Bible, but things like, as we talked about, the problem of evil, the problem of suffering.
I'm not saying that every time you get up there on the pulpit you need to be dealing with that question, but this should be a question that is returned to frequently.
Because this is one of the core problems, one of the main issues that people have.
All right, but thanks for the email.
Thanks, everybody, for watching.
I'm on vacation next week, so I'll talk to you in a couple weeks.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knoll Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Robert Sterling, associate producer Alexia Garcia del Rio, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay, our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Donovan Fowler.
Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
If you prefer facts over feelings, if you aren't offended by the brutal truth, if you can still laugh at the nuttiness filling our national news cycle, well, tune on in to The Ben Shapiro Show, where you'll get a whole lot of that and much more.
▲
Export Selection