Okay, Maybe Baptists Did Cause Transgenderism argues transgenderism stems from Second Great Awakening theology, where Charles Finney's focus on individual decisionism fueled feminism and the temperance movement to atomize men. The host critiques modern leaders like Russell Moore and Jared C. Wilson for equating masculinity with sin, creating a hostile environment that drives young men toward figures like Jordan Peterson while gatekeeping household headship. Ultimately, this cultural shift toward hyper-individualism rejects biblical federal representation, necessitating biological gender elimination unless churches restore traditional family structures to counteract three generations of programming women's sins as virtues. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Feminism's Final Fruits00:10:31
We began with all cultures everywhere throughout all of human history implicitly recognizing unique strengths, weaknesses, and the distinct roles and gifts that belong separately to men and women.
We've arrived at Rachel Levine.
For most people in our culture today, just the thought of there being things that women cannot do that men can, and vice versa, seems no different than doctors draining the body of bad humors with leeches.
They say the modern world has bridged the gap.
In fact, our medical technology is so advanced that we can even bridge the biological gap between the sexes.
Our modern transhumanist world believes it has so effectively cast down the Almighty and has triumphed over His created order so decisively that His very image, man and woman, this thing He has fixed from the beginning, is now permanently abolished.
At the very outset of the Enlightenment, when men first believed they had bested God, did the earliest feminists begin to spread their ideas?
What we currently live in is a product of generations.
Imagining they could recreate the world in our own sinful image.
Transforming the glories of the woman into the shameful things of the man is not an accident.
It was done by design.
So, one thing that I think it would be helpful to talk about in this episode is just helping people see, because I think, you know, the typical normie is, you know, they red pilled in 2020, and, you know, for three years now, they've prided themselves.
You know, and saying, I, you know, I can see, you know, behind the veil.
Yeah.
I've seen the Wizard of Oz.
I, you know, I'm in the know that things have gotten really bad in the last three years.
And it's like, you know, like another meme, you know, like you think things have gotten bad in the last three years.
I think things have gotten bad in the last 300.
We are not the same.
Yes, right.
You know, and so, like, so I think it'd be really helpful to talk about not even just the last three years, but backing up and looking at the 60s and even recognizing that the sexual revolution of the 60s.
Even that was not the root, but that was the fruit of something that was brewing underneath the surface for a very long time.
So, can we talk about the Second Great Awakening?
Can we talk about where, you know, the Enlightenment, those kinds of things, like where did some of this trash world get its start?
Yeah, I think it's always a question of, all right, you focus on it, like you said, a time period in history where everyone will be like, oh, the 1960s and 70s, that's when, you know, feminism, that particular wave of feminism, Came in, and that's what everybody focuses on.
And then everything before that was just fine.
There weren't any that this didn't exist before that.
I mean, you see that even today with like the trans stuff and the reaction to it, like the anti woke reaction to it.
So much of it is we just want to go back to like 2014 ish.
Yeah, Clinton era.
Yeah, maybe the 1990s, you know, but that's good enough.
And it's like, well, no, like it didn't just appear out of nowhere.
Randomly in the late 20 teens and early 2020s, it didn't just like poof, here it is.
And we just need to go back to right before that.
It's a process.
Things that, antecedents that had to be there in order to get transgenderism had to appear first.
And you have to cut those things out.
It's almost like my backyard garden at my home, if I don't weed it every single day, And get these little tiny things that aren't, you know, they don't have terribly deep roots.
You can just pluck them with two fingers.
You know, if I don't do that every single day, if I come back like five days later, a couple, you know, I'm lazy and take a few days off, and all of a sudden there's like a three foot tall, you know, massive weed that has roots like 10 feet down after just a couple days.
And it's like, I have to rent equipment to pull that thing out.
That's what this is like, where it's like there are things, there are intellectual movements and ideas where if you nip them in the bud, like if you just cut them out right away, then these horrible, Disgusting things don't grow and don't foster.
Ideas have consequences, but they also have culmination.
Yeah.
They have seed form.
Yeah, exactly.
Where they reach their final form, where I mean, even transgenderism probably isn't the final form.
It's close to it, but it's not.
It could get worse.
And so we have to go back further and further and further to see, okay, when is it this tiny little, and not just transgenderism, but feminism as well, when is it just this tiny little thing? thing in the ground where I can just easily pluck it out and throw it to the wind.
Yeah, well, and that's, I think, what we should talk about.
I think transgenderism is one of the, maybe not the final fruit, like you just said, but it's one of the final fruits or getting close of the root of feminism.
So I think there's a straight line from feminism to transgenderism because I think egalitarianism, for it to be successful, ultimately equality, when we speak of equality in those kinds of terms, what it demands is androgyny.
So people think, well, transgenderism, you know, that you own the libs, You know, and say, like, oh, isn't this funny that, you know, Leah Thomas, you know, is beating all the, you know, all the chicks and swimming, you know, that kind of stuff.
And so you're like, this.
So, on one hand, you know, I think the neocon individual, you know, who red pill three years ago and thinks that the world was fine until then, that person, you know, is owning the libs by saying, you're, you know, you're the real anti feminist, you know, like, you're the real, you know, blah, blah, blah.
But we just want to save Title IX.
And it's like, right.
And so what they're saying is that transgenderism, right.
So they're saying transgenderism is an irony.
Of feminism.
Whereas I would say, no, transgenderism is actually the logical end.
It's not an irony.
It's not opposing feminism.
It's actually the logical end of what feminism was always destined to produce.
And I think the reason why is because, again, I think in order to have the perfect, egalitarian, equal world, you need, in order to have perfect equality, as the Marxist thinks about equality, you have to have sameness, you have to have androgyny.
You know, like I've always told my church, I said, you know, the goal is not to have 5,000 different genders, right?
It's, you know, two genders, then it's three, then it's 87, then it's 126, 134, whatever number we're on now.
But the goal is not to get to 5,000, it's to get to one.
So the goal is how do we get from two genders to one?
And the easiest way to do it is not two to one.
That's a hard pill to swallow.
That probably won't work on the public.
So what you do is you go up first and then you go up so far to where just All is just a mess and just blends together and it becomes one.
But the goal is androgyny.
I think feminism has always served towards that end.
And so, you know, even though it seems like an irony, like, oh, feminism is no longer the thing, now it's transgenderism, which flies in the face of feminism.
I would say, no, transgenderism is the child of the mother of feminism.
Well, yeah, the irony too is that, I mean, you see it a lot online that the really radical feminists, or many of them, are.
Like anti trans for the same reason, where they're like, no, no, this is no feminism, didn't cause transgenderism.
This is this is attacking us, you know.
They could they're called like TERFs, you know, right?
Yeah, yeah.
Dave Trampel famously said, I'm Team Turf.
Trans exclusionary radical feminist.
That's a Harry Potter woman.
Yeah, she is a turf.
And so they're broken into these two camps, whereas other feminists are like, no, you are a woman too, and we're going to fight to make sure that all your rights are protected and things like that.
And so there's this divide within that world.
But I think it is obvious there's this seamless process where if you.
If you break down all of the social distinctions between men and women that already exist, um, you know, uh, where you have anti discrimination laws that uh force women into male only spaces, and um, where you have you know, by law and then later by custom, um, everyone just assuming that well, we won't ever have any distinctions between men and women, we'll have men and women together in every single thing, you know, uh, um.
Will we won't have you know boys' sports and girls' sport with girl sports or uh or even before that sports were just for boys, right?
Like we talked about Title IX, right?
We'll have um um now every every boy's sport you have you have to have a girl's sport that accompanies it, and and um we're gonna mandate this by law, right?
All all sorts of things like that is it um it didn't happen like overnight or out of nowhere, like it's this long drawn up process over the course of.
Of decades and even centuries.
And you remove all of these distinctions in your culture between men and women.
And then all of a sudden, it's like, well, if men and women are entirely the same, other than biologically, then, well, why don't we change them biologically?
Why don't we make them physically look like one or the other?
And that's what happened, especially once sexual perversion in general.
Begins to be normalized, tolerated, then normalized, and then positively exalted.
Then that other perversion becomes thinkable as well, or at least something you could bring out into the public and demand that people accept this now, because that's the next thing.
After we made homosexuality a laudable thing that by law you have to praise, Then it's the very next step is all right, now these men who look like women are dressed like women.
Protestantism's Feminization Roots00:03:36
I don't really look like women, they act like women, yeah.
Now they're going to look like and look like them.
And women that want to look like you know teenage boys.
Um, now you have to treat them as though they are those things, right?
Right?
Or you are in trouble, right?
So let's talk about the church, let's talk about um, the origins of some of these ideas, but how the church, in many ways, hook, line, and sinker.
You know, took the bait that, and I'm thinking about, you know, specifically American church history.
And like, I think it would be helpful to, you know, you discuss this in your book, but to talk about the Second Great Awakening.
Yeah.
That the Second Great Awakening was nothing like the first.
This isn't, you know, this isn't George Whitefield, you know, or the Wesley Brothers, but that, you know, Charles Finney and his conception of revival, his conception of Christianity, his systematic that's heretical that he came up with, you know, these kinds of things.
And in a lot of ways, yes, we could argue that it was there before.
In a previous episode, we talked about how in the Roman Church and Roman Catholicism, that these things were there very early on with their Mariology, which was a big part of it.
But I think within Protestantism, especially here in America, the Great Awakening seems to be the root of a lot of feminization that affected the culture but began actually in the house of God.
Yeah, I think the big thing about the Second Great Awakening, just as the fundamental religious moment in American history, is that it democratized American religion, whereas, and American Protestants, Protestantism in particular.
Before that, you had the various forms of Protestant denominations that all had a very rigid hierarchy, right?
Even Congregationalism still had pastors that were set apart and things like that.
So people maybe would be like, oh, there was still Congregationalism in America.
Yeah, there was.
But even there, it was fairly rigid.
You still had families and households where.
The fathers represented the household.
They're the ones that voted in most of the Congregationalist churches and so forth.
But then you have Finney and you have the revivalism in Western New York and throughout the frontier during the early part of the 19th century, where now it's just individuals and it isn't even really churches.
It's just these big tent revivals.
And all of it's reduced down to individual conversions.
And there is no discipleship, there's no church.
It's all just individual people becoming Christians, and that's it.
Pretty straight line from Charles Finney to Billy Graham, would you say?
Yeah, I think so.
I mean, well, yes and no.
In terms of the methodology, yeah, definitely.
I think you have a few different things happen to Protestantism throughout the 19th century in America where you still have your.
Your mainline Protestant denominations and the seminaries and big churches that existed, those start to go very liberal because of the theology coming out of continental Europe.
Individual Faith vs Soft Pentecostalism00:15:52
And at the same time, while they're going liberal, they are pushing this kind of utopian progressivism where they had a kind of a form of postmillennialism.
It's very different than what we think.
Where we can just produce God's kingdom on earth by transforming men into perfect angels.
They don't have to be converted necessarily to Christ.
We'll just pass laws, right?
We will just pass laws and we'll reshape society where it's almost revolutionary.
It's still the same revolutionary spirit of the age that existed since 1789, where we now know so much more, right?
You have this hubris of modern man where we know better.
We have science.
And so we can reconfigure society to make a perfect society.
And what we need to do is, we need to give voting rights to women.
We need to ban alcohol.
We need to have public education.
And even there were some economic ones.
We need to have a central bank.
We need to have an income tax.
And of course, they got all those things.
They got all those things.
And there were many.
So you have the mainliners on the one hand that are pushing that and pushing this kind of utopian progressivism with.
You know, kind of Puritan, New England Puritan aspects or heritage.
And then you also have the revivalist, you know, who would later be called fundamentalist, you know, Christians that take up a lot of this stuff too.
So there's like, there's a ton of overlap between the two, even though they're two divergent, you know, streams.
And this is the kind of cultural and religious and social thinking that really came to dominate America in the late 19th and early 20th century.
All right, I'm just going to say it.
This show is fantastic.
You know it's fantastic.
I know it's fantastic, but I'm willing to admit there is one singular problem the waiting zone, right?
You've got to wait a whole week for each new episode of this show to drop on Fridays at 4 p.m. Central Time, unless you go on over to patreon.com forward slash right response ministries.
Then you'll be able to binge watch every single episode of an entire season.
All in one day.
So, this is a season based show, right?
The whole idea is a deep dive on one singular topic so that you know everything there is to know.
Each season comes out in a quarter, right?
So, a three month period, anywhere from probably eight to 12 episodes in a season.
And the moment that the first episode of a new season drops to the public, then you can go over to patreon.com forward slash right response ministries and watch all of those episodes without having to wait week by week by week.
For the next episode to publicly drop.
So, you know what to do.
Don't waste any more time.
Binge watch the whole season today.
As I think about it theologically, so I was raised not exactly Pentecostal.
I was raised in the Vineyard Movement.
So, probably like a soft Pentecostal.
There's a big difference if you think of like AG, like Assemblies of God, or Azusa Street Revival 1906.
And there's different waves, like Piper and Grudem were famous for saying, in their continuationism, a third wave.
Continuationism.
And a second wave, you know, in many ways kind of would be like vineyard or four square denomination.
So the idea, classic Pentecostalism, you know, 100 plus years ago was, you know, that you're baptized, you know, baptized with the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.
If you don't speak in tongues, you don't have the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
The baptism of the Holy Spirit is kind of like, you know, get nerdy here for a second, but it's kind of like, like going, you know, being Saiyan and then going super Saiyan.
So like you're a Christian, right?
You're Saiyan, you know, but, you know, Kamehameha, like, you know, if you're going to go to that next level, you know, the blonde hair, you know, the Aryan race, you know, the Super Saiyan, like, then, you know, then you need the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
And with that, you know, with that, you, you know, you're going to have the evidence.
The blonde hair, you know, just sub that out for speaking in tongues.
Second wave was more of the idea that, well, maybe it doesn't come, you know, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is still a subsequent event to conversion.
It happens afterwards, but it doesn't necessarily have to come with the evidence of speaking in tongues.
And that was kind of my upbringing.
All that being said, the point is, still, in my church experience as a child, there was a lot of emphasis placed on the altar call.
And that, my understanding is that that came directly from Finney.
So, Finney, his idea was he called it the anxious bench.
And so he's doing these big tent revival meetings, and it's all about decisionism, revivalism, emotionalism.
He actually believed, so it was very distinct from the first great awakening, because even on the Wesleyan side of the aisle with John and his brother Charles.
Even though they were Arminian, unlike Whitfield, they weren't Calvinist.
And so they had less of an emphasis on the sovereignty of God as it pertains to conversion and salvation.
They still were not so man centered that they thought that you could actually guarantee or force a conversion with the right ingredients in this atmosphere.
Like Finney literally thought, if you have the music like this and you have the order of service like that, and you set up, it's very similar to your modern day megachurch.
And then it was all about individual decisions.
So every head bowed and every eye closed.
Raise your hand if you want to make a decision for Christ.
I see that hand, brother.
That's still very much a Southern Baptist.
Kind of, you know, so that's in Pentecostalism, that, you know, charismatic world, that's also very much in the Baptist, not the Reformed Baptist, but kind of more Anabaptist, you know, your typical general Baptist world, provisionist or Arminian, whatever, with their view of salvation.
And so the anxious bench, and what he would do, what Finney would do, going back to the Second Great Awakening, is he would say, you know, if you feel under, you know, under the power of God, the conviction of the Spirit, then you need to come down to the anxious bench.
And then, you know, and it was like an altar call.
And I'm going to just, for the next 30 minutes or 45 minutes, I'm going to be preaching directly to you.
And he would just, Look at them in the eyes and try to just stir up their soul.
And ultimately, what it was, was it was emotional manipulation.
It was if I set the ingredients just right, I can produce a decision for Christ.
This is a formula.
It's a spell that I'm casting.
And if I say the words correctly in the spell, then we'll get the result that we want.
And so, all that, the last thing that I wanted to connect that with is not only is it bad theology, not only is it man centered rather than God centered in terms of man's decision versus God's sovereignty, regeneration, perceiving faith.
But it also moved from the household to the individual.
That for the longest time in all of Western society and even just human history as a whole around the world, the basic building block of human society was not the individual, but the family.
It was the household.
So you think of it like if you have H2O, hydrogen, and oxygen, we don't think of it as hydrogen and oxygen, you think of it as water.
You think of it like so the basic, the smallest.
The smallest size or metric is not the atom, but it's the molecule.
And so the household would be like a molecule.
But what shifted theologically with the Great Awakening is it started to focus less on the molecule, more on the atom, less on water and more on hydrogen or oxygen, less on the family, the household, and more on the individual.
And then that ultimately, absolutely, there's a straight line from that theological transition to a political and cultural way of thinking that now it's.
You know, so, so with even with the 19th amendment and women's, you know, suffrage, uh, it was this idea of like, well, you know, for women to have rights, then they must have this inalienable, you know, they're somehow not even a whole person or don't have value and intrinsic value unless they have the right to vote.
Whereas before we would have said, well, women are voting, the household vote.
And when you look at like splitting the household vote with men and women, uh, there seems to be a direct correlation between that and.
Down the line, a little bit further, you know, getting to no fault divorce, you know, and all these things are connected.
So, when we talk about feminism today in its most extreme form currently, and not to say it can't get worse, but when we think of feminism today and transgenderism, I think we do need to think about the Great Awakening going from the household to the individual, decisionism versus God's sovereignty and salvation, the idea of women's suffrage, the household vote being viewed as oppressive, misogyny rather than.
Men lovingly representing their families.
All these things are connected.
And one last piece that I think that's worth fleshing out is it just doesn't seem like a coincidence to me that the same group that's fighting for women's suffrage is the same group that's fighting to shut down all the bars.
Yeah.
So, can we talk about that a little bit?
The temperance movement and why was the temperance movement not led by men?
That's not to say none of them were involved, but by and large, right, this was a female project.
Before we get into that, let me just say this.
So, it sounds like to me what you're saying is that maybe.
Maybe Baptists didn't cause trans in kids, but Charles Finney did.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Maybe, yeah.
Who technically was a Presbyterian.
Yeah.
But he was a bad Presbyterian, which makes him a Baptist.
His spiritual children are mostly Baptists now.
Yeah.
We might even title, yeah, I told you guys offline, but we might even title this episode, maybe Baptists did cause trans.
I don't know.
No, we may not go that route.
But here's the deal with that.
I do want to say that.
If you are shocked and appalled by the idea that the theology of the church would influence the beliefs of the culture, then you've got another thing coming.
You need to rethink what the church believes.
Good theology has good effects on the culture, even outside of the church, and bad theology has bad effects.
And we're not relativists.
Somebody's right, somebody's wrong.
So, for me, I'm going to say, well, I think credo baptism is right.
However, the notion.
The notion that a wrong take on baptism could have ripple effects on the culture that are incredibly negative.
I'm not offended by that concept at all.
Of course, that's true.
Of course, that's true.
What are we doing?
If we don't think that our theology of the triune God and what we believe about the world that he made and humanity, anthropology, all the, if we don't think that it matters, that's essentially what we're saying.
Like, well, that's preposterous to blame what one group of Christians believes on having a negative effect on the culture.
And I'd be like, well, then.
What you're ultimately saying is that to defend the Baptist, to defend their honor, your solution is to say that the church as a whole is impotent?
That can't be the solution.
Yeah, I think, I mean, I remember when the infamous statement was made.
And the idea I thought at the time was less, yeah, it's the Baptist's fault.
They're the reason why, right?
More so, you think about, okay, Baptists are the majority group in America, in American Christianity for sure.
Right.
Which is always funny in conversations with Christian nationalists.
Yeah, I always.
Christian nationalists, they're going to drown the Baptists, and it's like, do you know how many Baptists there are in America?
I always tell my Baptist brothers, I was like, this is proof of how deep the loser theology goes with Baptists.
They outnumber the Presbyterians 10 to 1, and they think that if we had a Christian nation, that they'd still be at the shortest.
Yeah, I know.
It's hilarious.
It is.
And so, setting that aside, you think about, okay, the rationale that most people have.
For their Baptist theology, rather than the question of, okay, exegetically, is this correct or not?
But the mental and emotional rationale that most people give for, well, why are you a Baptist?
It's that, well, I need to be able to make a decision to be a Christian.
Not, I mean, yeah, I could talk to Reformed Baptists and different people where that's different.
They can give their rationale, and that's not the same.
Yeah, but most people aren't like that.
It's not decisionist.
Most of the Baptist theology is based on the same ideas of Charles Finney.
Right.
That you need to make your own personal decision for Christ, and your baptism reflects that.
And that's why the Reformed Baptists who got up in arms and all that, they shouldn't have because that's not what we're talking about.
They're not talking about you.
You are the minority.
Yeah.
So you should have maybe just said like, you know, Finneyite Baptists or something.
It wouldn't have been a general Baptist.
Most Baptists.
No, no one would have cared if he said that.
But yeah, that is where it's, like I said, democratized, where it is, where American Christianity is just spread out and it's made into this hyper individualist thing where I need to make my own individual decision, which, I mean, in one sense isn't false.
Like, Each individual person has to have their own faith.
That's right.
No one denies that.
It's that this moment of decision is the very most important thing, and that you are an individual and it's your own faith.
And there's no church that you're a part of, there's no family that you're a part of being brought up into.
It's all just you completely on your own, and it's yours exclusively and individually rather than being united to the body of Christ and being brought in together and being a part of it.
Being a part of the whole.
And in this very covenantal sense, right?
That you're not a mere individual, you're an individual, but also a part of a people.
And so that type of thinking, and you can get to credo baptism exegetically while still having a covenantal view of the world.
But the overwhelming idea is just hyper individualist, where it's just me, me, me, I'm alone, and that's it.
And there's nothing else besides my own individual views.
And so the same idea is applied to electoral politics.
Yeah, voting.
Yep.
Is where I have a right because I'm an individual, so I should get a say in these things.
And it's like, that's not how the country was originally set up.
They had reasons for that.
And they weren't just because they were just evil jerks.
These wives were a member of a household and they were submissive to their husbands and their husbands were helping make decisions.
They were the ones sitting at the gates with the elders and everything like that.
It seems like a very, I mean, maybe it's not, you know, this causes this, but it's the same idea, essentially.
Yeah, absolutely.
The danger of centralized power is often represented by the word king.
As Americans, we hate the word king.
Civilian ownership of body armor is about helping people to have increased power to resist tyrants and criminals.
And so, Armored Republic is about helping you to preserve your God given rights.
Slavery, Masters, and Household Freedom00:11:13
To the honor of the Lord Jesus Christ because he is the King of Kings and he governs kings and he will judge them.
This is Armored Republic and in a republic there is no king but Christ.
We are free craftsmen and we are honored to be your armor spread choice.
Part of what we're talking about is federal headship.
If we're talking about covenant, we're talking about, you know, representation.
And, you know, one of the things that I often say in my preaching with my congregation is if you don't like federal headship, right, so you can't stand the idea that the husband would be the head of his wife, that a father would be the head of his family.
If you reject federal headship entirely, then you reject the gospel of Jesus Christ.
You have no hope of salvation because the only way that anybody is saved. Is by representation.
It's by being grafted in to a federal head, right?
So we all fell in Adam.
He was our first head and he was a bad head, you know.
But the last Adam, the final Adam, Christ, that's our only hope of salvation.
Like some people even say, you know, in terms of total depravity or, you know, just the fall of man, these kinds of things, they'll say, well, I don't think that's fair.
I wanted, I wish I could have represented myself.
I don't like that Adam represented me, you know, because I think Adam, you know, he did a terrible job.
It's like, well, yeah, he did a Terrible job, but it's important for us to remember God is not cruel, God is exceedingly kind and merciful.
When He selected our federal head to represent all Adam's posterity, the human race, He picked the best of us, not the worst of us.
And He put Adam in the best context He could possibly.
Number one, Adam didn't have to resist the temptation to sin as a toddler.
That's incredible grace, just right there.
So you're starting with a full grown man, a mature man, and you're starting in a world that has not fallen because of sin.
So there's no curse of sin.
So, you're in a perfect world, a good world.
And then, even within this good world, there were still wastelands.
They weren't sinful, but there were things to be subdued, dominion to be exercised.
But Adam, you know, he's formed in the wilderness, but he's placed in a garden.
So, you have a man, not a baby.
You have a garden, not a desert.
You have a world unfallen by sin.
He's given a helpmate.
You know, there's all these different things, all working, even with the tree.
It's like, well, you know, there's one tree.
That he can't eat from, all the rest are good.
It's not the reverse, where there's one tree you know that he actually can eat from, and everything else is bad, you know.
So, at every single level, the deck has been stacked in Adam's favor, and Adam's not a dimwit like Adam.
So, it's so we all fell in Adam, um, and Adam represented us accurately and fairly.
Uh, we would have, if you had been Adam, if you had been in the garden, you would have done the same thing.
And anybody, but my point is to say, anybody who would want to throw off Adam's.
Federal headship, his representation, they have to recognize that if they're being consistent and saying, Well, I don't think that I should be fallen because I reject this system of Adam representing me, well, then you also don't think that you should be saved because it's the same system.
By one man's disobedience, you know, all fell.
So by one man's obedience, Romans 5.
So that is the system.
That's the system for salvation.
That's the system for the covenant of works.
So if you want to, you know, if you want to be cute and get, you know, the covenant of life, the creation of God, you know, but like, but that's, that's.
Is God's system.
And so to reject that is rejecting God's system that was built to lend towards humanity's good.
So this is not an oppressive God.
This is not an oppressive system.
But when you make it all about the individual, that will then every single individual must be able to represent themselves.
So you have to have the right for women to vote.
Everyone has to be able to vote.
Yeah.
And I think the reason why this is so deep seated in the American psyche and the psyche of the American Christian.
Is these concepts of liberalism and egalitarianism and this individualism that is deep in our bones?
We believe that as deeply and even more than we believe the system of doctrine that's present in the Bible that you just explained.
Right.
Because you hear, oh, someone else has to do it for you.
Right.
It's not within your own power to save yourself.
Americans don't want to hear that.
We want to think, no, you're an individual.
You have rights.
You're capable of, you know, picking yourself up by your bootstraps and doing anything.
And that's not the world that God built.
He didn't build an egalitarian world.
He built a world where some people are better than other people at different things.
And that's okay because you're going to be good at the thing you're good at.
You're going to have different strengths and weaknesses.
And some people are made to be king, and I'm not.
And I have to be okay with that.
Right.
Like we all think, no, I get to have political power too because I get to vote.
And it's like.
Some people are made to be slaves.
I mean, people will lose their minds if you hear that.
You say that.
Some people are slaves by nature.
Yeah.
People are slaves to their sin.
I mean, that's what I mean.
I talk about the bug man in the book.
That's what the bug man is a slave, right?
He gets, he has freedom, right?
He can do whatever, he can go do whatever he wants, right?
He can change his job, but he's still in the same social station, same social class.
He's even not, I mean, it's in some ways the social conditions are similar to other forms of slavery where he can't really own a home.
He can't really get married.
They've set it up so, and it's different.
It's not that he's not allowed to get married, but they set it up so that nobody gets married.
Nobody wants to get married.
Rather than permission, it's not that he's not permitted, he's just simply not able.
Economically, he's not able to have children.
Or not desiring.
It's been set up to not even desire.
To make him not want it.
You're right.
Yeah, not able or not willing.
Yeah, you're right.
And so it's like, oh, but you get to have as much entertainment as you want.
You get to watch as much NFL football as you want.
You get to have as many IPAs at the bar as you want.
Slaves in the ancient world didn't get to have that.
And it's like, well, they got to have things like that.
You get to pick your company that's exactly the same as the current company you work for with the exact same job.
You get to pick between the two, but it's the same thing.
Right.
Exactly.
And somebody else could have their.
You know, their job is they're pushing a broom.
And you think of, you know, like they can't afford a wife, they can't afford kids, they can't afford to own a home.
So that would be like a lower level slave.
But you think of the ancient world and like there are different tiers of slavery.
Oh, yeah.
You know, and so, and you address this like, you know, in your book, but the idea that like one of the fundamental characteristics of a slave is not poverty, it's not that he's poor.
And it's not even that he has no agency.
Yeah.
Right.
Like slaves, you know, higher up tier slaves might serve in the house of a king or a lord.
Yeah.
Vodi Bakum said this once upon a time.
It was a long time ago, but I remember reading his book on Joseph.
Yeah.
And he said, you know, here's the thing about Joseph.
Even when he's viceroy of all of Egypt, he's the highest authority, ranking authority in all of Egypt, except for Pharaoh.
Even then, though, he can't return to his home.
Yeah.
He's still a slave.
Yeah.
We don't think of that.
We think like he's changed.
Yeah.
No, but in a certain sense, he's still like Pharaoh still ultimately determines who he can marry.
Yeah.
He determines rituals and practices and worship, his job schedule, all these things.
So he's prosperous.
He's affluent.
He's powerful.
All these things.
Had lots of choices, but not all the choices.
But still a slave.
Exactly.
Nowhere on the table could Joseph say, Hey, I'm leaving.
See, that's the thing.
How do you know you're a slave?
You know you're a slave when you can't leave.
And you might feel like you can leave because you can walk over here.
You can walk over there.
You could go to the bar with your friends.
You can watch this show or that show.
But at the end of the day, Joseph, he may have had a long leash, but he's still on the leash.
And at every single point, he's a slave, whether it's in Potiphar's house or whether even in the prison.
I mean, he works all the way up to where he's the top dog in the prison, but he's still a prisoner.
He's still in prison.
Same thing.
And you think, man, he went from a prisoner to being a king.
No, no, no.
He was a top dog in prison, but still a prisoner.
To being the top dog in all of Egypt, but same principle, same system, still a slave underneath Pharaoh.
And so, you know, so one thing, you know, one characteristic of a slave is that a slave can't leave.
But the second characteristic that you outline in the book that I think is really helpful is that typically slaves couldn't have households.
They may be permitted to marry and may be permitted to have children, as Joseph was.
But Joseph is a part of Pharaoh's household.
Yeah.
He doesn't have his own household.
And that's the big idea is that if you have a good master, If you're a slave and you have a good master and you have a wealthy master and a reasonable, wise, and kind, merciful master, then you may have a lot of freedoms, but you still ultimately belong to his house.
And just like Abraham had 300, you know, and it's not like he forbid them all from marrying and forbid them all from procreation or anything, but part of his house.
But they're a part of Abraham's house.
Yeah.
They're a part of it.
And that's the one thing in our culture right now that you can't get.
You think you're free.
But the hardest thing to get in our society as it currently stands. Is to get a household.
Yeah.
To get a household.
And that's not the whole point, that's not an accident.
Yeah.
That's not, it's not an accident that the hardest thing you can get a six figure job.
Yeah.
But you know what that six figure job requires?
It requires you to not to work at Google, it requires you to live at Google.
Yeah.
You are on campus 20 hours a day.
And that's why they have beds there.
They have, you know, all these different amenities and entertainment and this and that.
And like, because they want your part of Google's household.
You will not have your own household.
So, you can be rich and be a slave, and you can actually be impoverished under certain conditions and be a man and be the head of your household.
I have a poor household, but this is my household.
I own property.
It may not be much, but I own property.
I have a wife.
I have children.
They have my name, and we're building my legacy, God's legacy ultimately, but through me.
We're building our legacy and not somebody else's.
And that's, people need to wake up and realize.
You know, you're a slave.
Yeah, that's a slave.
Batman is a slave.
Yeah.
And because we think, oh, unless you're in chains and getting whipped and beaten, that's not really slavery.
How dare you make the comparison?
Tavern Strategy Against Voting Rights00:03:58
Right.
And it's like no one's comparing and saying those are identical things.
It's saying that these are the social conditions that exist, and it is much more akin to the conditions of a slave.
And you think you have all sorts of freedom, and you don't.
You don't have freedom.
Even the freedom to vote, right?
Well, if you get to vote and nothing ever changes, that it gets better for you, who cares if you get to vote?
I mean, I always tell people when it comes to voting, I'm like, I would give up my right to vote if it meant that we didn't have any more foreign wars.
And we had a stable dollar and no illegal immigration, right?
Or if we just completely had closed borders.
I'd give up my right to vote in a heartbeat.
You get all excited about voting for someone, but you always end up with John McCain.
Yeah, exactly.
It's the same guy every time.
It's like, oh, wow, this is democracy.
Great.
This is awesome.
We'd rather live in a Christian monarchy than trash world democracy.
Yeah.
And like that's, yeah.
Well, you know, going back just for a moment and tying together the temperance movement and feminism, one of the things that you wrote is this the utopian social engineering of temperance was not just about banning alcohol.
The goal was to take away the important political organizing center of the tavern from their main political foes, the urban, high church, Lutheran, and Catholic immigrants, whom they also wished to.
To civilize.
And so there was a strategy there.
It wasn't just about alcohol bad.
It was also about shutting down the place where men would gather.
And there's a rich history of that throughout centuries.
You think of White Horse Tavern or White Horse Inn, or you think of Lewis and Tolkien.
And throughout history, when you look at where did some of the best ideas come from, it came from a group of a handful of guys in a bar.
More often than not.
This is a really great idea.
I wonder where it was first conceived.
Probably in a bar.
There's a decent chance.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So it's interesting.
I got that concept from the libertarian historian and economist, Murray Rothbard, right?
He did a long series about the progressive era.
And he talked about this that it wasn't just that they wanted to outlaw alcohol to fix all of these drunk men.
And create these utopian social conditions.
There was also, it was politically motivated because the bars and the taverns and all of this from these groups of people that opposed their political ideas.
This is where they would gather to discuss that and discuss the politics, especially local politics.
And all of the local politics revolved around these kinds of things and fighting the temperance movement, fighting the suffragettes, and so forth.
And as soon as they're able to shut down the bars, then they're able to atomize these guys.
Because this is, I mean, this was like social media is for us now the men going there, and this is where they would discuss these things.
So, like the group chat, that was the group chat was in real life and it was in a tavern.
And they would organize and strategize, and that's what they would do.
And so, it's not a coincidence that the great grandchildren of these people now run the internet and all of the corporations, and they want to shut down.
Us being allowed to talk, right?
That's not a coincidence that those parallels exist, right?
They want to shut down our ability to organize and share ideas and think about these things out loud.
And so, same playbook.
Raising Flourishing Masculine Men00:13:44
Yeah.
Yeah, especially, I mean, the parallels are really interesting there because you can imagine those conversations at the tavern were pretty lively and they weren't censored.
And, you know, people would be screenshotting it.
Can you believe what they said?
And, you know what I mean?
Like that kind of thing.
Like, it's the same kind of thing that not only they don't want you talking about it, But they don't want you talking about it candidly and having a fun time while you're doing it and creating bonds and being friends with people and being optimistic.
Being optimistic.
Maybe even a fight breaks out with your friends afterwards.
This is the thing that they want to stop.
I mean, you can even see these people online threaten to drop screenshots.
You wouldn't believe how they talk in these private groups.
It's like, no, I would believe it because this is how I actually talk.
Yeah, all the time.
You know what I mean?
Yeah.
Well, and it seems like one of the common denominators with all that is just it's a war against men.
Like, what you're trying to get rid of is every single characteristic of masculinity.
You're trying to get rid of leadership, courage.
I mean, even like jolly warrior, being a jolly warrior, being like all that optimism, a father's laughter, hope, courage, bravery.
Decision making, leadership, all these things are masculine traits.
And you're basically saying that masculinity is sinful.
Everything that stems from masculinity is sinful.
You need to be domestic.
You need to be impotent.
You need to be castrated.
You need to be tamed.
You need to be tamed.
And there is something to be said.
A godly man is a man.
It sounds pretty trans to me.
I'm not going to lie.
Because it's not just women that are doing this, there's a lot of men that kind of take this role.
To kind of police your speech and police how you're doing it.
I mean, I've said this many times, but I interned with Jared C. Wilson.
And when he disavowed me, one of the things he said that he said, Adam, it's not what you're saying, it's just that you're having so much fun while you're saying it.
That's what he said was so sinful about what I was doing.
And when he said that, I read that in an email because he refused to talk to me.
He didn't have the stones, right?
But when I read that email, I was just like, What kind of a world does this guy want to live in?
You should be not happy to talk.
Well, that's actually exactly what they want.
What they want is you to be, I'm afraid to say that so and so is getting too woke.
Sorry, I'm really sorry about this.
Very distressed.
That's what they want.
And it's just, it's absolutely, it's very trans, is what it is.
I think of that when I think of Big Eva, when I think of Gospel Coalition, when I think of Russell Moore.
So, Russell Moore, David French, that's just women of both sexes.
So, there is that element.
But I think with mid Eva, I don't think it's necessarily that they're all effeminate.
There's elements of that.
But just to be fair, there are times that I'm effeminate, and I have to repent of that and I need to grow.
Yeah, I can confirm that.
But we'll just move right along.
Well, can you bring up Marvel?
I did say that Marvel's faking gay.
That's right.
You're working on it.
But the point is this the point is that.
Some of the mid Eva types are not, it's not just effeminacy, you know, the women of both sexes kind of thing.
Some of these guys really are, like, by God's grace, they really are masculine.
So their problem is not that they're the school mom.
Well, actually, they are.
But it's not that they're.
Well, that's kind of disfigured, though.
So they're like, they're like, they are masculine in many ways, in many areas, but they have, like, they've chopped off a little bit here and maybe changed it a little.
You know what I mean?
Right.
What I'm saying is they have to repress it.
Yeah.
What I'm saying is they're the slave owners.
They actually are masculine, but they want to take care of it.
Everyone else who's masculine and treat them like a slave.
So, like, so only a few men.
So, there's a lot of men, right?
So, going back to the ancient world, lots of men, let's say 50% women, 50% men, but it's not 50% heads of households.
Only a few of those men can actually be heads of households.
The other men are allowed to be masculine in some capacity, but they're not allowed to be self ruled men.
They're not allowed to have their own household.
And so, I think that's how mid Eva works.
So, big Eva is let's just get rid of men altogether and let's just have women with both sexes.
Everything that is feminine is a virtue.
Everything that's masculine is a vice.
That's how I think of big Eva, Russell Moore types.
But within mid Eva, they would actually be able authentically, it's not hypocrisy, authentically, they would be able to write a book about how masculinity is under attack.
And it wouldn't just be a weak book either.
I'd be able to read it and say, Yeah, I said that on a podcast yesterday, that same thing.
Good on you.
But here's the one problem the one problem is that when I said it on a podcast, you blocked me.
And you actually just shared it to your legions of female followers to say, Look at this patriarch.
And I almost just said, Exactly verbatim, what you said.
Yeah.
But so there's an element of like, okay, you can't be masculine.
But there's also an element, I think, in the church world today, which is you can be masculine, but only a few of us.
The rest of you are slaves because you didn't pay your dues.
You're not good company men.
You didn't go to the right seminary.
You haven't served in this pastoral internship.
You didn't kiss the ring, whatever the reasons might be.
But the bottom line is.
Right.
So you're just platform building.
It's like, well, everybody has a platform.
It was built by, that's just stupid.
John MacArthur.
Built a platform.
It's like, well, no, he didn't.
He was just that talented.
Somebody recorded those sermons.
Yeah.
Right.
And he at some point gave someone permission to turn on a camera.
Yeah.
Right.
So, like, there you go.
So, everybody builds a platform.
It's not that you guys are grifters and building platforms and it's nefarious and it's sinister.
It's like, no, well, you built a platform too.
It's what you're doing.
It's gatekeeping.
It's just only some people are allowed to write a book about.
There's a lot going on psychologically with that behavior.
I don't really know all the details, but it's definitely gatekeeping for sure.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, all that being said, my My point is just to say that we need masculinity.
We don't need the school mom.
We don't need the temperance, you know, suffrage.
We don't need the feminization of the church, the feminization of culture.
But we also, I think, if you're going to have masculinity, one of the things that you have to do is not disparage men, especially young men.
That's what the whole time that I'm trying to build up to is to say that, like, if you want masculinity, one of the things that you have to allow for is masculinity.
Yeah.
And I think some of these guys, they actually do have a biblical view of masculinity, at least 90%.
Maybe we quibble on a few things, but they actually have a right biblical conception of masculinity.
The problem is that they don't actually allow all men to achieve it.
You're not allowed to be masculine unless you've jumped through these hoops and done this thing.
You can't say that.
Why?
Because it was harsh?
Well, but dude, you said the exact same thing last week.
Yeah.
Last week.
So it can't be that this is objectively harsh in tone.
It's got to be at some level.
You don't want every man to be a strong masculine head of his own household, building institutions to the glory of God and doing this.
No, you only want a few men able to do that.
Well, I think part of the reason why is for that phenomenon is if you have men who are masculine, are bold and assertive and say what they think.
You're going to have guys that are not going to agree with you from time to time.
And they're going to tell you that publicly out loud.
And you're going to have conflict because you have other men.
And so, so many guys like this, I think, are so conflict averse.
They're just used to saying a thing and then everyone following suit and doing what they say that they don't want the combat.
They don't want, and it doesn't even need to be acrimonious.
It could be, well, I think this.
And then you say, well, I think the other thing.
And then you, You try to persuade them, or they try to persuade you.
They don't want that.
They want to just have yes men that say, Oh, you're in charge.
I'll do, I'll think what you tell me to think.
I think that's a big part of it is if you raise up masculine men, especially masculine young men, and just allow them to flourish in what God made them, then you're going to have people that are going to elbow you around a little bit and scuffle with you from time to time.
And you don't want that.
You want your little fiefdom.
And so that nobody's going to challenge it.
And it's like, that's not any way to.
To do anything.
It's like, I don't care if somebody challenges me, if you argue with me.
Like, I could be wrong and I want to know why I'm wrong.
And so, show me.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's why I'm with everyone.
You get that sometimes.
Like, you know, I'll do a video on whatever, and someone in the comments will say, I can't believe you continue to support Torba.
You know, you continue to be friends with Torba because you believe he said this thing that's totally wrong.
And it just, it always baffles me.
It's like, you know, my friends often say things that I wouldn't say.
What do I, like, what are you expecting me to do here?
Like, you know what I mean?
And I think that it, It's an assumption that if there's any conflict whatsoever, any difference between something Andrew says or what I say or what you say, that that must mean that there's a problem there between us.
And actually, it could be that maybe I just disagree with Andrew or Joel and it's all good.
You know what I mean?
Yeah, I know.
I know.
And it's like, I can get along with people that have different views than I do.
It's crazy.
He's still a good guy.
Yeah.
And I think people are so very fragile.
That you have to have 100% agreement on every possible thing.
Otherwise, this is a bad person.
Yeah.
And yeah, I think so, like what Joel's talking about.
I think it's a lot of that where people are just very sensitive and very insecure.
And I don't know if I'm confident in something I believe, like someone disagreeing with me doesn't make me lose sleep at night.
It doesn't rattle my cage at all.
It's like, well, we disagree and.
That's that, you know, but I'm right.
Yeah, he'll come around.
I think part of what we're putting our finger on is the fact that everybody bemoans, you know, the problem, you know, of men leaving the church.
Yeah.
But I think right now, and it's the mercy of God and His providence, I think God is actually bringing men back to the church.
Yeah.
And that a lot of guys who have talked about, you know, men's departure from the church being a problem, what they're quickly realizing is that actually men coming back to the church is the problem for them.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's not a problem for me.
It's not a problem for you guys.
Yeah.
But there's a lot of guys that have bemoaned for decades the shame, the problem, the danger of the fact that the church is predominantly female.
But now, when push comes to shove, I think they like it predominantly female.
Yeah, absolutely.
It serves their purpose.
Absolutely.
Yeah, out of one side of their mouth, they'll be like, why are all these young guys going to Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate and all of these non Christian people?
And then out of the other side of their mouth, they can't.
You know they they, they attack these young guys like you're being crude and you're being, you're being optimistic and you sometimes drink alcohol and smoke cigars.
You want to make money.
Like yeah, work out.
Yeah, you work out all the time and want to.
That's an idol.
And like the same side, they say that they attack them and it's like gosh, I wonder why they want to go talk to all these or listen to all these guys and and the the flip side of it is true is like if guys do start to go to church, despite them um, When they're there, they don't know what to do with them.
Right.
They don't know what to tell these guys or how to encourage them.
Like, you think about the phenomenon for the Zoomer male today, where it is very difficult to find a girl to marry.
Yeah.
Right.
Right, extremely difficult.
And it isn't like these young guys are stupid or ugly or lazy or whatever else.
It's just like the girls don't want to marry anybody, right?
It's like the incel phenomenon, right?
And what are these guys going to say to them with that?
Like, there's plenty of stuff that we all could say.
Maybe we can do an episode one day about that, but about this phenomenon, why it is.
And like Foster has good stuff to say about it.
And these guys have no clue about it.
They're just like, well, you just need a man up.
You know, man up and marry one of these good women, you know, and they have no idea what's going on, right?
And so I just think about like those guys, they're not going to go to those churches where a guy's going to, you know, wag his finger at you for liking to lift weights.
And it's not because they're fragile and they can't take correction when it's actually needed, but it's because when you know it's wrong, though.
Yeah, it's the disparaging.
It's, you know, I think of, you know, the scripture like fathers do not exasperate your sons.
Incentivizing Sin and Wholesome Daughters00:09:54
Yeah.
I think we're coming off of decades.
Of constant spiritual fathers exasperating spiritual sons.
And now, you know, the sons have grown up and they're like, well, I just don't want to be a part of this.
Yeah, I don't want to be a part of this.
And we're shocked by that.
Like, I'll say something, you know, semi spicy, you know, but, you know, like, and I've said it before.
He loves the Avengers movie.
Yeah, I've said it before.
I never said I liked it.
I just referenced it.
That was still too much.
Avengers strategy of team.
We need teams.
We got to think of some other teams in pop culture.
Yeah, sure.
There's other teams.
So, all that being said, the point is what I was going to say is that, you know, and hear me out.
I am not saying that women are inherently more sinful than men.
However, I will say that we are shaped by not all cultures are equal.
And that deals with culture, that would deal with ethnicity even at a certain level, and that also would deal with gender.
So, if you have one group of the population, And you could divide it, you know, anyway.
You can make this example, you know, multiple examples, you can run the play multiple ways.
If you have one group of the population that is constantly, you know, like if they do something wrong, they're praised instead of corrected.
They're able to, you know, do something wrong without their, with impunity, without there being any consequences.
And it's just ignored for years and years and years for whatever reason, because there's this overarching narrative, you know, that these, this group, you know, for whatever reason have been victims of the past and blah, blah, blah.
And so we're trying to, you know, to, The scales and equal things out.
Well, then that group over time, it's not going to happen in a day, but over time, that group of people at the level of the heart, right?
Genesis 6 still rings true for all people.
You're totally depraved, and one group of people is not more totally depraved than the other.
Inherently, you're both equally sinful.
But in terms of outward manifestations of that inward sin, one group may have greater degrees and greater frequency of outward expressions of that inward sin.
So at the level of the heart, men and women are equally sinful.
But in our current moment in Western civilization, I believe that women, for at least three generations now, if not more, have been programmed and trained that their sin is more acceptable.
In fact, their vices are virtues, men's virtues are vices.
And so, right now, and I think that's what the red pill movement gets right, they have no solution other than angst and bitterness.
Yeah, exactly.
So, they have no solution except for, you know, get a vasectomy when you're 20, you know, and never get married and never have kids, you know, and blah, blah.
So, I mean, it's a total black pill.
It should just be called the black pill movement.
But on the Christian side of the equation, Christians who know what time it is and can recognize where someone like Rollo or whatever, or Andrew Tate is right on this, but wrong about that, someone like us, we can look and say, you know what?
I've got a son, and if things don't drastically change in the next 18 years, he's one right now, then yeah, we're going to be having some real serious talks about.
About what world he's entering into.
And I want him to know you're entering into a world where financially, legally, the legal system, culturally, religiously, 95% of churches, pastors, the whole world is against you.
Your sisters, the world is not against them in the way that it's against you.
Well, it's against them, but in a different way.
In a different way.
Yeah, you're right.
And so you are in danger.
You are in danger.
And so I want my son to actually grow up and to know that.
And so, all that being said, my point is, my wife and I, she 100% agrees with me.
The women in my church, we've talked about this from the pulpit, they agree.
But I would say, right now, in terms of outward expressions of sin, at the level of the heart, it's the same.
Outward expression of sin, women are more sinful than men.
Well, there you have it.
Right now, I think that that's.
I think you're right in that sense where the incentive, if one group is incentivized to sin and told that their sin is a virtue.
Yes.
They're going to sin more.
They're going to step up.
Yes.
Like external.
Yeah, external matters.
I made all the caveats.
Yeah.
It's not inherent.
They're still going to clip it.
The level of the heart.
Women are not more sinful than men.
They're going to clip it.
Sure.
That's fine.
Yeah.
Yeah.
But the point is, but that needs to be, I think, needs to be recognized.
Absolutely.
And so, pastorally, like talking about the church, talking about evangelicalism, pastorally, when people come to a church, you have to recognize that when a man is willing to come to a church and subject himself, To elders and to spiritual hierarchy and authority, and not be atomistic.
So that's full circle back to the beginning of the episode.
We're saying feminism is a fruit of individualism at some level.
So we became so, we broke down the household, became atomistic, individual instead of the molecule of the household, it became the atom of the individual.
And that gave us feminism.
Well, if we're going to combat this, if we're going to chop down Donner's oak in this regard of feminism, one of the things that people need, a man needs to be assured of when he comes to a church.
Is not that he's going to have impunity and that he could do no wrong, but he needs to be assured that the pastors are going to be in his corner.
Like the men who are in my church.
When the rest of the world is against him.
And that means even like with pastoral counseling.
So when I do pastoral counseling, and it's 90% of pastoral counseling cases are marriage counseling.
There's some kind of conflict in the marriage.
And when I do that, I enter into that context.
Often it's the wife who reaches out for help.
But I enter into those contexts with.
With a blank slate, I'm not most.
If you got, I would be terrified to ask for marriage counseling in most churches.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You're shocked when you hear that it's good.
Right.
Yeah.
Right.
I agree.
Yeah.
I agree.
I would be terrified because it's literally like, if me and my wife have conflict and my wife is being insubordinate, which my wife is not, she's wonderful, just for the record.
But if my wife was being insubordinate and she was like, well, I'm egalitarian and I don't think, you know, patriarchy is biblical and I think this and that, I would be terrified.
Like, because she's like, well, let's go ask the pastors.
To be the tiebreaker, right?
Because she's already rejected.
She thinks we need a tiebreaker because she's already rejected hierarchy in our home.
Yeah.
So she's like, let's go ask the pastors.
I'd be like, I'm screwed.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You got no chance.
No chance.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Oh, exactly.
And what is that?
That's back to the whole Joseph and Pharaoh thing.
Those pastors are saying, you can't have a household.
You, sir, are a slave.
Yeah.
We can.
We have a household.
And even more, we have a household and a church.
We represent our wives and our children, and we represent this church.
We believe in federal headship.
And we actually, even, you know, this is typically going to be a complementarian evangelical church.
So we believe in federal headship and we believe in male federal headship, but not for all males.
Yeah, just for us.
Yeah, just in the church.
That's the world that we're living in.
So, any final comments for this episode?
Yeah, I think the other thing, I mean, it's good that you mentioned the world is against the young men, and that's 100% true.
But I think in the other sense, it's against the young women as well.
I mean, I have three daughters, you have daughters, and I think about it for them as well, what the world is going to be like for them in 20 years, because I I, it would not be good if I'm thinking about myself.
If, like, every impulse, every sin of mine is exalted and justified and rationalized away, and the entire world is on your side in your own sin, that's a terrifying place to be in.
Yeah.
And that's the world that's been created for young women.
Yeah.
Is anything you want to do, whether sinful or not, it's totally open to you, and no one's allowed to judge you, and you can go do it.
I don't want my daughter to live in a world that way.
The world is absolutely against women.
It's not just against men, but against them in different ways.
The whole point that I was making earlier is I don't have to warn my daughters about jail in the way that I would have to warn them.
So the world is against my daughters.
The world wants my daughters in hell.
Yeah, exactly.
So they want them in hell for sure.
But the world wants my son in hell in the next life and in a jail cell in this life.
And in this life too.
And that's the difference.
Yeah, absolutely.
That men need to be aware of.
Yeah, I think the flip side, though, of it is like, how do you make it better?
Like, how do you fight this?
And how do you fight the trash world?
It's by raising up your daughters to hate it just as much, to hate a world that says yes to every one of their sins.
And once you have young women that are like your wife or like my wife, where they want to live in the good and wholesome world that God created, not the trash world, well, we have to raise up daughters like that for all these young men.