Hosts critique Valentine's Day and the "He Gets Us" ad for promoting a false, effeminate view of love that ignores sin. They argue true biblical love is hierarchical, requiring men to provide protection while women offer deference, contrasting this with modern self-righteousness found in figures like Bill Gates and politicians. Rejecting the "second victim" narrative in abortion cases, they demand equal penalties for homicide and abortion, asserting that placating wicked ideologies fails against dangers like Joel Osteen's church shooting. Ultimately, the episode concludes that genuine grace demands exposing sin before offering salvation to counter societal distortions of Christ. [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
Two Distortions of Love00:15:13
Today is Valentine's Day, so we're talking about love.
In particular, we are talking about two distortions of love.
The first is the way that modern Valentine's Day pushes an effeminate and perverse view of romance.
The second is the sacrilegious depiction of Jesus' love that we saw during the Super Bowl.
False views of love are connected because they ultimately come from a false view of God, who is love.
Both of these distortions require the same response.
Strong men must exercise godly patriarchal love and put to death the effeminate, perverse, and idolatrous impostors.
All right, I've got a couple of announcements real quick before we get started, but welcome back to the show.
We took the last two weeks off.
Last week I was traveling.
I was actually in Ogden, Utah, visiting some of the refuge guys and taking my wife and children on a much desired snow trip.
My girls have been praying for snow for a little bit over a year now.
I mean, it's mid July and we're in family worship, and they are all three praying for snow.
We're trying to teach them as they pray, you know, to.
Thank God, start with prayers of thanksgiving and praise, and then ask God, petitions.
And the petition is always snow.
And with, if thy will be done on that one.
Yeah, yeah.
We're trying to teach them to throw in some Lord willing caveats per the book of James.
But yeah, they've been praying for snow.
So we got to do that, got to sled.
That was a lot of fun.
And then the week before, we actually ran the live stream, but it wasn't with Michael and Wesley.
We did it with Brian Sauvay and Ben Garrett, we were in town.
We were working on a project.
Which we're really excited about.
You guys have probably heard this announcement.
If you haven't, then I'll go ahead and make it briefly now.
We have our Friday special, right?
So every Monday, we have a show.
It's called Theology Applied, where I interview a guest and they pipe in remotely.
Every Wednesday, we do our live stream.
That's with Michael and Wesley.
And then every Friday, we call it the Friday special.
It's a season based show with anywhere from eight to 12 episodes, and it comes out quarterly.
So right now, we're in Q1, January through March, and it's with Isker, Andrew Isker, and Ady Robles.
Covering Isker's book, The Boniface Option.
A lot of you guys have benefited from this season one and have voiced your appreciation.
We're grateful for your encouragement.
Q2, though, starting in April, will be Brian Sauvay and Ben Garrett and myself on all things Fordian, high strangeness, those types.
We're going to talk about fairies.
We're going to talk about Bigfoot.
We're going to talk about Hollow Earth, primary water theory, Atlantis.
You look like you want to say something, Wesley.
No, that sounds off the chain.
It's going to be great.
It'll be good.
So that's going to be April, May, and June.
So that's coming up.
And so, anyways, two weeks ago, we paused the live stream.
Um, to just because Ben and Brian were in town doing the recording project for the Friday special for uh Q2, and so uh, we just pumped you know a quick 20 30 minute live stream with them.
And then last week, again, I was out of town, so here we are, we're back.
So if you're new to the channel, uh, every Monday at 4 p.m., and then every Wednesday, that's the live stream what we're doing right now with Michael and Wesley at 4 p.m., uh, and then lastly, the Friday special, a season based show that's quarterly, uh, same thing, 4 p.m. Central Time.
So uh, without further ado, well, actually, I have a little bit more ado.
Um, one other thing that I want to mention is, um, Wesley and Michael alternate each week.
So they're helping us choose a topic and writing up show notes and not just show notes in an outline form, but an actual inclusive article on the subject, anywhere from 750 to 1,500 words.
And so every single week for this live stream, we actually have the content in written form in an article.
And what we're doing is instead of posting those publicly, we're doing the live stream public.
It's free.
It's on YouTube and Twitter and everywhere else you want to find it.
So that's a free public service for you guys to watch and enjoy.
But if you want to read in written form the article that Michael and Wesley are writing each week, you can find that by simply becoming a member at our Patreon.
So if you head over to patreon.com forward slash write response ministries, patreon.com forward slash write response ministries, and you join us on Patreon, you'll be able to get the articles every single week.
You'll also be able to get early ad free access to the Friday special.
So right now you can watch the whole season with Andrew Isker and Ady Robles.
Same thing in April, as soon as we drop the first episode with Brian and Sauvay and Ben Garrett.
You'll be able to, if you're a Patreon member, you'll be able to get the whole season, all 10 episodes up front, ad free.
And then lastly, it's also worth joining our Patreon because we have our conference coming up.
So March 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, that's Friday through Sunday, just in about two and a half weeks.
We have our conference.
It's called Blueprints for Christendom 2.0.
We've got Doug Wilson, myself, Brian Sauvay, Eric Kahn, Joe Boot, a number of guys who are coming to that conference.
And for $10 a month, right?
I've already said, I think a couple of weeks ago, you know, a little known secret, everybody knows it, but you're more than welcome to sign up for Patreon, become a member, and live stream the conference for 10 bucks and then cancel your account.
If you do that, no harm, no foul.
We won't be offended.
A lot of guys, you know, they don't live stream the conference at all.
If they do, you know, usually it's, you know, maybe it's free, but oftentimes I've seen it 40, 50, 60, 70 bucks.
So $10 is a pretty good deal.
So if you're not able to be there in person for our conference March 1st through 3rd, Blueprints for Christendom 2.0, but you want to live stream it.
Maybe you live in New Zealand or Australia, you're far away, Canada, you know, one of those hell holes.
God bless you for your faithful Christian witness there.
But if you're a prisoner, you know, in one of those communist countries and you want to live stream the conference because you can't be there in person, then join us again on Patreon.
Go to patreon.com forward slash right response ministries or Patreon.
Yeah, patreon.com forward slash right response ministries.
So, That's about it.
Also, I guess you could come in person to our conference.
So, if you do live somewhere nearby, the conference is going to be hosted in Taylor, Texas.
So, that's a little bit outside of Austin, Texas.
So, Taylor, Texas, again, it's March 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.
Go to our website.
Go to rightresponseconference.com.
And you can actually register to be there in person.
It's not too late.
We've got about 50 tickets left.
So, it's almost sold out.
We're right there underneath the fire code.
So, we've got about 50 seats that are left.
So, if you want to register and if you want to save a buck, Type in haunted for a 20% discount.
Haunted, because we're doing a live Haunted Cosmos panel with Brian and Ben at the conference.
So type in haunted, H A U N T E D, in the promo code box, and you can get a 20% discount if you want to attend the conference in person.
All right, here we go.
Michael, thanks for waiting.
Go ahead and kick us off.
Great.
As Joel said, we're talking about love today and not necessarily romantic love, but maybe touching on that a little bit.
As I was thinking through the article on Valentine's Day and then the Super Bowl, he gets us ad came up.
And a lot of what we're going to say today is going to be objecting to the way that romance and love are currently depicted in our society, right?
Very troubling, very unbiblical, very damaging and harmful, even for people, any people, but Christians especially, to buy into these false ideas of love and romance.
I mean, you look at, and I was shocked, NPR, I shouldn't be shocked.
I don't know why.
But I guess I'm glad I can still be shocked, right?
I guess that's good.
NPR had a promoted list of alternative love songs for those who are into the alternative love romance songs.
So, this is anything from self love, and there are now people who marry themselves.
Did you know that?
No.
They have official ceremonies.
So, there's self romance, and then there's all the LGBTQ romance.
And so, they had a whole playlist that people could go on for this Valentine's Day.
To hear songs that would affirm and catchy tunes and emotional music.
And so we have all those lies about romance.
And then we have the lies about love that we see in the He Gets Us ads.
And we're going to get into that a little bit later.
But at the core, especially of the He Gets Us ad, is this idea that Christians, a lot of us have come to believe that what we need to do is just be nicer.
We need to affirm more where people are at and what they're doing.
And if we can out nice them and out affirm them, they are finally going to be so compelled by that.
That will be the message of Jesus to them.
And what I don't even know that he gets us at is not calling for repentance.
They're on record from last year's Super Bowl saying this is not about repentance.
This is just about connecting with people.
Right.
Right.
But as I was thinking about that, I thought, okay, is this effective?
Is this an effective strategy?
All right.
And credit where credit's due.
I heard a blurb about this on Steve Dace's show, but then I went and did some research.
And it just, I want to say here at the beginning that.
Even if we bend over backwards to accommodate and quote unquote love this sort of perverse behavior, it doesn't get us anywhere.
Right.
I was thinking a lot of you heard probably about the shooting that happened at Joel Osteen's church just this last Sunday.
And it was a transgender woman, a woman who thinks she's a man, who went in and she had several rifles and went in and shot several people in this church.
And why is that significant?
Well, the reason this is significant is in 2010, Houston elected the first openly gay mayor of a major city in America.
First time ever in American history that a very out and proud mayor was elected.
She's a lesbian and she immediately went on to try and push for access to restrooms and bathrooms for anyone.
You know, if a man thinks he's a woman, he can go in.
And businesses can't say no because it's public accommodations.
Now, The way that this all connects is the pastor who showed up to do her prayer of blessing and invocation at her mayoral inauguration was Joel Osteen.
Joel Osteen.
And when this mayor started pushing in Houston for this policy change that businesses would have to allow men to go into women's bathrooms and women to go into men's bathrooms, there was a movement by pastors, praise the Lord, pastors mobilized and they defeated the measure pretty soundly, to be honest.
Like it wasn't close.
They did defeat the measure, but Joel Osteen was not one of those pastors.
He was nowhere to be found.
So he's there to be found in her invocation, in the affirmation of this.
It was a woman.
Yep.
So publicly.
Anise Parker.
Okay.
So publicly outspoken, openly gay female mayor.
Yes.
First one of a major city in America.
In America.
Yep.
So Texas beat California.
He did.
In gayness.
Wow.
That's embarrassing.
So, anyways, so not our brightest moment.
So 2010, this is almost 15 years ago at this point.
And.
And the person who's doing the invocation, the prayer, and affirmation, and yay, she's our champion, is Joel Osteen.
And then what we're saying is that 14 years later, his affirmation of sodomy, homosexuality, transgenderism, a man being able to use, because that was one of her big policies that she pushed for, a man being able to use a female restroom and vice versa, his presence there at her inauguration did not save him from a transgender shooting up his church.
I'm shocked.
Do you feel shocked?
I thought for sure that that would be the blood of the lamb on the mantle, on the doorpost.
That the angel of transgenderism would pass over.
Pass over deadliness.
She drove 50 miles from her home to Lakewood Church.
Think about how many churches she passed along the way.
With less security, too.
Yeah, with no security.
Absolutely.
They do.
It's huge.
Yep.
So, this idea that if we just placate, if we affirm, if we out, you be you, you do you, we love you where you're at, the way you are.
If we outdo the world in that behavior, that is going to get their attention.
That's going to make them want to, I guess, join our side.
That is a bunch of garbage.
That is a bunch of garbage.
In fact, all that does is it lets our enemy know when he really gets serious who the weak ones are and who to come for first.
So I hear you, but what if we change the example from sexuality, the sexual revolution, transgenderism, and we made it about immigration?
Surely, if we were kind with that and we got rid of the razor wire, stopped building a wall, welcomed them in, then military aged fighting.
Illegal immigrants, they would be kind to us though, right?
It is only a matter of time.
Once you get enough of them, once you get a certain number of million, yeah, we only have 10 million over the last three years.
And if we could just get, I don't know, 50 million, 150 million, even it out, if it's half and half, they'd really feel welcome.
They'd really feel welcome.
It is only a matter of time before the headline is Family Who Took In a Military Aged Man as an Illegal Immigrant, right?
Yep.
Yep.
Sin, I think one of the best ways to think of it is like a cancer.
There's no cancer that once it takes over half of your lung.
Okay, I'm good enough.
I won't progress.
I won't take more healthy tissue.
It will consume everything.
1 Corinthians 15 says the sting of sin is death.
Sin will always, as it keeps finding access and opportunity to a person, it'll result either in death or repentance will be the balm that stops it.
So when it comes to giving in to sexuality, to immigration that's unchecked and destroying your own people, those don't end at a certain point.
Oh, well, we've had up to here, and it'll say, no more.
Just indulge this much.
When has lust ever been, oh, this is enough?
Its very character is that it will consume as much as you give it until spiritual, ultimate, physical death or repentance.
That's one of the two options.
And so, giving in a little bit here or a little bit there, that will never get you any progress.
Right.
And we see that in scripture so plainly.
Like Jesus says, you know, like fresh water doesn't come from a salt water spring, you know, or salt water from a fresh water spring, or, you know, a tree with, you know, bad roots doesn't produce good fruit, or a tree with good roots doesn't produce bad fruit.
Poisonous Fruit on the Tree00:02:38
But we think, and this applies to all.
Even for us who are Christians and born again and saved by grace, as we seek.
So, this applies nationally, socially, culturally, but it also applies individually to our sanctification, to our own desire to mortify sin.
Like John Owen, the mortification of sin.
Do not deal with sin with light and few blows.
But we're not trying to sequester sin.
We're not trying to quarantine sin or subdue sin.
But ultimately, we want to mortify.
We need to kill it.
We need to.
Kill sin, because if you don't render to sin the death blow, then it will come back, and it'll come back with a, with a vengeance.
It'll come back if anything.
It's like fighting against our sin, and sanctification is like uh, trying to destroy a hornet's nest, like you, you better get it, because if you don't, you know, then you just ticked off the hornets and and they're gonna get you and so um, but same kind of thing, you know it's.
It's funny that we would think that our, our lives like using Jesus illustration of a tree, that that we could somehow, you know that we'd be so arrogant to think that we could somehow designate One particular limb of the tree for bearing bad fruit, but that the rest is going to bear good fruit.
You know, it's just one limb.
And this is the designated limb.
And this limb's entirely.
It's socially acceptable right now for this one.
It's very cool in the north to have rotten apples.
You got to understand.
Exactly.
And it's entirely separate from the rest of the tree.
It doesn't affect the rest of the tree.
But that would be, we're being facetious, but that would be preposterous to think that, like, if we were actually, if I had an orchard, and that's what I did, like, I had fruit trees and I was feeding my own children, my own family with those trees.
If there was a tree that had a limb of just poisonous fruit, absolutely poisonous, I wouldn't still, you know, Pluck fruit from the other limbs and give it to my kids.
I would just say, This is a bad tree.
I'd take down the whole, I might even, you know, investigate that whole portion of the orchard.
You know, it might be not just that whole tree, but it may be, you know, dozens of trees within its vicinity.
You know, like we would take it seriously because we're not talking about just the lack of fruit, right?
So the example is not just one limb that doesn't bear fruit.
It's not, it's not no fruit, it's bad fruit.
And when we say bad fruit, we mean lethal fruit, poisonous fruit, the fruit that will kill you.
So we're not just talking about this tree.
Has good fruit, and then a certain portion of the tree, a certain limb has no fruit.
No, there's poisonous fruit here.
And if there's poison here, it comes from the root, and the root will never affect a single branch.
It'll affect the whole thing.
The Bad Orchard Investigation00:14:05
That's right.
So, all right, well, let's go ahead and cut to our first commercial.
When we come back, though, we want to talk about He Gets Us, the Super Bowl ad heard around the world.
And then we also want to tie that into Valentine's Day, today's Valentine's Day, and talk about how both there are some massive problems, and not even so much with Valentine's Day in its origin.
But what it's become in the West with this eros, you know, effeminate, you know, just, I don't know, trite love.
This trite, very, very sensual, sexual, erotic love.
And so we'll talk about Valentine's Day.
We'll talk about the He Gets Us ad.
I think it should have been called He Hates Us, you know, like, and in the sense it's like, it's really like two parts.
It's He Gets Them, but He Hates You.
Yeah.
Right?
Like the one scene, it was a picture of, A woman was washing another woman's feet outside of an abortion clinic, right?
An abortion murder mill.
And then over on the side, you know, there's actually, you know, people who are protesting.
And the assumption is these are, you know, white Christian evangelicals who, you know, God forbid, are protesting against murdering babies.
But it's not just he gets us.
No, it's he gets her, namely the woman who's about to murder her child, but he hates them, you know.
And wasn't there a story, correct me if I'm wrong, but recently, Weren't there like two elderly women who were outside of an abortion clinic protesting?
They were praying.
They were just quietly praying, not even out loud, or at least not very loud.
They were blocking an interior corridor, which back in Bill Clinton's administration, there were Christians doing that, like saying, you can't go murder your child.
So they put this really heavy duty act that allowed a high penalty.
So they were kind of blocking the interior corridor.
And under that act, they could be charged with up to 11 years.
And they got it.
I think it's still up to sentencing, but it might be.
But they're going to trial and they could get up to 11 years.
So, elderly women in their 60s or 70s may go to jail for a decade.
Yes.
But he gets the woman who's going to murder her child.
He gets her.
He hates grandma.
He gets us ad is literally like it reminds me of throwback all the way to Andrew Cuomo, the number one grandma killer, the true grandma killer in the United States.
Yes.
The God that they portrayed in that ad is a God who hates the loving grandmother.
Who cares for babies but loves the woman who is on her fourth abortion?
So, all right, we'll come back right after this.
Are you a Christian struggling to find companies that align with your values and beliefs?
Well, then Squirrelly Joe's has you covered for all your coffee needs.
All of their coffee is hand selected and roasted fresh every day by a family of fellow believers.
Try them out and you'll savor exceptional coffee while knowing that your investment supports a company committed to following God's teachings and upholding truth and righteousness, ensuring that your hard earned money contributes to the growth of God's kingdom.
Stop giving your hard earned dollars to pagans who support evil.
Right Response listeners have access to an exclusive deal.
Your first bag of coffee is free.
All you have to do is cover the shipping.
So head on over to squirrelyjoes.com forward slash right response.
Again, that's squirrelyjoes.com forward slash right response to claim your first free bag of coffee today.
All right, welcome back.
And we're going to jump into the He Gets Us ad a little bit here.
And as I was thinking about this, a lot has been said over the last couple of days.
I mean, if you're on social media or YouTube following Christian channels at all, a lot has been said.
But the thing that kind of clicked.
But not as good as we're going to say.
Not as good as what we're going to say.
No.
Not first, but we might be the best.
But the thing that I wanted to say was the problem with the He Gets Us ad, a lot of people are saying it's a bad definition of love, right?
Jesus is loving sin.
Really, He's affirming sin.
He's not calling that abortion seeking woman to repent and abandon her sin.
He's there with her, even maybe comforting her as she goes through this process.
And so a lot of people have said the problem with it is that.
It's portraying love for the wrong things or a weak and effeminate love, which is just happy to sit in the mud and be muddy with them.
Right.
But what clicked for me is that because we know in 1 John that God is love, any false view of love that we have is because we have a false view of God.
You cannot have an accurate view of God, or let me say it differently.
If you have a false view of what love is, if you have a weak view of what love is, love is just allowing people to.
Feel affirmed in their identity, it's because you have a false view of God.
And when we make God in our image, and this ad, make no mistake, this was a making of Jesus in our own image, right?
When we make God in our image, the kind of love that is produced out of that false God is going to be weak, effeminate, dangerous, sinful, damaging, wicked.
It's going to produce all sorts of compromise with sin because that's what we do.
We want to be affirmed.
The problem with the ads is that so many people mention the story of the woman at the adulteress woman, the woman caught in adultery.
And Jesus arrives and he says, You know, he who's without sin casts the first stone.
And then he says, Woman, do none of them accuse you?
She says, None, Lord.
And he's down on the dirt with her.
And then he says, Neither do I condemn you.
Sorry, it's condemned, not accused.
That's an important word.
None of them condemn you.
I don't condemn you either.
The problem that we miss with that is that she lived in a society where the law of God was clearly in play.
Everyone in that society knew that they were justly condemned.
She was condemned and she knew it.
And the religious leaders knew it.
And Jesus knew it.
Jesus cannot set aside his own law in order to have this squishy kind of kind, nice guy act.
Right?
When we live in a society where people know they're condemned.
Then the loving thing is to bring the gospel, to bring the hope that comes from repentance.
But that is not the society that we live in.
No, not anymore.
The loving thing to do now is people need to know they're condemned.
People must know that God, that they are, we need more Jonathan Edwards, that they are sinners in the hand of an angry God.
The stooping to their level makes no sense when I'm the most important person in the world.
Of course you'd come hang out with me, right?
It only matters when I'm convinced that I'm a wretch.
And someone says, actually, Jesus, Zacchaeus, will come and dine with you.
What, with me?
That's when that's powerful.
Right.
People, yeah, in our culture, people aren't shocked by grace because they don't even view it as grace.
Grace means unmerited favor, undeserved love.
It's something that you haven't earned.
It's someone loving you when you've been unlovable.
You're not a lovable person.
And so that's the scandal of grace.
We've heard lots of sermons, gospel centered, centered gospel, gospel sermons about the scandal of grace.
But the scandal of grace, grace is only a scandal on the backdrop.
Of a society that understands the holiness and love of God.
If you skip over God's holiness and his law, then you ultimately lose the depth and the weight of grace.
Grace is only weighty when the problem of sin is weighty.
It creates an opposite side of the coin.
So we've all encountered this action when we go to pride parades, to street preach, to evangelize.
About 50 50, some of the resistance, some of those antagonizing, they'll be pagans.
They'll be like, I hate Christ, I hate God.
But we actually encounter oftentimes the resistance is coming from other professing Christians.
So I remember last year we went to an event to preach and to share the gospel.
The mayor opened with a prayer, blessing the parade, quoting the psalm that says, I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
So when we say Jesus is about non judgment, Jesus is about love, Jesus is about inclusion, Jesus is about acceptance, non Christians and even supposed Christians think that's Christianity.
So then you come up to them and say, You have to repent of your sin.
You can't live in this lifestyle.
It's a rejection and rebellion against your Creator.
They'll say, no, Jesus was this.
I remember talking to a woman and she's like, Oh, are y'all just Old Testament or do you have the New Testament too?
As if, like, I didn't know there was like a sequel to it.
Oh, I was Old Testament, the wrath, the judgment of God, all these laws.
But the New Testament, well, Jesus is loving, Jesus is affirming, Jesus would do all this.
And you almost have to convert them out of the Christianity that they think Christianity is, say, No, this is actually Christianity.
Now lay down your arms to the king who's coming to conquer, to rule.
Every knee will bow and every tongue confess.
But that's really powerful if you can get the majority of the populace, 200 million people that watch the Super Bowl, to think, oh, that's Christianity.
I don't agree with it.
I'm not a Christian.
But if someone's claiming to be a Christian, I guess it looks like that.
Limp-wristed, effeminate, me.
It shouldn't look like that.
Yeah, you're not even a real Christian.
Anybody who claims to be a Christian and doesn't look like that, I'm going to correct them.
Right.
Yeah, because I know what a real Christian should be.
Right.
Yeah, you're right.
It's a huge problem.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And it's, you know, I don't know.
We've talked about this before, but I think this is going to be the theme for the next decade.
Probably longer, but it makes me think of just there's just such a disdain towards nature.
You know, so like whether it's nations and borders, you know, or whether it's, you know, natural marriages of, you know, one man and one woman or, you know, natural, you know, children and, you know, your posterity and these kinds of things.
There's just such a war on that.
And all the things that you ultimately see is they're unnatural.
So it's like he gets us, aka, you know, what they mean, like it's he understands us, he sympathizes, he affirms, he loves.
And what is it that God gets?
Who is it that God loves and affirms and sympathizes with?
Everything outside of the natural order.
It's the immigrant who, I mean, a picture says a thousand words.
So it's not explicitly saying this in verbal form, but the assumption with everything going on in our nation right now and all the illegal immigrants, 2 million illegal immigrants in a year, 3 million total immigrants, but 2 million being illegal.
That's the assumption.
So you see, you know, the immigrant being welcomed, he gets them.
It's, you know, what the message there is he affirms the illegal immigrant.
He affirms the transgender person.
He affirms the woman who's getting an abortion.
He affirms the criminal, you know, next to the police officer.
It's not that he affirms or gets, he doesn't get the police officer.
Screw the police officer.
He gets the criminal, right?
And so, but in that, there's no, the problem is that there's no, No communication whatsoever of that this is a because God does love those people, but there's no communication of how radical that is of the holiness of God that this person is in sin and that, yes, God does love them by an act of his grace.
This is the grace of God.
And it's exactly what you said, Michael.
I think that's so helpful that at the time of Christ, in this, you know, with the Pharisees and the Sadducees and the religious, you know, lawyers and all these rulers, what was going on.
At that time, everybody understood, if anything, that the reigning mantra of the day was that none of us are good enough for God.
That is not the culture that we live in today.
To think that is just to so miss the times, to just be so clueless of where we are and when we are.
The culture that we live in today, you tell someone that God loves them, and they may not verbally say this, but their thought is, of course he does.
Why wouldn't he?
I'm awesome.
In fact, God would be wrong.
God would be cruel.
God would be this or that to not love me, to do anything but love me.
I'm amazing.
And so, in Jesus' day, again, in that context, in that culture, at that time, John chapter 8, the woman caught in adultery, she is painfully aware, painfully aware that she's.
And I could just, I would not be surprised if somebody's listening to this right now and say, well, the woman at the abortion clinic, Joel, you think that she's not aware that she's a sinner?
Uh uh.
No.
No.
I'm not saying that no one is.
I'm not saying that there's never a woman who goes guilt ridden to Planned Parenthood and kills her child and knows the whole time that she's doing something that's heinous and wicked.
So I'm not saying that there's no one like that.
But I think here's part of the problem the reason why Christians will agree with that he gets us ad is because they're not actually doing real evangelism.
Because all it takes, like Wesley said, all it takes.
Part of what's changed our opinion is actually doing evangelism.
So, like when we go to the Taylor Pride festival and preach the gospel and receive vitriol and absolute hatred, people saying things that I can't say publicly on air.
Equal Penalties for Life00:06:34
I mean, people who want you dead and will say that.
Punched last year.
Yeah, one of the men in our church was punched.
It's from speaking.
Exactly.
Yeah.
So, one of the men in our church, just to put a point on it, was punched in the face.
Repeatedly.
Repeatedly, yep.
And so, all that being said, and then he got charged.
Yes.
And then he got charged legally and had to go to multiple court appearances and all this kind of stuff and put his whole life and career in jeopardy for a while.
And this is a member in good standing in our local church.
We were there.
We were eyewitnesses.
He did nothing.
He did nothing.
He was using words, preaching the gospel.
And this person punches him in the face.
And so, anyway, Jeff Durbin talks about this.
When people say the second victim narrative when it comes to abortion, well, there's two victims.
The baby, yeah, sure, that's a real shame.
A baby being chopped up into parts and sucked out with a vacuum cleaner.
Cry me a river.
But the real victim, right?
The second victim is the mother.
Right.
Right.
She's a victim too.
In fact, she's really more of a victim.
You know, that's, you know, that's, that's what you get from Bart Barber.
That's, you know, like with the SBC, the ERLC.
That's what you get with Leatherwood.
That's what you get with Russell Moore.
That's what you get with Beth Moore anymore.
You know, they'll all do in terms of being, you know, libtards.
But that's, that's the reigning mantra is, you know, she's really the victim.
The murderer is the victim.
The baby is, you know, an additional victim, you know, but, but, And so, but Jeff Durbin, when he talks about that, you know, and talking about, you know, equal protection, right?
There needs to be laws for equal protection, meaning equal protection, just to break that down, because people hear that from the abolitionist, you know, position all the time, but maybe a lot of people are new to this and don't know what it means.
Equal protection means equal penalties.
And equal penalties ultimately means equal dignity.
And so, to draw that line, what it means is if you're fighting for legislation when it comes to abortion that is going to hold, And equal protection.
What it's saying is that if there are lesser penalties for a woman who has an abortion than a homicide in any other context, then ultimately what you're saying is if the penalties aren't equal, right, you can have an abortion with impunity, right?
Maybe the abortion doctor can get a fine or maybe he can get thrown in jail, but the woman is not a criminal.
She's done no wrong.
There is no legal sanction against her, none whatsoever.
Then what you're doing is you're declaring open season on one particular class of people, namely the unborn.
Could you imagine if we did that in any other context?
If we said, you know, it is perfectly legal to murder black people or white people or anyone under the age of 18 or anyone over the age of 60 or what, like, if there's no, you know, or if you said, well, it's frowned upon and it's not even legal, but there's a lesser penalty, right?
If you murder someone who's 35 years old, you're going to spend the rest of your life in jail.
But if you murder someone over the age of 70, then it's a $5,000 fine.
Well, what are you going to get?
You're going to get a lot more murders of people over the age of 70.
Equal penalties.
It's not trying to be mean spirited.
It's trying to be kind to babies.
Not trying to be mean to women, trying to be kind to babies.
Well, actually, we're being loving to the women.
It is loving to the women, too.
Because it will prevent them from killing their baby.
Which destroys her soul and wreaks all kinds of havoc the rest of her life with guilt and all this.
So you're right.
It's loving to both.
But the point is, equal penalties.
If you say, no, abortion is going to be treated the same way as homicide, that's an equal penalty.
And what that does is it creates an equal protection that now, Babies in the womb are protected just as much as someone's life outside of the womb.
And by giving equal penalties, you created equal protection.
And then equal protection, what it conveys is equal dignity.
So anybody who doesn't hold to equal penalties that believes that the woman is a second victim cannot say that the child in the womb has equal dignity.
They have to say that this life is of a lesser value.
It may have some value, but it is of a lesser value because the only way that you can make the argument, biblically and logically, to say that the unborn child has equal dignity.
Equal dignity.
They may not be fully developed in a physical sense, but they are an equal image bearer of the living God from conception in the womb.
They don't have to be born and breathe their first breath before they gain dignity.
They gain dignity the moment of their conception.
The only way to ultimately stand behind that argument of equal dignity is to say, and therefore equal protection.
And the only way to have equal protection is to say, to do harm is going to derive equal penalties.
And so, all that being said, that's a freebie.
But all that being said, Jeff Durbin has held that position faithfully for a very long time, and he has done ministry, public preaching, street preaching at abortion clinics.
With that kind of rhetoric and preaching a full throated gospel that Jesus saves sinners, you are a sinner, but also there is grace in Jesus Christ to save sinners.
And Jeff Durbin will be the first to tell you, and many others who have done faithful abortion ministry, you find out real quick, real quick that these people, they're not, again, there may be some, there's anecdotal evidence, but by and large, these are not people who are weighing underneath guilt.
They will sneer, they will laugh, they will mock, they will scream.
The women, they won't say, Oh, I had no idea that I was doing something wrong.
What they'll say instead is they'll say, I love murdering my child.
I'm excited.
Women have literally said, If I could go back and somehow make it to where I wasn't pregnant or stay as it is and get to murder the child, I'd pick the latter.
It's not that I don't want to be pregnant, I want to be not pregnant and I want the blood of my child.
I want to kill, I love it.
I mean, I remember watching the feminist, you know, baby murder women on the steps of the Supreme Court taking abortion pills, you know, in public in front of it.
Like, we're killing our babies and we love it.
We love it.
We love it.
That was not all that to land a plane on this.
That was not the woman caught in adultery in John chapter 8.
That woman was torn under the weight of her sin.
That woman was in tears, not raging, but crying, weeping.
She knew she was a sinner.
Her rhetoric to Christ was.
Was not, thank you for saving me from my oppressors.
These guys are really wrong, aren't they, Jesus?
You're on my side.
These guys are the real sinners.
Killing Our Babies and Loving It00:09:47
No, there was nothing like that.
She's not saying, oh, you saved me from, I was about to be wrongfully held accountable for my crime or this was entrapment or this was abuse or this was.
They were slut shaming me.
Yeah, they were slut shaming me.
They were like, none of that.
No, no, no.
Her sentiment is, I'm guilty.
I know I'm guilty.
And I can't believe that you're showing me mercy.
Thank you.
So mercy can come as the first word out of your mouth on the backdrop of a society and a culture that is already thoroughly steeped in the law of God, where people know that they're condemned under the law of God because they're sinners.
And the only thing that, if there's anything they don't know, it's not that they don't know the law of God and their sinfulness.
If there's anything they don't know, it's the grace of God and the salvation that He holds out to those who would have faith in Jesus.
That is not the world we're living in.
If you think we're still living in that world, you have no clue what time it is.
If you're a pastor and you think we're living in that world, that's going to shape.
Every aspect of your ministry, from your preaching to your discipleship, your counseling, and you should resign.
You need to step down immediately and resign.
That is so far from the world that we're living in.
Then I don't even know.
You are so clueless, you have disqualified yourself on the basis of theology and also on the basis of just sheer intellect.
You are so dumb, you should not be in a position where you have responsibility over the souls of men.
And then the same pastors will think, I went out and I preached the gospel.
I preached acceptance and I preached love.
They'll legitimately think, I went out and I preached the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Jesus takes broken people and they'll think they accomplished it.
Then you have a whole class, a seminary class for generations and generations that think they're doing gospel work, that they're preaching the gospel, gospel reconciliation, and they haven't even breathed the word of it because they haven't breathed the first part, the law that comes in that condemns, points to the need for a savior.
As I did work for this article, a lot of Christians are looking for kind of a smoking gun that shows that the funding behind He Gets Us is nefarious, unchristian, demonic, kind of like with the after party, right?
That smoking gun is not emerging.
It's not emerging.
So far, what we see is that the people who are supporting the He Gets Us are fairly conservative, Christian, big donor bases and nonprofit organizations, and the owner of Hobby Lobby, the Green family.
What's interesting is they support a lot of really legitimately conservative organizations.
They support Liberty University.
They have supported creation science research.
They support the American, the, the, I forget the name of the law firm right now that always goes to bat for Christians who are being sued, like the Gay Cake Wedding, Americans Defending Freedom Law Group.
They support a lot of legitimately good conservative organizations.
And, Wes, to your point and what you said earlier, too, the trouble that we're in is not that we are in our camp and arrows are coming from over the wall and managing to find some targets now and then.
The problem is that Christians have been taught that Jesus is this weak, Tolerant, effeminate man, and the kind of love that he gives is this affirming, tame kind of love.
And consequently, many of these Christians think that they are doing the Lord's work, and they even get a sense of quasi spiritual fulfillment thinking, I have served the Lord by putting on ads like he gets us.
Right.
And to steel man it too, people say it's a minute.
Could you really present the gospel in a minute?
Yes.
Go look at Jamie Brambick's great video.
Former, he showed pictures of just former drug addicts, former adulterers, former individuals that were transgender, and just 1 Corinthians, such were some of you.
It was a minute.
You can present a lot of good truth succinctly, clearly.
Obviously, more needs to be built onto it, but it's not the case that, like, oh, you only had so little time and just trying to get across that Jesus, you know, God so loved the world that is true and right.
It's not that we're just trying to get across this one point, we didn't have enough time.
You can get that across.
They chose not to.
They chose to elevate a certain part of Jesus' character.
Because, yeah, the devil's advocate would say, Oh, you know, you didn't have enough time.
You guys, you know, you're doing this podcast, and how long are you going to spend on it?
You're going to be here for an hour.
You know, they only had a minute.
But you're right.
Jamie did a great job.
You should follow his channel.
If you don't, it'd be helpful if I could tell you the handle, but I can't.
Jamie Brambrick, is that how you say his name?
B R A M B R I C K.
Yeah, Brambrick.
But his YouTube channel is where he posts all that stuff.
You can follow him on Twitter too.
But I've reached out to him and talked to him.
He's a great guy, he lives in Ireland.
And a great Christian guy, but he made a little ad, same amount of time as the He Gets Us ad, but he just changed one vital word and then the images were different.
But he called it He Saves Us.
And that right there, just in three words, that already drastically changes the message because He Gets Us means He understands, He agrees, He jumps in with you, He affirms.
But He Saves Us immediately begs the question from what?
Why do I need saving?
What do you mean He saves us?
Right?
I mean, like a message of salvation is offensive to the self righteous.
And that's the thing everybody thinks of self righteousness as though the religious somehow have a monopoly on self righteousness.
Because, and part of it is probably because of their reading or their cursory glance reading over the Gospels and the New Testament, right?
They're like, well, who was the problem in Jesus' day?
It was the religious, it was the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
And, well, that's a whole can of work that we could talk about.
But it is true.
It is true to say that in Jesus' day, those who were self righteous were the religious rulers.
Everybody has varying degrees of self righteousness and they're self righteous about varying things.
Some people might be self righteous about.
One quality that they deem very virtuous about themselves, and somebody else is self righteous about something else.
But on the whole, that is true.
In Jesus' day, it was the religious rulers who seemed to be the most self righteous.
But we read that, and I think that one of the mistakes that we've made exegetically is we've said that there are all different kinds of sins, right?
So let's say, like, perversion and lying and murder.
And stealing.
And we say that's, these are sins that fall into a category of the world, unbelievers, the pagan.
So pagans murder and lie and steal.
But the church, Christians, when it comes to our sins, self righteousness would be at the top of the list.
So what we've done is we've taken the sin of self righteousness, that is a sin, a big one, but we've taken the sin of self righteousness and we've assumed, we've just read into it, Ice Ageed into that, that only a Christian.
Is capable of self righteousness.
Only the religious person is capable of self righteousness.
So, again, I'll say we have assumed that the church somehow has garnished a monopoly on self righteousness.
But all you have to do is go visit Oregon for a day and a half, go to a Starbucks coffee shop.
You think these people aren't self righteous?
Go talk to somebody standing on the street with Greenpeace.
There are a million different forms of self righteousness.
All self righteousness is, is thinking that you have righteousness in yourself.
Yep.
Yep.
Right.
So, so whether you're self righteous because, um, you think you have righteousness in yourself through the avenue of religion, that is one possible way of, of, of trying to accrue for yourself your own righteousness, the religious route.
That is a route.
Uh, but you can also go the, uh, save the environment route.
You can go the, uh, let in the illegal immigrant route.
You can go the, um, Be CRT and be anti racist routes.
There's a lot of different.
If you don't think Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is self righteous, then again, you're asleep.
If you don't think Nancy Pelosi is self righteous, is Trump self righteous?
Uh huh.
Is Biden self righteous?
Uh huh.
Both think that they're righteous in themselves.
And there's just different avenues of accruing or at least thinking that you're accruing righteousness.
And so, all that being said, my point is that.
The church does not and has never had a monopoly on self righteousness.
The world, unbelievers, even those who are in heinous sins, to assume that just because they're committing some kind of heinous sin like abortion, that they're aware that they're sinners and that they're aware that they're wicked is naive at best.
Very often, the person who abortion doctors think that they're righteous, they think they're doing the world a favor.
Bill Gates thinks that he's righteous as he talks about.
You know, how to lower the population.
I mean, the dude's literally like talking about plans for, you know, murdering half the world and thinks he's righteous.
Nobody, we watch too many Disney cartoons.
We think that the bad guy knows he's the bad guy and he's in the back room.
That's not how evil works.
Evil has always thought, every bad guy always thought he was the good guy.
Stalin thought he was the good guy.
You know, Mussolini thought he was a good guy.
They all thought that they were doing the right thing, but they weren't.
So people have to be told that they're sinners.
And you could do that in 60 seconds.
Jesus saves us.
Patriarchal Romance vs True Love00:07:44
Oh, I need saving.
There's something wrong.
Let's cut to our last commercial for the day, and then we'll get right back.
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 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 of choice.
All right, so we're going to dive a little bit into love and Valentine's Day.
Again, our thrust here with this episode is that while there are many problems with the He Gets Us ad commercial, by the way, just to tie a bow on that, this is a $1 billion, three year marketing campaign.
It is not true that there's no money amongst the Christians to seek cultural change.
Wow, that's a lot.
That's a lot.
But our contention is that while there are many problems with it, Right.
One of the biggest problems is how it portrays love and specifically portrays Christ.
And so we want to talk about love a little bit today, being Valentine's Day.
And I have coined it, it might be out there.
I came up with it, but patriarchal romance, patriarchal love.
Okay.
And we, I was going to give a history of Valentine's Day a little bit.
And one of the reasons I didn't in the article is that actually the history is unclear.
So apparently there were possibly two to 12 people named Valentine who were martyred in about the three to 400s.
The most likely source story is that one of the emperors, and I didn't bring my notes for this, but had actually at one point declared marriage to be illegal, all marriage throughout the Roman Empire.
It was short, temporary, but he was having none of it.
And there were two Christian priests who still would perform marriages for Christians.
And both of them were discovered.
Both of them were, their name was Valentine, and both of them were executed for sticking to the Christian sacrament of marriage and marrying their people.
Under God.
And so they were martyred and executed.
Later on, there was an emperor who was trying to replace a pagan holiday that was very given to orgies and drunkenness.
And, you know, it was as open of a situation as anything we find in our time now.
And it was on April 15th, I believe, was the day that it fell on.
And so he found that these martyrs, the Valentines, had been martyred in February, right around there.
And so he replaced the holiday.
I wish I had brought my notes for that, but he replaced it with an honor and homage to Saint Valentine, who had been martyred for their commitment to Christian marriage, not necessarily to Christian romance.
Then in modern times, and he did that to combat what was currently going on, which was a pagan erotic orgy.
Perverse.
Like one night of no rules.
Gotcha.
The Purge.
Roman times.
In the early 1900s, someone.
Wrote a poem about a godly man who was providing for his family and kind of revived.
Oh, I'm sorry, I'm getting happy wife, happy life confused.
So, anyway, over the years, the idea of St. Valentine being someone who stood for true Christian love, which ironically was marriage, developed and then it's kind of become more secular.
Now there's not a lot of religious significance behind the romance and the love that is kind of demonstrated, but it's not bad to have a day where we celebrate.
Romance and marital fidelity and faithfulness and passion and love, and all those things are good, right?
We're not gonna sit here and say to your point earlier about the natural order of things, like these are good things, right?
We ought to love our wives, wives ought to love their husbands, and um, we ought to celebrate that.
We Christians are sometimes the worst at celebrating what is good in the right ways, right?
And so, um, that's a little bit about uh Valentine's Day, but it's why I didn't put it in the article.
It there's there's mixed mixed stories, there's not a clear consensus, yeah, okay, yeah.
So, Valentine's Day today is, I don't know, it seems like a far cry from what you just described of like, you know, religious Christian priests defending the sanctity of marriage when you have, you know, some tyrannical overlord, you know, who's trying to somehow forbid all marriage and these priests at risk of their own lives and allegedly actually paid the ultimate price.
They actually were put to death.
They were willing to defend Christian marriage between one man and one woman.
That's not.
Today, I feel like Valentine's Day doesn't even have anything to do with marriage.
Like, even if you look for Valentine's cards, you know, it's not like they're all written to my loving wife or to my adoring husband.
It's, you know, it's not even, it's not, there's not even, when you come, when you approach Valentine's Day, there's not even the assumption that it's going to be within a marriage celebrating it.
It's probably boyfriend, girlfriend, a dating situation, or it's, you know, same sex couple, or it's whatever, or somebody Valentine to themselves or to their dog or whatever.
Like, So, you know, I feel like it's completely been, you know, hijacked.
100%.
And this is because Christians have given up the definition of love.
And so, originally, before the Super Bowl commercial, it was going to be more focused on Valentine's Day.
And I said, the world's view of love and romance is self love, right?
You affirm my identity.
I love myself.
And I love myself either in a literal romance with myself or by coming up with my own definition of what.
Love is, romance is.
It can be with someone of my own sex.
It can be with multiple people, right?
So that's self love.
It's the elevation of what my idea of love is.
But complementarian and egalitarian view of love and romance is the love of women, right?
The love of women.
And so this is where I was getting into the happy wife, happy life thing, which is a terrible statement because for a lot of reasons I won't go into.
But the common idea of what good marital love and romance is now is if your wife is happy, if you are making sure that you Take her out on a date once a week.
I'm not opposed to that.
It's good, right?
It's good to spend time with your wife, to love her, to cherish her as a fellow heir of the grace of life.
But so much of what we're told in Christianity about love and romance is if mama ain't happy, ain't no one happy.
Right.
Right.
And so we elevate the woman and the kind of the praise of the woman.
And this is really just a not quite on the surface idolatrous view of goddess worship that we've seen for a long time through a lot of history.
And in contrast to that, we need to recapture love.
And in my view, True romance and true love has to be hierarchical and it has to be patriarchal.
If you'll give me a moment here, I'll run an idea.
And if you guys disagree with me, guys, if you're lying.
If you say something has to be patriarchal, like honestly, it's like the Spider Man meme.
It's like, you already sold me.
No Death Penalty for Coerced Abortions00:07:29
Yeah, it couldn't really be that bad.
Yeah, well, you already sold me.
The moment you said patriarchy, then it's like, all right, I'm on board.
You don't even have to explain it.
But for the feminists who might be listening, they might need some convincing.
I'm already convinced.
Let me say one thing about our culture's treatment of Valentine's Day.
Go ahead.
It's very telling that the deepest conception that they have of love is Eros.
It's just erotic.
Like the biggest, most loving, deepest connection they can fathom or think about and celebrate isn't lifelong.
Some of it's not even longer than an evening.
That's what they think it is.
It's as shallow as this deep.
And it's very telling.
C.S. Lewis talks about this.
Like if people think about David and Jonathan, like, oh, they loved each other so much.
Were they gay?
All you are telling on is yourself that you've never had a friendship that didn't have an erotic sexual component to it.
You're telling on yourself that either you're gay or you're lonely.
At best, you're lonely.
At worst, you're gay.
That's a good way out.
Right.
Yeah.
Yeah.
But go ahead.
That's a good point.
Well, real quick, before you hop into that, there's just on the comments, there's A. Allen.
And so, A. Allen has been just very troubled and very concerned.
So much concern and so much troubling by my comments about trying to make sure that unborn children aren't ripped into pieces and sucked out of their mother's womb through a vacuum cleaner.
He needs to be nicer about that.
That worries him.
And so, he's very worried about babies not being ripped apart.
So, what he said is earlier backing up in the comments, he said, What about the 10 year old girl who was forced?
Can you find that comment, Nathan, real quick?
I love that he used the word forced.
Should the 10 year old rape victim who was forced to travel from Ohio, so not forced into sex, that's what rape is.
So that would be forced, but that's not where he's using the word.
He's saying forced to travel, right?
Somebody picked her up and carried her from Ohio to Indiana against her will and forced her to get an abortion.
Should she get the death penalty, right?
So, hey, Alan, you're dumb.
That's stupid.
That is stupid.
But let's go ahead and address the stupidity.
So, should the 10 year old rape victim, first, that is atrocious.
God hates rape and her.
Her oppressor who raped her should be put to death publicly.
He should be hung or firing squad.
I prefer firing squad because the whole community can be involved.
So, like Israel, exactly.
Israel would, part of the reason why it was stoning is because the sin was a public crime, it was against the whole people.
It affected everybody, like the sin of Achan affected the whole camp.
And so, it's saying, No, this is incumbent upon all of you.
You all have a moral responsibility to purge the evil one from among you.
So, the firing squad, the gallows, Or even a guillotine for that matter can be public where everybody's participating in terms of observance, spectating, but actually putting the person to death.
I think that there's some strong biblical reasoning behind that.
And as a general equity theonomist, I like the idea of bullets because they're little stones.
I was thinking about that.
I was like, we have modern day stoning.
That's right.
Bullets are little stones.
So, all that being said, first, the rapist should be put to death.
Because we love women too.
That is our love for women.
That's right.
We should cherish the weaker vessel.
And then, secondly, to answer his question, the 10 year old.
If she was forced, all right, so I'll just, I'm going to deal with his question on the face of it, the way he asked it.
If she was forced to go out of state, to go to an abortion clinic and to get an abortion, then no, she should not be put to death, right?
So, I mean, if that's your question, AA, you know, or AA, it makes me think of.
Oh, that's what it is.
AA, Ron, maybe?
AA, that's probably the thing.
So, if that's the question, a 10 year old girl is forced to go to another state and forced to get an abortion there?
Then, no, of course she shouldn't be put to death.
She should have no penalty whatsoever because she was forced.
But if what you're actually saying is that she volitionally chose to do that, well, again, equal penalties, equal protection, equal dignity.
So, first, what are the laws in regards to a 10 year old?
Because it is different.
We're talking about a minor.
And even if she had volition, so even if she wasn't forced, physically taken to the state, taken to the abortion clinic, strapped down on a table, even if it wasn't, she's physically forced.
To do this, there probably was for a 10 year old to make this decision, there probably was a great deal of coercion.
And so that has to be taken into account.
This 10 year old, who ultimately is going to be responsible for that?
Her father.
That decision comes down on her father.
The Bible even talks about a woman, if she makes certain vows, that they can actually be overridden.
If a man makes vows before the Lord, he's bound to them.
But if a daughter of a man makes certain vows, the father actually can step in and say, I'm sorry, sweetheart.
That was dumb.
I'm going to overwrite.
And she's released from her vows.
And we're not just talking about a 21 year old daughter.
We're talking about a 10 year old to use A. Allen's example.
So, if we're talking about a 10 year old girl, if she's actually forced in the way that you were the question, then there's no penalty for her at all, but the person who forces her.
So, the rapist gets the death penalty.
And then the person who forced her, assuming it's an adult, forced her to get an abortion, they should get the death penalty.
If she's coerced, there is some volition.
She goes along with it.
But again, she's a 10 year old minor under her father's legal care.
Again, that is going to be taken into massive consideration in the same way that we would treat any other minor if a 10 year old.
Commits a homicide that's outside of the womb.
How would we treat that?
They likely would not get the death penalty.
The fact that they're 10 years old would come into play.
And if it was a 10 year old murder in any other instance, a homicide with, you know, they're murdering someone who is born, a born person, not an unborn baby, it's possible that this could be done where it's just them and the parents had no knowledge.
Right.
Right.
But in this case, it's virtually impossible that this girl went out of state, found a bus or a plane or whatever, traveled all by herself.
I don't even know if a 10 year old could get on a bus.
I don't know.
If you call California, they'll fly you over there.
But by yourself, they'll send a plane and pick up a 10 year old without any.
If anybody would do it, California would.
So, anyways, my point is a 10 year old could murder a born person on the playground with their parents 15 miles away at home and completely unaware of the situation.
But to get on, in this case, an abortion, to get on a bus, to go to another state, to schedule an appointment, to go into the appointments, to get the procedure, the killing, all that.
There's no way that she did that by herself, meaning some adult was involved.
So, one, she's 10, right?
She's a minor.
Two, as a minor, not only the cognitive ability being highly questionable, and that should come into play, but in addition to that, not just that she's undeveloped as a 10 year old girl, but also she is legally and just practically incapable of carrying this deed out without help, without someone.
Either talking her into it, coercion, or at least abating and abetting and helping her in this process, which again would transfer guilt to another party, at least partial transfer of guilt to another party.
So, to answer your question, A. Allen, no, a 10 year old rape victim who's forced to go to another state and get an abortion would not get the death penalty.
But I think you know that, and your question is stupid.
Hierarchy Within God's Design00:06:43
Yeah.
All right.
And 95% of abortions, they're elective for lifestyle choices.
Don't take the 1% of the 1% and say, This whole theory is invalid.
Right.
No, no, no.
That's not the majority of the cases.
That's foolish.
Something that the abolitionists say.
Like one woman could bench 300 pounds.
So let's, all women should play in the NFL.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Something that the abolitionists say that's very helpful is the law has to be established.
And then we have judges for a reason to adjudicate the situation.
That's good.
To say, wait a minute, is this a little bit outside?
Is this inside the law?
And then they make sentencing decisions and there's some leeway there.
Right.
And that's actually biblical.
Where you evaluate, you have the law, but then there's leeway to apply sentences and account for the circumstances that were present when the murder happened.
And that's already built into our law that judges look at the mitigating factors and decide what was going on.
Right.
So, right.
Okay.
So, okay.
Go for it, Michael.
Patriarchal love.
We are used to, as Christians, I'll use the example of sex within marriage.
We are used to the idea of saying love needs to be bounded.
Okay.
There's a fence around certain.
Deeds of love, right?
And so we are used to saying sex ought to be within the fence of marriage.
Okay, that's fine.
But what I have realized is that biblically, there is a fence, but it's not around a flat field.
It's around a tiered rice paddy.
Right?
And so, if you think about a family, it is true that a family, members of a family, are to love each other more than they love the family down the street and more than they love the family in Australia.
However, within that family, there are steps.
The way a father shows love to his children is not the way that children are supposed to show love to their father.
Even though they're supposed to have a greater commitment of love to the members in that family.
A father shows love to his children by providing for them, by disciplining them, by condescending to them.
You know, the dad gets down on the rug and plays with the one year old, right?
He condescends to the one year old.
A child does not condescend to his father, he does not discipline his father.
And so God has built hierarchy into all structures in society.
And love not only needs to be within the bounds, but it needs to flow the way the hierarchy demands.
And so when we think about society in this way, imagine you've got two teachers.
One is a blue haired lesbian trans rights activist who is indoctrinating her students and grooming them to transition their genders, whatever that means.
Another is a teacher who is working behind the scenes to try and be given permission to pray before her classes, both of them in a public school, both teachers.
Both with students.
There's a sense where in society we ought to have a hierarchy of raising and lowering, of showing a different kind of love to the people that need to be lowered than to the people that need to be elevated.
The woman, the teacher who's fighting for prayer in her classroom, the way we show her love is by elevating her, supporting her, honoring her, coming to her defense, paying her legal bills if necessary.
We raise her up as an example of godliness and virtue.
The woman who is Grooming children, the way we show love to her is we knock her down.
And this is for several reasons, two reasons.
One, if she doesn't repent, she will go to hell.
But secondly, if she persists in grooming these children into quote unquote transitioning, not only will she go to hell, but as Jesus said, it's better for the millstone to be hung around the neck than to cause the little ones to stumble.
And so her penalty in hell will be even worse for every child that she leads down that destructive, sinful, wicked road.
And so, our love for her is not only to knock her down, but to get her removed from that position.
The love that we show in a society elevates people for godliness, for honor, for virtue, and it lowers people for wickedness, for foolishness, and for immorality of that level.
And so, this idea that hierarchy is built into society, it's built into marriage relationships.
Husband doesn't love his wife the way a wife loves her husband.
The love has to flow.
The direction that the hierarchy demands, even when it's already within the border that God has given, right?
And that, for me, we are not going to win the battle against pagan romance.
We're not going to win the battle against He gets us presenting a false image of Christ and the love that He offers until we're willing to exercise hierarchical, strong, masculine, male love and women.
And when you're willing and ready to exercise feminine, godly, receiving, submissive, Love.
Until that happens, we've given up the definition of love.
And so that anyone who watches that Super Bowl commercial thinks, oh, that's what loving is.
I guess that's how Christians should be.
Right.
Yeah.
No, that's good.
So, love, it's not just, it's not merely enough that love stays within its bounds, but then within its bounds, it can't be less than that, but it's more than that.
So, it must stay within its bounds, but then within its bounds, love has to flow in the right directions in the right way.
Different forms of love, or how would you wear it like that?
Well, I don't know if it's different, different demonstrations of love.
Okay, different manifestations.
How you show your love to your wife is different than how a wife is going to show you love.
So, it's not even different degrees.
There are moments where, like, my kids, I mean, my kids, they love me.
Yeah.
You know, um, But not in the same way.
So it's not even varying degrees.
It's not that my wife shouldn't love me or should love me half as much as I love her.
But the way that she loves me, the form or the manifestation, the demonstration of love is if my wife loves me through honor, through respect, deference.
I love her through affection, encouragement, adoration, provision, protection.
Any thoughts on what Michael was saying about love and patriarchal love, hierarchal?
Hierarchical love.
Yeah.
I mean, just to give an encouragement, I guess, to the women, you'll see this sometimes said online, but for just a woman to just that loves a man, that if she's able to be a stay at home woman, to give him children, cook a good meal, and be sweet when he comes home, there are just about no limits to what a man would do for her.
I think Luther said something to the effect of, give me beer and a good woman, and I'll conquer the world.
Like, you may not have tried it.
Give it a try.
See what love and encouragement putting one another up.
Adoption Agencies and Human Dignity00:07:16
We're so tempted to, and I find this myself.
Neuroticism, to focus on the negative.
Proverbs says it's a glory to cover an offense.
So, even if you've had a tough day, he's had a tough day to welcome him in sweetly.
That will move mountains and it'll move mountains for a number of reasons.
One of the biggest ones is that God's designed it that way to work.
He's designed for the woman to give that affection and that warmth and that joy, for the man to give the love and the protection and the security.
So, when you do things the way that God designed it, don't be surprised if it goes really well.
And it doesn't always, not to say there aren't cases that are way out there.
But the majority of the time, God will bless as we live in accordance to how he's made the world and in accordance to how he's written his word.
Amen.
Any final thoughts for today?
It's a good summation.
My final thought is A. Allen is just coming back in the comments.
And I just, I mean, it's a perfect time to end the podcast, but it's just so dumb.
I just feel like he needs to be publicly embarrassed again.
So, one last public shaming for A. Allen.
God bless you.
Nate, can you scroll back up to one of his comments?
I mean, there's several of them, and it's hard to determine.
You know, it's a fierce competition for which one's the dumbest, but go down a little bit.
I think that's it.
Here we are.
They aren't for convenience.
He's talking about abortions.
So, yeah, abortions, you know, other people in the chat, Christians.
So there's Christians, and then there's A. Allen.
So the Christians in the chat are saying that most abortions, 95% of them, are done for convenience.
And A. Allen is arguing that they aren't done for convenience.
The majority are done for economic reasons because the baby can't be supported.
Financially or economically, do you guys have any thoughts?
Well, I will say this slavery was for economic reasons, that's true, too.
But there are more people that's a great point.
There are more people on lists to adopt children in America than there are children to be adopted, right?
Which means we have a negative deficit, that's right.
But what I'm saying is right now, if we got serious about it, there are more families that want kids than kids that would be born.
And sadly, a lot of adoption agencies are making it more difficult.
Like, I understand, right?
It's not like you're you know, it's not like you're buying a toy.
It's not even like you're buying an AR.
I mean, there's maybe some responsibility there, but this is a human being.
You're taking home a kid.
So I understand that there needs to be proper vetting and all these kinds of things.
You don't want just anyone.
But we know that's not the problem.
I don't think the problem is adoption.
I'm sure there's some good ones.
So let me caveat by saying I'm sure there's some good Christian adoption agencies.
Okay.
So that being said, at least for some of these adoption agencies, vetting doesn't seem to be like the real holdup because if it was vetting, then they wouldn't be giving kids to two gay dudes.
Right.
So, you know, like Dave Rubin wouldn't have a kid, you know.
So obviously, that's even worse.
That's surrogacy.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's right.
That was adoption.
Which is a form of slavery.
Yeah.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
Just farming out babies to gay dudes, you know.
And then we find out 12 years later, you know, on the news that.
Who would have thought?
They were, you know, molested.
So, anyways, but I don't think it, you know, there should be some vetting, but I don't think a lot of these adoption agencies, or at least some of them, are doing that.
But there is a sense, Eric Kahn talked about this, and the world lost its mind, you know, on Twitter and got really, really, really upset.
And when I say the world, I mean Christians, you know, shocking.
But his point was saying that, you know, that the adoption, you know, industry is an industry.
Yeah.
And it's a multi billion dollar industry.
It's a bit, you know, there's a buck to be made.
You know, and so that's, I think that's part of the holdup is adoption on one hand needs to be hard, needs to be difficult to adopt a baby.
But I think sadly, because there's sin and wickedness in the world, there's a lot of, you know, adoption, you know, hoops that are not actually concerned for the child, but are concerned for a buck.
So that's part of the problem.
And then, you know, and then also, like you said, there's just not enough babies to adopt because they keep getting killed instead.
You know, so there are, so, anyways, back to A.A. Allen's, you know, dumb comment.
If she can't afford the child, adoption is massive, viable right there.
Does a woman, I don't know if it's just the agency or the state or what, does the woman get any money when a child is adopted?
No, foster families do.
Okay.
Well, if she keeps the baby, there's going to be lots of money available.
Well, yeah, yeah.
So, one, she can give them up for adoption.
And then, two, of course, I'm not a huge fan of this, obviously.
Yeah, but right now, like, I mean, there are women who literally have babies, and they've even said this verbally, you know, say they're having babies because they make so much money from the state for each child that they have.
The state incentivizes women not to marry the father of their children.
Like, the state comes in and says, if you marry the father of that baby and expect him to provide for the child, you get nothing.
That's right.
But if you will send him away and allow this child to be a bastard, and Uncle Stant gets to be Daddy Sam.
Will pay you handsomely to do so.
And this is again an example, A. Allen's comment of the false love.
You think you're being loving by saying the woman will be in a tough spot economically.
And so we are going to love her.
We're going to get down in the mud with her.
You cannot violate God's commands and be showing love.
Romans 14 13, love fulfills the law.
Love fulfills the law.
So sometimes love can go beyond the law.
I can just choose to buy somebody a gift.
But I can't go under the law.
I can't be less than the law and call it love.
It is not love to be less or violating the law.
How love does that baby feel?
It doesn't.
And even if you have the worst uphill climb ahead of you, even if the baby has Down syndrome or special needs, murdering it is still off the table.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry if it will bankrupt you and it will be tough.
You can't murder a helpless child.
Right.
Yep.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
And this is the vast minority of cases.
But if it happens to be, God forbid, one of these rare cases where You know, a woman actually is raped, and even a minor, a young girl, is raped.
Two wrongs in God's economy, his moral economy, two wrongs don't make a right.
You don't fix the initial wrong by committing a second.
You don't say, well, somebody did something wrong to me.
So now I'm going to do something wrong to someone else, another person, namely this baby.
Right.
So this man hurt me.
So then I'm going to hurt them.
It's not even vengeance.
It's not even vigilante, you know, like, you know, taking it at you.
Right.
Exactly.
Like, you know, that should be done through the proper order, through the civil magistrate.
That man who raped you should receive the proper consequences from the proper party, from the state.
If a woman retaliated and took it into her own hands, vengeance towards him.
That would be wrong, but we're not even talking about that.
We're not saying he did wrong to you, and so now you're trying to get back at him.
No, he did wrong to you, and then you're turning around and saying, Well, you know, forget him.
I won't do anything to him.
This innocent bystander, this baby, I'm going to take their life.
It just makes absolutely no sense.
Vengeance Is Not Love00:00:51
All right.
Well, I think that's it.
Nathan, can you scroll down?
Are there any final comments?
I will resist.
I will resist.
All right.
Yeah, I know, I know.
But trolls make for good conversations sometimes.
Sometimes you just ignore them, and then sometimes you just call them stupid on live air again and again, and the people love it.
So thousands of people get to say, What a dumb interlocutor.
All right.
Well, thank you guys for tuning in, and we will be back next week.
So every Wednesday at 4 p.m. with Michael and Wesley doing the live stream.
Wednesdays, 4 p.m. Central Time.
But the next episode that we'll have for you guys will be this Friday.
So Friday, we'll have Andrew Whisker and Ady Robles, myself again, continuing the Boniface Options series.
That's this Friday at 4 p.m. Central.
It'll be on Twitter, YouTube, our app, podcast, everywhere you want to find it.