Charles Haywood argues the Right must overcome a "feminine impulse" to crush leftist enemies, citing corporate cancellations and the protection of figures like Bill Ayers as evidence of Leftist power. He urges conservatives to adopt a "hostis" mindset, enforcing borders and punishing DEI proponents despite emotional manipulation by crying children, drawing parallels to Ezra's exile of foreign wives. Haywood contends that true revival requires "stomachs" to wield state power top-down rather than relying on ineffective grassroots compassion or universal suffrage, warning that believers must prepare to enforce righteous laws if God grants them authority again. [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
Wielding Power Today00:01:41
All right, welcome to another episode of Theology Applied.
I am your host, Pastor Joel Webbin with Right Response Ministries.
We're glad to have you with us.
In this episode, I'm welcoming back now a returning guest.
It is his second appearance on our show, and that's Charles Haywood.
He is the maximum leader of the Worthy House.
He writes lots of book reviews.
He's a prolific reader, very well read, and has some very fascinating insights, most of which I tend to agree with.
I think he's a good thinker, and he usually kind of just really is conveying his.
Theological, but mostly political and cultural thoughts under the thin veil, the guise of book reviews.
And he definitely deals with the books that he's reviewing, but a lot of it is saying, and this is what we should probably do today.
This is what we should probably do today.
He makes a lot of fascinating predictions.
Sometimes he's wrong, a lot of times he's right.
And so we're going to have a fascinating conversation today about the right and our aversion to wielding power and how.
We will not win so long as we hold to that position.
If power is icky, it's not going to work.
And we talk about the masculine and the feminine.
And part of the reason there's an aversion to power is because of there actually is, part of it is there actually is still a healthy feminine impulse with women on the right.
On the left, all these women, they're not feminine anymore.
They're butch, they're pretending to be men.
And so they don't have the characteristics of maternity and a domestic orientation or a feminine nurturing.
Attacking The Powerful00:13:29
Aspect.
Women on the left are not like that, whereas women on the right still are.
And because women on the right have this nurturing instinct, which is a good instinct, they don't want to crush enemies, they don't want to wield power.
And the problem is that right now, because of feminism, even on the right, women are not predominantly in the home, even on the right, but often women are in the public sphere.
And so, how do we navigate that?
How do we navigate feminization in politics and in culture and in positions of power and leadership?
And how do you navigate that when you're trying to fight, when you're trying to win?
What is the right going to do?
What are Christians going to do?
Is there any hope?
And what are some practical takeaways and strategies to improve things by the grace of God?
All right, tune in now.
Apply.
Charles, feel free to dive in and thanks for coming on.
Well, I'm pleased to be here.
I'm a little bit intimidated by the invitation to talk at such length on a broad topic, which admittedly I have written on.
So I will do my best to explicate some of my thoughts in a reasonably coherent fashion.
It's obviously easier to do that when you can sit down and write them.
But since I've already written them, hopefully I can regurgitate them.
Though I'm happy to answer questions and we can obviously go back and forth on it.
I think it's the Home Depot episode is instructive, as you say, though it's not even clear that the woman lost her job.
All that happened was Home Depot said she was no longer employed at that Home Depot location.
Assuming that's true, which we don't know because no one went and followed up and checked into it, because that's not what people on the right wing do.
They do not pursue their enemies to the ends of time, they simply drop the whole thing because it's not in their nature to pursue people in that fashion.
Assuming she did not.
In fact, returned the next day and is not to this day working at that Home Depot, which is entirely possible.
It's also entirely possible she just quit.
And certainly, if she did get fired, as you say, she has another job.
So, as consequences go, this was completely trivial.
And there were a couple other things I saw, for example, there was a Rutgers professor who was reprimanded by the university for saying something similar.
But of course, now she's back to teaching this fall, and there's been no consequences of any kind for anybody for doing the kind of things that, for a brief moment, people on the right wing thought might actually entail consequences, endorsing Trump's assassination and so on.
And so, the kind of disappointing thing, I guess, was the reaction from people on the right to this Home Depot episode.
There was a significant number of people who were very upset that this woman had been called out at all, saying basically that it was unfair or unkind or unmerciful or unchristian to chastise this woman for her behavior.
And certainly, all of those things and more to have any actual consequences accrue to her.
Assuming, for the purposes of argument, that consequences did accrue to her, which is pretty obvious they didn't, because even if she was fired, she could have got another cashier job at a big box store in about five seconds flat, obviously, and no doubt that's what she did, if that's what she actually wanted to have a job.
So, what I did in my piece is I discussed the history of this, and then I went through the arguments, both of the people who were opposing this action.
And tried to make them coherent and steel man them, as they say, that is, structure them in a way that they presented the best case for that, as well as the arguments for the cancellation of the Home Depot person, and more broadly for the cancellation of anybody who is an enemy of the right.
And of course, in order to discuss that, you have to discuss the history of what was colloquially called cancellation.
And as everybody generally knows, I think, though I tried to put some definitional meat on.
On the bones.
Cancellation is the use of social and political power to cause deleterious effects in the lives of individuals who are opposed to the doctrines of the left.
And this has been a regular left thing for many decades, and it has been at a fever pitch by the left for the past decade, maybe 15 years, probably closer to a decade, where any person who's identified as a potential threat to the left, any type of possible Social and political power is used in an attempt to harm that person so that person is no longer a threat to the left.
As a sidebar, you can also notice who is not a threat to the left by noticing who is not attempted to be canceled in any way.
We don't need to name names, but you can sometimes see this dynamic in action where people who claim to be very right wing and leading the charge and doing things are never even touched by the left in any way, shape, or form, even.
Though they could easily be in various ways.
And that's obviously because they're not actually perceived by the left as a threat.
So there's been innumerable examples of people who have been harmed in this way.
I mean, thousands, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, certainly hundreds of thousands if you count the people who are forced to alter their behavior in order that this not happen to them.
And every major corporation in America, as everybody knows, you can't say you're voting for Trump or you're against gay marriage or you're pro life.
Those things will get you fired.
And if they don't get you fired, They'll get you quietly fired in the sense that you'll never advance in the corporation again.
Your job assignments will suddenly become unattractive.
So, it may not be as dramatic as firing the next day.
But I know, for example, at least 20 years ago, I stopped being a big law firm lawyer.
But I know for a fact, certainly, that if I was still a big law firm lawyer, I was a mid level associate, and I said something pro life, I would be on the street the next day.
Right.
I mean, that's just all I know.
And that's just the political side of it in terms of just that's the danger of just holding opinions.
And that doesn't even include, in terms of people harmed, millions of people.
Who either lost their job or have a foreign substance now in their body.
And many people have had physical negative side effects because they would have been fired for not taking the jab.
So, at every level, and all this is leftist.
So, whether it's, oh, you're pro Trump, well, enjoy the unemployment line, or, oh, you won't take the mRNA vaccine, enjoy the unemployment.
In both cases, it's the left.
It's like what Orrin McIntyre's, it's the total state.
It's the medical establishment, the media, the politicians.
At every level, it is just the leftists have all the power.
Yes.
And not only have they the power, they've exercised this power.
And that's really the crux of this question, which is were the right ever to gain power, should they exercise power against their enemies in a same or similar way?
This is an academic question because the right doesn't have any power.
And as was revealed by the Trump episode, whatever.
Tiny amount of power they might have had for a few days instantly evanesced when the left regrouped and made sure that it wasn't possible for the right to use any power.
So, really, this is a question of what should the right do in the future if it gains power, using this woman as an example.
And so, what I did is I addressed various arguments.
So, for example, one argument that you frequently saw is that this person, this is probably the most common argument you saw, aside from like kind of vague accusations of unchristian behavior, the most common kind of Practical argument that you saw was this woman is a nobody, and so therefore harming her doesn't actually accomplish anything.
To which I had a couple different responses.
First of all, it's not at all clear this woman is a nobody.
The left always uses low level foot soldiers to enforce its doctrines.
And while I certainly have no evidence of this, it's entirely possible and even likely that a woman like this was instrumental in forcing her co workers to get the devil shot, reporting them if they didn't.
Reporting Trump voters, you're just reporting people who are bigots, whatever.
Throughout the history of leftism, this has been a basic tactic of the left to get its low level foot soldiers to act as Stasi type people and inform on people and so on.
So it's not at all clear that this person is low level in the sense of having no negative effect on her coworkers and peers and what have you.
So it's just not true.
Facially, to say that she's unimportant because she clearly is capable of and likely has caused significant damage to people in the past.
But even if she didn't, she's important because punishing people like this who indisputably engaged in bad behavior is a warning and a threat to other leftists who have, in fact, behaved poorly.
Now, obviously, you can't take this principle too far.
You can't take just random people off the street and punish them.
If they did nothing, just to make an example of them.
That's obviously unacceptable.
But everybody agrees this woman acted in a way that was unacceptable, praising the attempted assassination of Trump and the death of one of his supporters.
So there's no argument that she had not behaved in a malicious and malignant fashion.
The only question is what punishment is appropriate.
So, like I say, I don't think she's a low level person at all.
Related to that, you frequently got the response Peachy Keenan, whom I love.
I love Peachy Keenan, who is a pseudonym on Twitter.
Operates under her real name now, much of this appeared on X as a kind of back and forth between me and Peachy.
A kind of fallback position for those people as well, leaving aside the question of whether this person is low level or needs to be punished if she is low level, is we should just attack the powerful because really we need to concentrate our fire on the powerful.
I mean, that's like saying we should fly, right?
The right doesn't have any power to attack the powerful.
The powerful don't even notice.
When the right attacks them, I mean, they said they notice, they snicker, and it's a point of pride with all their friends in the regime and the judges and the prosecutors who protect them and what have you.
Attacking the powerful is just not a practical strategy.
What that means is we should attack nobody because if we're not going to attack the not powerful and we're going to unsuccessfully attack the powerful, then what are we doing here?
We're not doing anything here except wasting our time and pretending that we're accomplishing something.
And the right has a long and dishonorable history of.
Pretending to accomplish things and celebrating accomplishments that are in fact not accomplishments at all.
And I should know because I've been an active member of the right wing for pushing 40 years now.
And let me assure you that I've seen an awful lot of celebration of victories that were obviously not victories at the time and have not turned out to be victories in the long run either.
Not to get too deep in history, but this is the whole kind of raison d'etre of Bill Buckley, William F. Buckley Jr.
I did X, Y, and Z, didn't actually do anything useful.
And then, when there was a real fight to be had, then he, of course, backed away and adopted the left position because he wouldn't want to actually do something if he thought he had the power to do it.
So, I mean, that attacking the powerful just doesn't make a lot of sense.
I also made other points.
You know, turnabout is simply fair play.
And this is what kind of a game theory thing.
We'll get to the moral arguments here, but this is what they call game theory tit for tat, right?
That the only kind of stable equilibrium for people who are fighting each other is to respond to an attack on you with an attack on the person attacking you.
All other responses lead to unstable games where the games in the game theory sense, not games in the children's play sense, unstable games where the person refusing to respond aggressively against someone attacking him loses.
And that's what, again, you see with the right.
The right is for the past 40 years.
50 years, been beautiful losers.
Well, they've been just plain losers, and occasionally they're beautiful losers.
I'm Roger Scruton.
I attack this as Scrutonism, and I like Roger Scruton.
Well, he's dead, so I like his work, but he was the prototypical beautiful loser.
He actually wrote a book I reviewed where he talked about how bad everything was, and then at the end, he's like, Well, at least we can sit in the churchyards and look at the sunset.
Protecting Bad Actors00:06:28
Isn't it beautiful?
I'm like, Ah, it's just a waste of time, Roger.
I mean, you know, that church is going to be knocked down soon by the Muslim invaders raping your daughters up the street.
And so, you know, that's not really helping us, Roger.
Right.
So, just simply saying Sauron will eventually come for the Shire.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, so, but you know, Scruton, I mean, I understand.
Look, I like country churchyards too, leaving aside the fact that the English don't go to church in their churches that are attached to their churchyards.
You know, that's the real problem that the English, you know, what is it?
2% of the English go to church on a weekly, I mean, something ludicrous.
I mean, it's not much better in America, but it is better in America.
I mean, England, and I mean, that gets into a whole other conversation about how Europe is over, which people are always.
Churches in England and Europe at large are becoming mosques.
Or museums.
Yeah.
So it's also important to note that cancellations by the left and right are not equivalent.
That is, as we mentioned earlier, this Home Depot person immediately found a new job, even if she lost her job.
The entire left runs an enormous ecosystem which ensures total protection for anybody who suffers any ill consequences from even the most extreme actions.
And you see this in academia most obviously.
But so let's just take an example.
It's not cancellation because the left doesn't have to protect its members from right cancellations because the right can't cancel.
But there has been some success, for example, at some college campuses with state laws banning DEI, you know, diversity, equity, and inclusion, that is, anti white hatred being pushed by the administration.
But none of those people have lost their jobs.
They were just given new titles and they're doing the exact same thing they were doing the day before.
And if someone commits an actual crime on the left, even extreme crimes like pedophilia and so on, They always find in the infinite network of lavishly funded NGOs and quasi governmental entities and so on, all these people immediately find a job.
Or you can, I'm writing a book review right now of Days of Rage, which is Brian Burroughs' book about the many terrorist bombings in the 1970s by the left.
In 1972, take a guess, in 1972, how many left wing terrorist bombs were set off in America?
I don't know.
You tell me.
2000.
So no one remembers this because it's all memory hold.
But one of the major bombers was this guy, Bill Ayers, one of the weathermen, who is now, and he and his partner in crime, Bernadine Dorn, have for decades now had lavishly funded academic positions at Northwestern University.
So that's the kind of thing that the left protects anybody who acts badly and might suffer any deleterious consequences is protected permanently by the left.
Conversely, all the people who are canceled by the left on the right.
Really suffer.
They lose their jobs.
For example, there's Thomas Acord, the headmaster, famously attacked by Rod Dreher.
He's, I think, had real problems.
But generally speaking, anyone on the right who's canceled suffers real permanent consequences.
Might be able to recover, maybe not.
Well, and the biggest thing with that, just real quick to interject.
I'm just monologuing, so please.
No, no, no, you're doing great.
It's very helpful.
But the biggest difference is kind of going back to what you said earlier, it's the pursuit.
So, the problem with Thomas Acord, you know, because I might have some listeners who they're still just, it's not even that they're like an accountant and they're against what you and I are saying right now, but they just would be confused.
They'd say, Yeah, but didn't they be like, I don't know why you continue to use Thomas Acord as an example because he really did have some atrocious statements on his Anon Twitter account and he admitted.
That was him and it was linked to him, and blah blah.
And I would say, Yeah, but here's the thing we're not saying that there's never any failures of any kind on the right.
And we're not saying that the right should have zero standards.
And we're not saying that there's no such thing as a category of sin or any of these things.
Here's the difference this is what irks me in the case of Thomas Acord.
He didn't just get fired.
Thomas Acord, the following up with the Thomas Acord saga, the part that a lot of people don't know.
Is he has continued to be fired.
These same people on the right, here's the crazy thing these are, you know, you got to put that in quotation marks.
Allegedly on the right, your, you know, your Rodrier types, they didn't just say, hey, you know what, we've got to have standards.
No, they have continued to pursue.
So if Thomas Acor goes and gets a FedEx job and just their position is not, you can't, you're not qualified to be the headmaster of a Christian classical school.
That's not their position.
Their position is your children and wife need to starve.
And until you're dead, until you are dead, we are unsatisfied.
We're not just going to get you removed because we think you're not qualified because of things that you said that objectively some of those things I would say were wrong.
And you're currently in a Christian organization and that's not fitting.
But no, no, that is not their position.
Their position is you're bagging groceries, we're going to get you fired.
You're sweeping streets, we're going to get you fired.
Somebody gave you a donation so that you could buy ramen noodles so your kids could eat tonight.
We're going to make sure that anyone is terrified to give you a donation because of what it might do to them.
We want you dead.
That is the reason why I have used on multiple occasions Thomas Acord as an example, just to set the record straight for all my listeners.
It is inhumane.
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.
Rewarding Friends Not Enemies00:14:58
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 squirrelyjoe's.com forward slash right response.
Again, that's squirrelyjoes.com forward slash right response to claim your first free bag of coffee today.
Visit thewordsoap.com today.
Again, that's thewordsoap.com.
Everyone needs soap, so wash yourself in the word.
Yeah, I think that's right.
But it gives it a.
I'll come back to the main topic, but I think this is an important kind of overarching political point, which is that this kind of behavior, the endless pursuit of enemies, is inherent.
To the left.
It's in its nature to do this for a variety of reasons, but this is one of the reasons why the politicization of society is bad and the politicization of society on a left axis is terrible.
And ultimately, that's why I'm only interested in one thing, which is winning.
And winning means the total and permanent destruction of the left such that these things can never happen again.
And that anybody who says I'm a leftist is stigmatized and is not allowed to have any.
Presence in decent society.
Just as if you came out and said, like, I like to, you know, tear the heads off babies on live TV, that should be about the level of revulsion that someone receives when he says, I'm a leftist.
Right, because leftists literally do that.
They just, you know, they just do it.
They just do it, you know, five seconds before the baby is born.
But yeah.
Right, they don't like to talk about it.
But that's why a politicized society is a bad society because it allows the left additional power.
It's also bad for other reasons.
I mean, my personal, and this is obviously not workable at the present moment, but.
95% of people should have absolutely no opinions about national politics.
They maybe should have an opinion about who should be mayor of their town, but it's depoliticized society is the only sensible society.
Fundamentally, you just shouldn't have, and that means, of course, you can't have mass democracy because it doesn't work in the modern world.
Oh, we're getting far, far afield.
So, I mean, but the winning thing is important because, you know, I'll come to the moral arguments here in a minute, but the winning, just abstracting, And people always quote, and I think rightly so, the Cormac McCarthy character, who's the bad guy, in one of his books if the rule that you followed led you to this place, of what use was the rule?
And if the idea that somehow we should all just agree to let people, the left cancel and the right can cancel too, that doesn't work.
I'm not interested in having a rule that says no cancellation.
I'm interested in having a rule that says only cancellation of people on the left, that I want to do turnabout times 10 to the left.
Not come to some kind of classical liberal James Lindsay idea, which simply doesn't work, that because the left is more political and cares more, and people on the left get meaning from doing these things.
Nobody on the right gets meaning from canceling people, which is why, of course, you never see the follow up.
They're too busy grilling or going to church or talking to their children.
The allegiance of why nots with no children, no meaning in life except to persecute right wing people never will have a right equivalent, and therefore the right cannot compete in the cancellation realm.
That said, Power should be used, and you kind of introduced this topic, wherever that power may be derived in order to crush the left.
And so hopefully that doesn't involve ultimately some kind of actual conflict, but stigmatization of left beliefs, for example, the firing of everybody who's ever touched or been involved in any way with, say, a DEI program at any public university or private university.
I mean, I would pass a federal law, just thinking about it out loud, saying if you are a college that has.
Accepts federal funds by tomorrow.
Anyone who is involved in any of the following jobs must be fired permanently with no pension, uh, you know, something like that.
And in like everybody who's involved in DEI or anything that's related to that should simply be fired without a job forever.
I mean, these are the things you have to do in order to win, but the right doesn't do anything, they of course, you know, chicken out at the Home Depot woman.
And so, this is all fancy, of course.
I don't have any way of exercising this particular plan, but as an abstract matter, that's what we should be.
Thinking about doing and focusing on, not whinging about whether the Home Depot person has lost a job for six hours.
I mean, it's not a practical way to approach life.
And you see this a lot, especially on the Christian right, that people say, oh, you know, you can't use power.
We need to, in the end, Christ wins, so we don't need to do anything.
I saw a meme this morning on X with the Lord of the Rings with Aragorn accepting the Isildur's sword from Elrond.
To go fight the bad guys.
And he said something like, Oh, take this sword back, Elrond.
I'll know better than Sauron if I take up a sword.
I can't actually fight for it.
I mean, that's the approach of a lot of Christians that we can't actually fight for anything and we certainly can't cause harm to other people.
But of course, you can cause harm to other people.
I mean, when other people do bad things, they need to be punished.
That's just the way it is.
I mean, this idea that somehow we can't chastise people even verbally, much less more aggressively, because even though they did obviously bad things for reasons and stuff, it's just kind of bizarre.
And I've actually written quite a bit on this, and this gets kind of deep into the weeds of exegesis and so on.
But there is an important distinction in Christianity to be made, which is not original to me, but doesn't get a tremendous amount of attention, between private enemies and public enemies.
So, in Latin, the New Testament obviously was written in Greek, but the early translations, St. Jerome's translation, the Vulgate, which was used throughout much of Christian history, uses the word inimicus for enemy, what we translate in English as enemy, rather than hostis.
Inimicus is the Latin word for private enemy, and the New Testament does not use hostis at all, with very rare exceptions, for Which means public enemy.
And a private enemy is someone with whom we have a personal quarrel, a beef, some kind of reason to be angry with that person on a personal level.
And a public enemy is that set of people which attempts to destroy us as a group, that is the polity, rather than someone who we have a personal beef.
And obviously, so if you go back to the New Testament, the enemies of Israel were typically hostess rather than inimicus.
I mean, there's exceptions to that.
But this has gotten lost where people think that we need to act in a In order to act like in a Christ like fashion, we need to never offer any defense against the public enemy.
Simply allow them to do whatever they want to us because Christ says we need to love people.
And if we love people, then we let them do what they want.
I mean, these things are just kind of clownish when you say them out loud.
They're obviously false.
Because Carl Schmitt, who wrote extensively on this and is the modern kind of theorist of this particular exegesis or one of them, said something like Never in the thousand year history of conflict between Muslims and Christians did it occur to a Christian to say, That they shouldn't fight the Muslims because of the rules about loving your enemy.
Muslims, as an entity, are the public enemy.
And obviously, you fight against the public enemy.
And in the same way, the left is the public enemy, both of America and of Christians, and therefore has to be fought and put down.
I mean, these things are just, I mean, it sounds kind of trivial coming out of my mouth.
Like, it doesn't sound like I'm saying, like, the sun sets it.
But Christians don't get it, so it does have to come out of your mouth.
I guess.
I mean, maybe I've just been thinking about it too much, so it's not really.
No, yeah, yeah.
It's the simplest thing in the world, but it absolutely has to be said because we have become so impotent and we're pacifists and we think that somehow that's righteous and pleasing to the Lord, but it's not.
And one other thing that, you know, because I said at a conference a while back, the New Christendom Conference in Utah, and it went, I don't know if you ever follow any of my stuff, but Right Wing Watch, they watch every, I don't know why, but they're my biggest fans.
They watch everything that I do.
Yeah, they're, yeah, go ahead.
So, anyways, they basically, they're basically on the payroll of, Of right response ministries, they should be.
You know, I owe them an immense amount of credit, but they pick up everything that I said and, you know, boost it out to millions of people.
And I get, you know, mostly criticism because the people they're pushing it out to are leftists, but also lots of people find our stuff and enjoy it.
And so, anyways, all that being said, I said that I want to win.
I don't want to be a beautiful loser.
I want to win.
And in winning, I want to, you know, what is winning?
It's crushing your enemies and rewarding your friends.
And a lot of people lost their minds, you know, and couldn't believe it.
And of course, leftists lost their minds.
Because they're like, well, we're the only ones who are allowed to do that.
But even a lot of Christians really struggled with it.
A lot of people, I would say the majority of people at the conference who were there in person, they understood what I was saying and received it positively and were even grateful.
But there were some that really, really did struggle with it.
And so I had to do some follow ups and things like that and trying to bring clarity.
And one of the pieces of clarity that I brought was I tweeted out just saying Christians have to begin.
And I think more broadly, conservatives or whatever, conservatives, sadly, it's not even the best word anymore.
I still appreciate it.
But those on the right, you know.
One of the things that we must train ourselves to do is think in categories.
So, what does it mean to crush your enemies?
Well, it's categorical and it depends on your vocation in life.
I think of 1 Corinthians 7, you know, whatever station in life the Lord called you, right?
If he called you, you were converted to Christ and you were a Roman centurion, you would think in modern, you know, with our modern post war consensus kind of frame of mind, you would think that the centurion soldiers, because this actually happened when they come to Christ and say, what does it mean?
What does it look like for us in our vocation to follow you?
The post war consensus would assume that Jesus said, Well, what it looks like, the first thing it looks like is selling your swords and finding another job.
You know, you need to be, you know, baked cakes or something like that, you know.
But like, you know.
Baking cakes is not permitted, I understand.
Right, yeah.
Well, that's true, yeah.
But certainly you can't be soldiers and certainly not in, you know, in a Roman empirical, you know, militia.
And so, all that being said, my point is that's not what Jesus said.
Instead, what he said is you need to do this, but be content with your wages and don't extort from others.
But you can continue to serve the Roman Empire.
With a sword as a soldier.
And so, my point is, there are categories.
So, where did the Lord call you if you were single?
So, 1 Corinthians 7 talks about single versus married, and that's the primary case study.
But the principle applies beyond that.
Were you a pastor?
Are you single?
Are you married?
Are you a child?
Are you an adult?
Do you work for Google and its algorithm?
Or are you a police officer?
Are you a city council member?
And so on and so forth.
And so, the point is this what does it look like to win?
It's crushing your enemies, rewarding your friends.
What does it look like to crush your enemies?
It depends on the category.
It depends on your vocation.
So, when we say crush your enemies, I'm not saying that Christians in the middle of the night should dress up like Batman and be vigilantes and run around and kill their enemies.
No one is saying that.
You're not saying that.
I'm not saying that.
We're not saying that.
What we're saying is you do it in all the capacities, staying in the various lanes that the Lord has assigned to us.
So, it means culturally.
What does it mean culturally to crush your enemies?
It means making leftist thought a complete pariah to where someone is ashamed.
They are ashamed to publicly utter views that the Lord hates, that God hates, like murdering babies and chopping off the genitals of children.
Leftists should be ashamed.
And anyone who has said those things publicly in any serious position of power and media and all the absolute, they should be crushed.
Meaning what?
That you privately, as a vigilante, should kill them?
No.
It means they lose their job.
It means they lose their livelihood.
They lose stock.
They lose credibility.
It means all those things.
And if you are a civil magistrate and you have.
Leverage and you have the role and the power to legislate, legislating righteous laws.
And so, again, that's not vigilante, but that's now through the mechanism of the state, legislating righteous laws that would have righteous consequences as a private citizen.
It means doing it culturally, it means utilizing social media.
If you're a private citizen who owns a business, it means hiring the faithful, hardworking Christians in your church and not hiring leftists who hate you and who are going to demean your.
That's what we're talking economically, we're talking socially, culturally.
Politically, in all these ways that are perfectly conducive with biblical standards, none of this is taking vengeance and unrighteous, wicked vengeance, which ultimately belongs to the Lord.
He will get eternal vengeance by casting people into hell, those who hate Him.
But that's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about all the mechanisms that are at our disposal and that are righteous to use.
And in those ways, that's what we mean by crushing enemies and rewarding friends.
This is perfectly conducive with Christian thought.
And I mean, the kind of legal process thing I think is important, right?
You know, when people run around crushing their enemies literally through vigilantism, that does not lead to social comedy.
But it is entirely appropriate at some future point for the right to set up judicial tribunals to try people for crimes that took place in the past.
You don't want to go whole hog and try millions of people.
But this is basically, it would be similar to something like was done after World War II with the denazification program, where you basically examine the behavior of people in the past.
Particular malefactors, and you've sentenced them to jail for some period of time, or picking sugar beets in Saskatchewan, as I like to say.
But that's a process of justice.
The punishment of leftists is fundamentally a process of justice, not a process of political.
It's not revenge, it's justice.
It's not revenge, and it's not getting yours.
Like frequently, fights in the ancient world, like in Greek city states or in the Roman world, were, well, I want the pile of money.
You want the pile of money, and so now we're going to have a justice process where I declare you a criminal because I get the pile of money.
Justice Over Revenge00:04:06
That's not what we're talking about here.
I mean, we're talking about this is not a monetary thing.
This is a the left is, of course, a relatively new feature of the world.
As in the Roman times, there were no leftists in any meaningful sense.
The left impulse has been around since the Garden of Eden, but only since the Enlightenment that the leftism is a politically reified thing, beginning in the French Revolution.
Has been something that has infected the world.
We just need to get back to the point where our biggest problem is who gets the pile of money and then run a society where people don't fight too much over the pile of money.
So, anyway, I think that the.
I mean, there are other arguments about this, this Home Depot one.
For example, you saw a common one on X where people are like, well, this is so counterproductive because all the normies out there see this poor Home Depot woman and they're like, oh, the right wing is so terrible.
They never give any examples of people like this.
When people say the right wing needs to not use political power because the normies will be offended, there's never any examples of this.
And that's because the normies aren't offended.
And to the extent they're convinced, they're convinced by the exercise of power, not by staying one's hand like a weakling against people who are clearly.
The only people that are offended, and it took me a while to figure this out, but I realize that the only people who are offended by displays like this are not people on the right.
They're people who think they're on the right, but they're actually very much influenced by the left.
And there's a word for people like that.
There's a lot of words, but here's one Women.
To be completely honest, how do you make a woman conservative?
You marry her.
That's how you do it.
But a lot of single women who would identify as being Christians and belong to churches, reasonably, at least doctrinally, theologically conservative churches, they would have some sense of an automatic disgust.
Reflex, you know, at something like this, like a woman losing her job.
But the reality is, this, that's convinced, that's their nature.
I don't even, I'm not even completely, to be honest, I don't even think that's a bad thing.
I don't think that that's something that we're supposed to fix.
I don't, like, that is, you know, that's their nature.
It's the same as, like, you know, all that, like, with the Ukraine, where I remember, like, a lot of women coming out and writing poems about if I, you know, if I was Putin's mom, you know, and it's like, and I, you know, and it was funny, you know, but I remember just thinking as a pastor, as a Christian pastor who I believe the Bible, so I adhere to patriarchy.
You know, egalitarianism is communism.
I think that, you know, feminism is absolutely terrible.
Matriarchy is terrible.
And complementarianism is just a halfway house and a placeholder for patriarchy.
So, patriarchy is, I mean, this is how the world has worked for thousands of years.
And it's a good thing.
Sure, there are abuses, but it should be done.
The problem is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but to do patriarchy righteously in a way that loves women and loves our daughters and all these kinds of things.
I love women.
I have my fourth daughter on the way.
And every time I have another daughter, I immediately.
As soon as she's born, I become 200% more radicalized overnight.
And so, because I love that little girl and I want her to succeed in life, and everyone in the world hates her.
They say that they love her, but they hate her.
They want her miserable.
They want her to be single, fruitless, childless, cat lady.
You know, all these JD Vance was absolutely right.
And I understand why it's not advantageous right now because the country is filled with degenerates.
And so, truth, you got to be strategic and careful and deliberate.
It's not always, doesn't always play well in a country where.
You know, there are more technically more women than men, and they're voting, and most of them are single.
But my point is this with all these people who were averse to the idea of the right wielding a fraction of the left's power in one tiny instance over the last two decades, you know, with a low level Home Depot employee who we don't even know she actually even lost her job.
Like you already said, she could have quit.
Strategic National Changes00:03:32
And we have no doubt that she's either well taken care of, making in the monetary sense as much, if not more, by not working on an unemployment situation, or she's immediately been rehired somewhere else.
And yet, you know, she didn't lose any friends.
All of her friends.
If anything, she's getting high fives.
Slay queen.
Yeah.
So all that.
And yet, there's still this aversion.
My point is, where does that aversion come from on the right?
I think by and large, it comes from women.
And the solution there is not to persuade every woman to be a man, because that's not the brag you think it is.
That's not winning.
We don't want women to become men.
We want women to be women.
And so I think the solution there is that men have to lead.
That we have to leave.
Are you desiring to change your financial trajectory and build multi generational wealth for your children and grandchildren?
Our sponsor, Private Family Banking Partners, invites you to join a growing number of like minded individuals, families, and entrepreneurs who are working together to form a unique part of the parallel economy.
With Private Family Banking, you will learn how to establish a privatized banking system that will increase the value of the money and savings that you already have flowing through your life.
Join this growing community today as a part of putting post mill talk into post mill action by contacting a private family banking partner today by emailing them at banking at privatefamilybanking.com.
Also, see the show notes below to schedule a discovery call and get a free copy of the e book Protect Your Money Now How to Build Multi Generational Wealth Outside of Wall Street and Avoid the Coming Banking Meltdown.
America is a country that was founded for the purpose of allowing Christians to do their duty before God and not to have their consciences ruled by the doctrines and commandments of men.
Reese Fund exists in order to see the Ten Commandments properly applied, not just as a plaque on the wall, but to actually be used in business as though they're commandments from God that we're supposed to obey.
Our goal is to find businesses and to buy them and to build them up.
We want to find manufacturing businesses and use them to make sure that we can maintain our capacity to do things here.
Reese Fund, Christian Capital, boldly deployed.
I agree entirely.
And you see this even with Peachy.
I mean, I love Peachy, but there is a little bit of the mother.
Because she's a woman, praise God.
She's feminine.
So she thinks there is a certain point.
She's rational, she's logical, she's wise.
But then there is a certain point where, as a woman, she's.
Maternal and nurturing.
That's great.
She should be.
That's fundamentally, though, this is a larger political instruction question why the women should be deprecated in terms of their political input, particularly at the national level.
And I made this point in my piece, too, not specifically with respect to women, though there's an element of that in this as well.
But there are many other things that need to be done in the country that are not necessarily directed at the left wing.
So, for example, millions of illegals need to be deported at the point of a gun.
The first time that happens, the media, the leftist media will find some crying child, of course, you know, with a big gun in his face, and then plaster that everywhere as a propaganda exercise.
And all these people who are emotive will be, oh, we can't deport anybody.
Look at that crying child.
I mean, the fact is, these people need to go, and they need to go yesterday, and they need to be moved out with as much violence as is necessary, hopefully a minimum amount of violence.
Deportation With Violence00:02:30
Right.
But it needs to begin right now.
But we can't approach that important public policy objective through the prism of.
If a baby cries one time, we can't do it.
I mean, that's and that's kind of the if we can't, if we can't even have a Home Depot person who suffered no ill consequences at all, as far as we can tell from this episode, we can't even do that without wringing our hands about it.
We're never going to get anything done that we need to get done.
Right.
I preached a sermon recently.
The title was God Give Us the Stomachs for Revival.
And my main point was we've been praying that God would give us hearts for revival.
And that's good.
But maybe, you know, not as a replacement, but in addition to that prayer, we need to pray that God would give us stomachs for revival.
And we went through the book of Ezra, and there's a point in the book of Ezra, and I'm not saying that this has to happen here, but I think that there would be this general application and whatever, you know, appropriate, you know, whatever appropriate instance it might be.
But in Ezra, when they find, you know, Ezra, he's a scribe, he's a preacher.
And when he finds the book of the law and dusts it off and begins to preach, you know, they're already well on their way of this rebuilding project, right?
They've been kicked out of the land, they've been conquered.
And finally, in God's grace, you know, there's this Cyrus type.
Figure, it's there's a lot of different similarities to where we are today, and Cyrus he's not necessarily a follower of Yahweh, you know, he's not necessarily a Christian, but he resources out of his own treasury, puts them back, realizes that Christianity is good for the world, you know, that Israel, you know, and being in there and blah blah blah, and resurrecting the temple and praying for you know kings and different kingdoms and these kinds of things that God would be benevolent and stay his hand of judgment.
So he, you know, they go and they're the project, the rebuilding reconstruction project of the right, you know, of these.
These Christian principles is well underway.
And so then, towards the end of the book, they're now teaching the law of God again, and the people are listening.
They construct a pulpit where Ezra is at the top, and from morning till afternoon, he's reading the law of God, and the people are weeping because they realize how far off the rails they really are.
So at first, they're excited because it's like, look, we rebuilt the temple, we rebuilt Jerusalem.
But then he starts reading the law, and it's just kind of this it's like reading history, it's reminding them of their past.
It's like, oh my God.
Goodness, like that used to be normal, you know, that like America used to be like that.
Oh my goodness, you know, you don't even realize how much of your freedom has actually been eroded and how degenerate and wicked you actually have become.
Even those on the right, even Christians, how compromised we are.
Eroded Christian Freedom00:15:49
And one of the things specifically was intermarriage in their case, because they weren't supposed to marry foreign wives who worshiped foreign gods.
And so there's a point in the book of Ezra where they have to send away their wives and children.
And there's weeping.
I mean, that's a very hard thing to do.
It's not that they're cold and heartless.
It's not that these men in Israel are like, yep, send them away.
I don't care.
They're doing it because they love the Lord even more than their own families, but it's breaking their hearts.
It's The whole thing is marked with tears and immense grief and ripping their clothes and sackcloth and ashes.
And first and foremost, but here's the key first and foremost, they are far more grieved by how, for decades now, if not even longer, they have offended their God.
Their love for their God is predominant.
That's first and foremost.
But then secondarily, they also are grieving over these women and children that they really did love and still love, but they have to obey Yahweh.
And so, my point is, I'm not saying that people in In inter ethnic marriages, I'm not saying it's a direct one to one ratio application, but the general equity, the principle is exactly what you said.
Immigration is a great example, and there would be others.
But the point is, we don't just need hearts and zeal, we need stomachs.
And the reality is that a lot of people on the right, that's our biggest problem.
We do not have the stomachs, not just to win, we don't have the stomachs to obey God, which is winning.
We don't actually, we don't have the stomachs, the wherewithal to actually, because what does that look like?
It would look like women and children crying and leaving.
Because they came into the country illegally.
And I'm sorry, we don't hate you.
It's not a personal enemy like what you were saying earlier, but you're not allowed to be here.
You're just not.
America is for Americans, it's not for everyone.
This is trivially obvious, but of course.
It's kind of a trivially obvious thing that people, as you say, stomach is a great word, just can't stomach.
I mean, and you could even do it on a much more gentle basis.
You could say, here you go.
We're flying you back to.
The Congo, wherever that, where Somalia.
Somalia, for $5,000, $5,000 each.
You know, we'll get you on this plane.
It's a nice air conditioned plane, you know.
But no matter how easy you make it, there'll be some set of people who are wailing and crying and so on.
And then the left will use that as a tool in order to make people view politics through emotion, which is always a fatally bad thing.
Emotion is important.
You can't have a completely unemotional.
Society, even though you're all like Vulcans or something.
But the emotion should be essentially completely separated from politics.
And the biggest reason we have too much emotion is feminization.
It's not just women, it's feminized men.
Oh, yeah, it's women of both sexes, for sure.
No, you're right.
It's women and women adjacent, which is virtually everyone at this point.
But that's, and I think.
Not us.
That's, yeah, not us.
Not us.
There are two that are not, you know, we love women.
We both have wives, we have daughters, you know, but we are not women adjacent.
But that's, I think, part of what turned me on to you, Charles, is.
You know, as a pastor, like we talked about this before we started recording, like you're Eastern Orthodox, I'm Calvinist, Reformed.
And so, you know, so I'm not going to have you on the show to talk about justification by faith because I think you're wrong and you think I'm wrong, you know, and that's fine.
Well, you probably thought about it more than me, so I would lose anyway.
I hope I'm a pastor.
So I should have thought about it a lot.
But all that being said, my point is, but there's so much that we can agree with.
And I think you're helpful on this.
And one of the things that turned me on to you was, you know, your foundationalism, you know, your Magnus.
Opus, you know, and writing that, you know, and these different, you know, steps.
And one of the things that I remember was a year and a half ago, and a lot of guys in my larger reformed camp, you know, were, were, you know, doing some pearl clutching and very, you know, the women adjacent type of tradition, you know, clutching the pearls.
And oh my goodness, he's advocating for violence.
But, you know, if you just, you know, I'm a guy who I like to give people, you know, a fair shake.
And so I read it and I listened to some things you said.
And I realized he's not saying put on the Batman suits to go back to the earlier analogy and the vigilante, and that we should be the, He's saying, no, the violence is already here.
It's our adversaries.
It's the left.
The left burned down half the country just a few years ago.
And with impunity.
With impunity.
I'd like to point out that the United States holds more political prisoners than any late communist country right now at this very moment.
So, violence is alive and well.
Violence is alive and well.
You weren't advocating for Christians to enact unjust violence from a vigilante private citizen kind of platform.
But you were saying, but these are my predictions.
There's a difference in what we prescribe.
And then.
And then what we are describing.
And pastors on the reforms, they should have known this.
That's literally part of our hermeneutic and reading the scripture.
Is this a descriptive text or a prescriptive text?
Thus saith the Lord, do X, Y, and Z, versus, and this occurred.
Like David sleeps with Bathsheba, right?
That's in the Bible.
So, yeah, so adultery is prescribed.
No, adultery is being described.
Described.
And so, anyway, so all that being said, my point.
I will note one of my favorite King David things, which I've focused on some of my writings lately, is how he was not permitted to build the temple.
Because even though he engaged in just violence at the command of the Lord, he had shed too much blood and was therefore not permitted to build the temple, which I think is a very interesting thing with implications for our own future.
It's categories.
Again, it's not that David did wrong in fighting the very battles that the Lord called him out to.
If anything, his big mistake with Bathsheba is he stopped fighting the battles.
He should have kept executing violence against the enemies of Yahweh.
But still, God thinks in categories.
So God's saying, yep, you did exactly what I told you to.
If anything, you should have done more.
And at the same time, That wasn't objectively sinful or wrong.
And yet, it's simply that's not the guy who builds my temple, which is a place of prayer.
That's another guy.
You know, there are different roles, there are different roles, different categories.
So, anyways, all that back to the women thing.
What turned me on to you was your descriptive and predictive, not prescriptive, but predicting.
And I think you're right.
Here's the thing I'm post millennial, but I'm not the post millennial of the stripe and color that would say that, you know, hashtag that post mill will win in 50,000 years.
In the meantime, we do nothing.
I think we really got to do something.
And I would like to win as early as possible because, again, C point A, I have kids and I love them.
And they got to grow up somewhere, whether it's Costa Rica or I don't know.
I don't know where they're going to go.
I'd like them to be able to stay here.
And so I want to fight, go fight, win.
And I'm willing to partner with any, you know, if you're a dispensational guy, I'm not a huge fan of that doctrine.
But if you're a fighter, all right, let's fight.
So, all that being said, my point is you described some things.
I think you described them really well.
And I think things will probably have to get a little bit worse.
Before they get better, because I don't, so I'm an abolitionist.
I think that, you know, but I'm voting for Trump because, again, I can think in categories.
I want the full abolition of abortion.
I want equal protections, all these things.
But this is one of the things I tweeted out a while back, and a lot of people actually surprisingly agree because I think people are starting to come to their senses.
But I said, universal suffrage or the abolition of abortion.
America can have one, but you can't have both.
Yes, I think that's true.
You know, and so my point is.
Dumb objectively for many reasons.
It's just one of them.
It's foolish.
And it's not just repeal the 19th Amendment.
I've beat that drum, you know, probably more than I should have.
Definitely gets you reactions, you know, and, but it's beyond that.
It's beyond that.
But the point is just democracy with a country of 330 people, 330 million people that is massively diverse.
And I'm not just talking about different shades of pigment, I'm talking about different cultures, different religions, different, all these different things, and no borders and universal suffrage and even illegals being able to vote because the left is ensuring that they can go into a city and not prove any citizenship or even a driver's license or ID.
If you like to think that you can play by that framework, those rules, and somehow vote yourself back to a constitutional republic, right?
If you could keep it, great, but we didn't.
The verdict has come back in, you know, the jury's back.
We didn't keep it.
So to think we're going to vote our way.
And so I've talked a lot about, you know, there's bottom up revival, right?
Where, you know, just preachers going down the coastline, people coming to Christ, and that's great.
And I'm working for that.
It's not like it's not either or.
I'm a local pastor.
Again, categories you have on one side, I'm doing this over here.
I'm catechizing my children as a husband, as a father, as a local pastor.
All those things.
I want to see people saved, and I think that makes a difference.
But if I had to, again, not prescribe, but describe what I think God will do, here's the best people ask the wrong question.
They ask, What can God do?
I think a better question is, Historically, what has God done?
What does God typically do?
What's his MO?
And in biblical history, looking at Israel and in church history, looking at the last 2,000 years and virtually every culture on the planet, it's not bottom up revival.
99% of the time, it's top down revival, meaning it's some kind of coup, it's some kind of conquering, it's some kind of depossessing, whatever.
You got bad king, bad king, bad king.
Then you get a good king, and the good king, he's not voted in.
And the good king comes in and he says, You know what?
Let's put our finger in the air and see where the hearts of the people are, and we'll give them what they want.
No, he says, You like Asherah, and you like Baal, and you like the temples and the high places, but I'm sorry.
It all ends now.
I'm ripping them down, and you will outwardly, only God can change your heart, but outwardly, you're going to pretend to be faithful to Yahweh, whether you like it or not.
And lo and behold, what happens?
Over time, the law of God, when legislated properly through a polis politically in the civil realm, the law of God doesn't save them, but what it does is it sets the proper conducive context for understanding righteousness and sin.
It reveals to the people that they actually are degenerates and they're no longer allowed to call vice virtue.
And then the gospel of free grace and these things, it now is falling on no longer deaf ears, but those who are hungry for the forgiveness that's found in Jesus.
They acknowledge their sin, and eventually the law works as a tutor.
And it begins to shape the conscience and it begins to disciple the hearts, and then the gospel comes and changes hearts.
That has happened in church history, that's happened in biblical history.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm a young earth guy for 6,000 years, 99.9% of the time.
That's the way revival works.
It's not grassroots, bottom up, it is top down.
And in terms of top down, we're not going to vote ourselves into that kind of situation.
It's probably going to be some kind of hostile takeover that initially is going to be really ugly.
And I'm not necessarily rooting for it, and I'm certainly not going to somehow orchestrate it or make it happen.
But that's probably what's going to happen.
That's what I heard from you, basically.
I'm giving my Christian language to it.
And so when I heard that, I thought, yeah, Charles Haywood, if you can't listen to this guy without clutching your pearls, you're faking gay.
He has something to say you should listen.
I'm going to put that on my Twitter profile.
If you can't listen to this guy without clutching your pearls, you're faking gay.
You're faking gay.
But thank you.
I appreciate that.
I think the point about the people and tearing down the temples and saying you're now going to worship in the proper way is very important.
Because, as they say, orthopraxy leads to orthodoxy.
That is right practice or right thinking.
And so the role of the government, the civil magistrate, whatever, is to provide the proper channels for people to come to God and to forbid them from behaving in ways publicly and overtly that are not on the path to God.
Obviously, they're not, I mean, they're responsible for bringing people to God in the sense of doing those things, but everyone's responsible for his own salvation ultimately.
But the government can do any number of things that make those things, that path, easier and smoother.
It's obviously hardest for the first generation, which is returning from degeneracy.
And many of them don't overcome that.
But you wait 50 years for their grandchildren, and pretty soon, in the right scenario, and this is, as you say, happened throughout history and happened throughout scripture, the later generations are living right.
Not 100%, obviously.
He's always backsliding.
And even, obviously, as we already touched on, even the greatest saints, King David, behaved in atrocious, sinful ways part of the time as well.
Know about King David because he got recorded.
There were any number of other people in biblical times who sinned gravely and just didn't get the honor of a place in scripture.
Right.
Well, David was humble enough.
Part of the reason we know about David is because not just because he sinned, but because he repented.
The only reason he's recorded is because he repented to the point of allowing it to be recorded.
He was the king.
He could have had it scratched out of, you know, to the victor goes the spoils, including the history books, including the Bible.
Of course, ultimately, the Holy Spirit inspires the text and preserves and all those things.
But David, in the human sense and the human agency, was used by God and his sovereignty to say, Yeah, you know, my biggest blunders, I'm going to allow it to be written down because I really believe it.
It's very salutary for you and me, right?
I mean, now, you know, I haven't fortunately behaved quite as bad as David in some areas, though maybe worse in other areas, but the example is salutary.
Right.
Yep.
So, all that being said, any final thoughts about, I mean, wielding power?
Well, you know, what do you do right now with universal suffrage?
There's, what is it?
I think it's 51, 52%.
The population is female and 48, 49 is male.
And marriage is on an all time low and procreate, you know, the reproduction, you know, is all time low.
Like, what do you do?
You don't do anything, right?
We're sitting around waiting.
I mean, there's nothing we can do except within our own families and church communities and larger communities.
We do all the obvious things.
We pray, we preach, we're good husbands, good fathers.
What else are you going to do?
I mean, you know, yeah, you should buy guns and, you know, buy some canned food and what have you.
But at the end of the day, we're just.
Corks tossed upon the ocean, right?
And I think I mentioned to you before recording that I'm reading maybe there's part of this, I can't remember now, this Days of Rage book about the violence of the left.
You know, the left has always been big on this propaganda of the deed that if we do these violent things, it'll bring the revolution.
You know, that's obviously stupid.
Like people on the right wing just don't think that way.
There's no way to bring about the future.
The future is going to arrive when the future feels like it.
We can't do anything about it.
We just need to be prepared for and set up the structures.
For the future.
And the future will no doubt be tumultuous.
Hopefully, it won't be catastrophic.
And that's where it's going to be.
So, you know, that's what we're going to do.
I mean, there's really not much more we can do at this point.
Amen.
Yeah, I think, you know, change starts at home.
So, first and foremost, be faithful where the Lord has placed you as a husband, as a father, be a member in the church.
It's the praxe, what you say, you know, it's our methodology and our praxis is what shapes our theology, like you and our ideology and our convictions and political views.
Like, you want to become.
You want your political views to change, get married, eat healthy, and work out.
That right there.
And you will, all of a sudden, you'll find yourself saying, Hey, I don't think that, I think we should build a wall.
Hey, where did that thought come from?
Well, in fairness, Camilla Harris wants to build a wall in that too.
So I don't think she's doing any of those things.
Yeah, you're right.
But the point is, start at home, disciplines in your daily life, be a good husband, be a good father.
I would strongly urge people to be a good church member.
Preparing Hearts For Change00:04:40
And then sharing the gospel, preaching and these things.
But then beyond that, also, I'm convinced that we had the numbers back to the bottom up versus top down revival.
I think we had the numbers in the past where a bottom up would have worked with a moral majority.
And the typical kind of Calvinist, in my opinion, You know, on my side of the aisle, doctrinally, the reform guys would say, you know, because we're theological purists, we would say, well, we never had the numbers.
You know, people profess Christ, but none of them were actually saved.
You're very few.
You know, they were false converts, you know, through this and through that.
And I would say, I understand that.
I do think that there's such a thing as false assurance.
But I think we actually did have the numbers.
I can't prove in a regenerate, eternal sense that that was true.
But I'm inclined to think that we did.
I'm inclined to think that there was at least a period of time in America's history, and not that far back, where Probably over half the population really was, by the grace of God, not by their own doing, but by the grace of God, genuine Christians.
And it still wasn't enough.
And I think the reason.
Go ahead.
I think, kind of bringing it full circle, I mean, that's where we came in on this question.
It was enough if those people had been willing to take the necessary actions.
Exactly.
Instead of allowing themselves to be deceived and led by this corrupt upper crust ruling class, many of whom profess to be believing Christians.
But did all the things and restrained the mass of Christians from taking the actions when things started going downhill in the 60s from saying, This ends here.
These people are now cast into the outer darkness.
Instead, they neutered that mass of Christians.
When you get neutered, obviously people fall away, and now you don't even have, if we did have, that mass of people.
Right.
Yeah, they attacked their own and welcomed in the enemy with this misguided, perverse sense of compassion.
100% agree.
And so that's what I mean.
It wasn't enough, and agreeing with you, it could have been that many Christians could have been enough.
But at the end of the day, in the final analysis, it was not.
And it was not because conversion, and this is my point conversion is not enough.
So, going back to practical takeaways, and what do we do?
Like, start at home, love your wives, love your kids, be a part of a church, and yes, share the good news, share the gospel.
But I think it's nothing less than that.
It's never less than that.
Nobody's arguing, let's replace preaching the gospel.
No, It's not less.
By the grace of God, I'd like to think that we could walk and chew gum at the same time as Christians, and that maybe it could be a little bit more than that.
And one of the things that I would advocate for the more category is that we have to teach Christians how to apply the Christian faith within the civil and political realm.
You have to teach them how to think in categories so that if we ever did have the numbers by the grace of God, and then the future that we're waiting on in His sovereignty, it does come to pass, and some of these events actually take place, and someone crosses some sea.
American Caesar crosses the Rubicon and seizes power, you know, and says, that's it.
The human sacrifice will stop, full abortion ban across, you know, and those things, you know, actually happen.
Our job, I think, is I can't, you can't at a personal level make those things happen.
What we can do is maybe we could prepare hearts and minds through training and discourse and all these different things to where if God would be so kind to make those things happen in his timing and through his power, that when they do happen, Christians wouldn't be raising their fist against God.
That's what we have consistently had in recent history anytime God does do something good, like objectively good, crushing his enemies and rewarding his sons and daughters, the very people decrying it are Christians, like operating like Satan, using the word of God, like Satan did with Jesus in the temptation in the wilderness, using the word of God against God himself.
And so that's my goal aside from the stuff at home and as a local pastor.
The reason I'm doing these is I'm trying to prepare Christians so that if we ever did, if God would be so, we don't deserve it.
We forfeited it long ago, but if God would be so merciful as to give us power once again, that we would actually wield it instead of just some lousy analogy of, well, the ring shouldn't be wielded by anybody and it should be cast into mortar.
The ring, that analogy doesn't work.
The ring is the sword, it is the state God instituted.
The ring was not made by Sauron, by Satan.
It was made by God.
It's not going away.
There is no mortar to destroy it.
So, it's just who's going to wield it.
And it's either going to be the orcs or it's going to be men.
Yep.
That's it.
100% agree.
Who Will Wield The Ring00:00:44
All right.
Cool.
How can people follow you?
I write at theworthyhouse.com where I just write.
There is no subscriptions except to get notifications.
I also appear on X. I've been on X too much lately.
I've been making too many predictions.
They are going to probably come back to haunt me if my predictions are wrong.
So, I will disappear from X. If my predictions are wrong, in humiliation.
You're right most of the time, but you have had a couple wrong ones recently.
I won't point them out.
We can talk about that later, but I thought Biden was going to stick around.