Nate Wright argues Andrew Tate's rise stems from a church vacuum where "rank feminists" and complementarian women have feminized Christianity, eroding biblical masculinity. While denouncing Tate's sins, the host contends young men choose him because pastors promote a "pietist play" equating gentleness with manhood, suppressing ambition and strength. Wright asserts Christian men must reclaim godly ambition, pursuing wealth and power in corrupt fields like finance to outperform the wicked, rejecting modern complementarianism for a Calvinist vision of male authority and societal chivalry. Ultimately, without a robust Judeo-Christian alternative, Western society risks reverting to pagan or Islamic patriarchy. [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
Why We Need Positive Reviews00:07:37
Leave us a five star review on your favorite podcast platform.
I get it.
It's annoying.
Everybody asks, but I'm going to tell you why.
When you give us a positive review, what that does is it triggers the algorithm so that our podcast shows up on more people's news feeds.
You and I both know that this ministry is willing to talk about things that most ministries aren't.
We need this content for the glory of God to reach more people's ears.
Andrew Tate is everywhere, apparently, even in Christian middle schools.
To some, he's a symbol of strength and success, a man who's got it all money, power, and influence.
To others, he's a dangerous voice tapping into the frustrations of young men in a society that's lost its grip on masculinity.
But here's the question Is he right?
Should we agree with Tate's version of manhood?
Or is there perhaps something deeper, something biblical, that's missing from the conversation?
This episode is brought to you by our premier sponsors, Armored Republic and Reese Fund, as well as our Patreon members and our faithful donors.
You can join our Patreon at patreon.com forward slash right response ministries, or you can donate at right response ministries.com forward slash donate.
Today, we're pulling back the curtain on what this phenomenon reveals about masculinity in America.
And especially masculinity here in the American church.
Tune in now.
All right, I'm going to shoot you straight right here from the outset.
This is a conversation that the evangelical school moms will not appreciate.
If you are hate watching, God bless you.
Welcome.
We appreciate you triggering the algorithm on our behalf.
You're doing the Lord's work.
We couldn't do this without you.
This ministry would barely even be known if it was not for the rank feminist within the church, also known as complementarian women, typically above the age of 55.
So, Lord bless you.
I personally thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Two years ago, nobody knew who I was.
You made that happen and you deserve the credit.
And I want to recognize you here from the outset of this episode.
That said, you will most undoubtedly hate this episode.
We are going to say things that are biblically true and faithful to God first and foremost.
Some of those things you will agree with, many of those things you will not agree with because what we're going to explore from the scripture in regards to masculinity will not be the full takedown.
Of figures like Andrew Tate that you want, because I believe that many people within the evangelical church are out of step with what the Bible actually teaches about masculinity.
Are there problems with Andrew Tate?
No, duh.
Is the sky blue?
Is the grass green?
Of course.
The dude is a Muslim.
He's a Muslim, which, to be frank, if he had made a better choice a few years ago and truly repented of some of his failures and not just clarified and not just explained, right?
And for the record, who else does that?
Evangelical pastors, right?
Never issuing an apology.
Just a, actually, I apologize for you misunderstanding me.
Let me clarify.
I'm not going to apologize.
I'm going to clarify because the problem is on your ability to interpret what I said and not the fact that I'm actually saying something now that directly contradicts what I said before.
So Tate did not apologize.
From what we see, there doesn't seem to be genuine repentance or any of those things.
However, we tolerate a lot of American pastors who seem to do the very same thing.
Now, there are problems.
Like I already stated, he's a Muslim.
If he had chosen, A few years ago, to repent of his sin, to publicly acknowledge it, which he did, but with real godly sorrow and not merely worldly sorrow, and to embrace Christ and Christianity and not Islam.
Well, I think that Andrew Tate could have been mightily used by the Lord to take over the world towards Christendom and to inspire many young men in a positive way.
I think there has been some positive inspiration.
I think there's been a lot of negative inspiration, but it could have been incredibly positive had he joined the Christian faith.
But I want to say this.
Part of the reason that he didn't, and we need to be honest about this as Christians, part of the reason he didn't is because the options laid bare before him during that moment of his life when he began to consider religion and embracing a religion, the options laid before him, at least here in the West and particularly here in America, as it pertains to the Christian religion option, were incredibly fake, gay, effeminate, weak.
It wasn't a robust, historic, biblical, masculine Christianity.
And so Islam seemed a whole lot more masculine when Andrew Tate was making this choice than Christianity did.
And you might say, well, wait a second, I thought that you were reformed.
I thought that you believed in the sovereignty of God.
Yes, when it comes to the ultimate reason for anyone's conversion, the ultimate reason is always the sovereign, perfect, unconditional election of God.
But God works through means, right?
So if we say so and so came to saving faith and they did so because God elected them before the foundations of the world were laid.
Then yes and amen.
If we also say so and so came to saving faith in Christ, and they did so because so and so, another person, shared with them the gospel doing the work of an evangelist, and they heard that news with faith and put their trust in Jesus.
Both answers are true.
Those answers, they can both be true not because of embracing relativism, they can both be true because they're not in contradiction.
There are two explanations one is the human agency, the secondary causes, and then one is primary and ultimate and eternal God's agency.
God's agency is first, it's initial, it's ultimate, but the human agency is true as well.
Why does God save certain people?
Why does God do certain things?
One, because he's sovereign and he ordains all which comes to pass.
Two, because he works through means in the created cosmos which he established, and he works primarily through human agency.
So he works sovereignly of his own account, but also through the prayers of the saints, the evangelism of the saints.
And so too, I believe that number one, Andrew Tate, As it currently rests, is not, as far as we know, a born again believer because God sovereignly has chosen thus far not to save him.
That's the ultimate answer.
It is not the exclusive answer.
It is also true to say he is currently not a Christian, in part in the realm of secondary causes and human agency, because the church here in America and the West at large has presented to men like Andrew Tate a Christianity that is feminized and it is repulsive to any man with any.
Any degree who can even show up on a reading of any testosterone whatsoever.
Any guy who has testosterone in his veins is repulsed at some level with Christianity.
And many of those guys, because God is merciful and gracious, do still come to saving faith, but they come despite the feminism in the church, not because of it.
Defining True Biblical Masculinity00:11:46
And to illustrate this point, I want to start by showing you not Andrew Tate and the things that he said.
We'll get into some of those things a little bit later in the episode.
But first, I want to criticize the Church, which I'm a part of, that judgment begins with the house of God.
I want to start with my people, with my community first.
As an evangelical Christian pastor, I want to begin not with what Tate has said, but with the way that the church has responded and reacted.
And if you're wondering in terms of the timing, just to give a little bit of context and some of the narrative here, a little bit of the chronological sequence of events, Tate pops up in the public discourse like a yo yo, just keeps coming back up again and again and again and again.
But This specific time, the most recent time over these past few days, the reason, as far as I can tell, is because Benny Johnson, who is a part of Big Con or, you know, Big Conservative Inc. I like to call it Big Con, he had, he announced that he's going to be having Andrew Tate on his show.
He's going to be interviewing him.
And so everybody on the right got up in arms your Ben Shapiro's, you know, these kinds of guys.
How could you?
Oh, no.
How could you?
How could you?
I can't believe it.
And that filtered down to the church world.
You can count on the church to always be, you know, behind the Culture, not leading anything, at least not for the last 50 to 130 years.
The church used to set the culture as it followed and encouraged the Spirit of God, but because we've relinquished that courage, we are now behind the culture, following the culture.
So the church got into this discourse over the last few days, not leading the discourse, but simply following it.
Benny Johnson said, I'm going to have, you know, Andrew Tate come on the show.
Big con, big conservative inc, outside of the church world that's not necessarily distinctly Christian.
They started to throw a fit, and then Christian pastors said, Oh, what is What is the conservative culture outside of the church doing?
I should do the same.
And then we followed suit, and then it trickled down to all the school marms within the evangelical church.
Now we're having this conversation.
So let me show to you.
I'm going to give three different examples of responses.
These are all from Christians, and at least one of them is a Christian pastor.
Here's the first tweet.
We'll pull it up on the screen.
I'll read it for your listening enjoyment.
He says this This is a Christian leader.
Want to be a real man?
Here is what to watch for and the true key to manhood.
He then begins to quote scripture.
Here's the scripture.
And worse, deceiving and being deceived.
But you must continue in the things which you have learned, which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Then back to his commentary, the tweet All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable.
Actually, this is more Scripture, I apologize.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is Profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Then another Christian responded.
This is a Christian leader who said this.
And he responded the guy, you know, the initial post is quoting 2 Timothy chapter 3, verses 13 through 17.
So this is the Apostle Paul underneath the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, writing to one of his dear sons in the faith, a young pastor by the name of Timothy.
And giving him counsel.
It's good counsel.
It's biblical counsel.
It's inscripturated.
We agree with it 100%.
But in the comment section underneath this tweet, another Christian responded by saying, What should my sons take away from this that's any different than what my daughters should take away?
Or is the true key to womanhood exactly the same as the true key to manhood?
A fantastic question.
A fantastic question.
Essentially, this is the play.
That I have witnessed again and again and again for years now within the evangelical church here in America and in the West in a general sense.
The play is this every single time the topic of biblical manhood comes up, the counsel and advice that's immediately given by Christians and even Christian leaders and Christian pastors is something that you could apply to your sons just as easily and just as much relevant of an application to your daughters.
There's nothing distinctly masculine about it.
And that leads us really to the next couple of tweets.
So let's go ahead and pull up the second tweet now.
We have this.
It's from one of my friends, Eric Kahn, who is a pastor.
He's a Christian, and he speaks about manhood.
And he's one of the few Christian pastors who speaks about manhood in a way that is both biblical and actually masculine.
He talks about manhood in a manly way.
He says the following A pietist play to watch out for.
Here it is.
Real masculinity is.
Parentheses list spiritual qualities that a woman or child could do.
Close quotation marks.
Close parentheses.
Then the next thing he says it's not about list genuine masculine competencies, virtues, and skills that throughout history have been markers of authentic masculinity.
Close parentheses.
Close quotations.
Essentially, what Eric is saying is this the pietist play within the evangelical Western church that you need to watch out for is this.
Guys will essentially say, real masculinity is X, Y, Z.
And X, Y, Z, be assured, will represent some kind of spiritual characteristic that is good, that is biblical, but it is not distinctly or uniquely for men.
It's something for all Christians, whether you're a man, whether you're a woman, whether you're a child, whether you're a grandma or a grandpa or an aunt or an uncle or anybody.
So people say, true biblical manhood, and then they'll quote Galatians chapter 5 is the fruit of the spirit, love, joy, peace.
Well, the fruit of the Spirit is not distinctly or exclusively masculine.
The fruit of the Spirit is for all believers because it's the Spirit.
And the Spirit does present Himself as a third member of the Trinity in masculine ways and using masculine pronouns.
We have God the Father, God the Son, and He, not it, and certainly not she, but He, the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is a person.
He presents Himself as a masculine person using the masculine pronouns.
But the fruit of the Spirit is not exclusive for men.
The fruit of the Spirit is For every single believer, whether they be a man, woman, or child, that is filled with the Holy Spirit.
If you are a believer, your body is now a temple of the Holy Spirit.
The Spirit of God, third member of the Trinity, dwells within you, the indwelling ministry of the Spirit, and the fruit, that is, the visible characteristics and manifestations of the Spirit, now are going to be manifest in your life, whether you're a male Christian or a female Christian.
Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self control are both for women and for men.
But that's the play.
That's what you'll hear.
You'll hear from evangelical pastors.
They'll say, well, true biblical masculinity is blank.
And the blank that they'll offer is something that is biblical.
It is from scripture, but it's some particular scripture or biblical principle that applies.
It's not gender specific.
It applies to both men and women equally, alike.
And then what they'll say, if that was not enough, they'll then say in the reverse, in the counter, they'll say, so true biblical masculinity is this general biblical principle that's for men and women alike.
And what's not True biblical masculinity, then they'll get specific with things that are actually masculine traits.
They'll say ambition, discipline, aggression, strength, right?
These kinds of things.
That's not what biblical masculinity is about.
I mean, how many books have you read that say biblical masculinity, it's not about being able to change the oil on your car.
It's not about being fit and strong when you go into the gym.
It's not about taking the next hill and having ambition and having a drive.
It's not about any of those things.
What is it actually about?
It's about gentleness, you know, because Jesus was gentle.
You bet you.
He was gentle 100% of the time, and he exercised the fruit of the Spirit, that is gentleness, full of the Holy Spirit, says John chapter 2.
Full of the Holy Spirit and exercising spiritual gentleness perfectly as he fashions a whip out of cords, begins to throw over tables of the money changers in the temple, begins to whip people, and screams and yells in their faces and drives them out of the temple because.
Zeal, not just Mr. Rogers, you know, level headedness and even keel, but zeal, zealous masculine zeal for his father's house consumed him.
That is gentleness as gentleness is exercised through a Christian man.
Men are different than women.
1 Peter, 1 Peter chapter 3, in describing women, it says, What's the chief characteristic of women and godly women, even, or especially, I might say, a godly woman?
She is chiefly.
Depicted as one who contains beauty, not strength.
The Proverbs say again and again, what is the power of a young man?
What's the defining characteristic of young men?
Young men are strong, strength.
Men, strength.
Women, beauty.
It's not the same descriptive noun that's describing it, it's a different one.
It's distinct.
For women, it's beauty.
For men, it's strength.
And then, even furthermore, in 1 Peter chapter 3, well, what kind of beauty?
Well, not merely outward beauty, beauty of the hair or makeup or these kinds of things.
But first and foremost, in the sight of God, the feminine beauty that makes a woman of God, a godly woman, beautiful in the sight of God is not an outward beauty, but beauty of the heart, an inward beauty.
And what is inward beauty of the heart for women?
A feminine inward beauty.
Well, it's a quiet and gentle spirit.
The Bible does not say that the strength of a man, what makes a man a godly masculine man, is having inwardly a quiet and gentle spirit.
No, that is actually.
One of the places in scripture that's speaking that it's not genderless, something that applies to both men and women equally, but that one is gender specific.
It's distinct.
It's actually referring to women.
What makes a woman godly?
Beauty.
What kind of beauty?
Inward.
What's inward beauty?
What does that look like?
Quietness and gentleness.
Quietness and gentleness.
The same person who, you know, the same Holy Spirit, divine person who inspires this text in 1 Peter chapter 3.
Also inspires the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 when he says, It is shameful, it is shameful for a woman to speak in church, but she must remain silent.
Silent.
In keeping in step with what?
With beauty, not mere subjugation.
There is a spirit of submission, but it's also beauty.
Now let's go ahead and pull up the last tweet here.
The last tweet, because this is the play.
Inward Beauty and Quietness00:07:09
Eric Kahn is absolutely right.
It's the pietist play.
And if you're not familiar with that word, if you're tuning in maybe for the first time, piety.
P I E T Y. Piety and Christian tradition is a positive thing.
What is piety?
Well, it's personal holiness.
It's somebody who's practicing personal spiritual disciplines in their life, like scripture reading and study and prayer and fasting and generosity, almsgiving to the poor and those who are in need.
That's piety.
It just means holiness.
So, piety is a good and positive thing that all Christians should pursue.
Pietism, like most words, when you add the ism at the end, the ism becomes something negative.
Piety driven towards personal holiness.
Yes and amen.
That's wonderful.
Pietism is pie in the sky.
It's head in the clouds.
It's the old expression, the old adage, if you've ever heard of it, being so heavenly minded that you're no longer any earthly good.
It's the tendency, the incessant, insufferable tendency to over spiritualize everything, right?
Well, the answer to everything is just preach the gospel, right?
If you have an intruder in your home, Well, I mean, just preach the gospel even harder.
Well, you can preach the gospel when you're standing over that intruder after shooting them twice in the chest.
Then preach the gospel.
If he's still alive, maybe he comes to saving faith, and that's great, and he can go and be in heaven.
But the first thing you do is you protect your wife and kids with your God given duties as a man by not sitting there and trying to persuade him for 30 minutes with a gospel presentation, but by simply putting two in his chest.
That is a good, masculine, Christian.
Response.
And that's not in conflict with preaching the gospel.
That's not in conflict with biblical masculinity whatsoever.
It's good and right.
Pietism over spiritualizes everything.
It's, in some ways, distinct, but it's similar and linked to Gnosticism.
Gnosticism, again, is an over spiritualization where the physical doesn't matter at all.
You're 300 pounds and you preach on the Lord's day.
Well, as long as your exegesis is correct, as long as it's a good sermon, your physical life is of no account.
It doesn't really matter at all.
The physical doesn't matter at all.
Biblically speaking, that's just wrong.
Every single day of creation, when God makes something at the end of it, he says, It is good.
It is good.
It is good.
God has compassion on all he has made within the physical cosmos.
God loves the physical world, even our own bodies.
We're called to exercise stewardship over our physical bodies.
Paul, when he's writing again to another young man in the faith, he says this He says that spiritual training, that's ultimate, that has the most value.
But then he says, Physical training is still of some value.
So he's able to triage, prioritize, and say, Yeah.
The spiritual and eternal matters more, but the spiritual mattering more does not mean the physical doesn't matter at all.
We don't get that these days.
We've over spiritualized everything.
Maybe it's just because of the soy levels in our food.
We're trying to make excuses for the fact that we're all out of shape.
But that's what Christians in the West have done we over spiritualize everything to where it's perfectly fine that the physical world around us, politics, Culture, being in shape, health, all these things.
It's just, we're ultimately just justifying the physical world, going to hell in a handbasket because we console ourselves by saying that the spiritual is all that matters.
Okay, I'm ready for the third tweet now.
Let's bring it up.
Here it is.
This last one is from a Christian pastor.
The previous one was Eric Kahn.
He's a Christian pastor, he's a friend.
I agree with him.
This is a Christian pastor that I had never heard of before yesterday.
And this is a Christian pastor who I'm sure is great in many regards, but in this particular regard, I do not agree with him.
I could not possibly disagree any more than I do.
I radically and vehemently disagree.
So he says Esau was a paragon of modern masculinity.
He was hairy, the Bible says, probably had a great beard, a hunter, very manly, not a mama's boy.
He's thinking of Jacob, but Jacob was not a mama's boy.
I don't have time to get into that, but not a mama's boy.
He was a man's man if there ever was one.
And then he quotes scripture.
This is Hebrews.
See to it that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau.
Close quotations.
And then his final statement maybe those things aren't biblical manliness after all.
Yeah.
And then, of course, he was thinking, yeah, he thought he was cooking.
Allie Bestucky, of course, loved it.
She came out, you know, radical feminist.
She loved it.
She was a good point.
No, that's not a good point.
See to it that no one is immoral or ungodly like Esau.
The two key words there are immoral and ungodly.
Notice what's not said.
And the author to the Hebrews, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he does not say, see to it that no one is masculine like Esau, or no one is hairy like Esau, or nobody has a beard like Esau, or nobody hunts game like Esau.
No, the thing to avoid, says the author to the Hebrews in God's holy writ, is don't be immoral like Esau.
Don't be ungodly like Esau.
And then that text goes on.
What was it that was immoral about Esau?
Well, you know, he was a hunter, and God hates hunting.
No, what was immoral about Esau is that he despised his birthright, that he counted his own heritage as though it was nothing, that he had the birthright and he was the heir to his father in a covenantal sense, that he was going to be the heir to his father and receive the blessing from his patriarch, from the fathers, and he despised it.
He didn't care about family, he didn't care about heritage, he didn't care about blessing, he didn't care about future, he didn't care about Calling or responsibility or any of these things, but at the end of the day, he cared more about a bowl of soup.
He was a man who was not in control, he had not mastered his own passions.
He was hungry, and in a moment of temptation and physical weakness, hunger, he was not able to master his own physical appetite in a moment in order to prioritize his indefinite future.
That moment of satiating his physical hunger was more substantial, more important to him, and prioritized over a lifetime.
Of blessing and royalty and kingly nobility, of receiving the blessing and the birthright which he despised.
That's what made him immoral.
And I can make argument after argument that those things are actually not, are those things too masculine and it's being too masculine that equates to immorality and ungodliness, but those things are actually effeminate.
Correcting Effeminate Advice00:03:48
It is the sheer absence of masculinity.
It is him not being a man because a man is able to discipline his body.
Paul the Apostle elsewhere in scripture says, I beat my flesh and make it my slave.
That Paul, in a masculine way, he's able to master his own fleshly passions, which Esau did not.
So it's the effeminacy and the absence of biblical masculinity in Esau that actually causes him to be known now as the immoral and ungodly man.
So this is a terrible, terrible take.
So, all that being said, I'm going to give it to both Michael Belch and Wesley Todd.
I've talked enough.
But my main point is this.
When we talk about gender in the church, when we talk about men and women, Eric Kahn hit the nail on the head.
What we incessantly do without fail, without fail, is we say, You want to be a real man?
And then we cite a scripture that applies just as much to women as it does men.
And then we say, And what you don't need to do, and then we begin describing unique masculine traits.
What you don't need to do is work out and be strong.
What you don't need to do is have zeal and ambition.
What you don't, but then when we give advice to women, When we give advice to women, we don't tell women, hey, you know what?
You want to be godly and beautiful in the sight of the Lord?
This is what you should do talk less, be quiet, be gentle.
And don't ever speak in church.
Why?
Because it's shameful for a woman to speak in church.
That's not me interpreting scripture, that's me quoting scripture.
We don't give that advice to women.
Instead, the advice we give to women.
Is the in the practical realm is the exact exact practical advice that just 30, 40, and especially 50 years ago would have been the common sense advice given by every father to his son, right?
What are women encouraged to do now in the church in little women, seven year old little girls in Sunday school in church?
The advice that they're given is you know what, you should really take charge more, be more ambitious, be more outgoing.
Exercise more confidence.
Be more confident.
Stand up for yourself.
We're literally telling women, little women, young girls in the church.
I'm not talking about Vogue magazine.
I'm talking about Sunday school in evangelical Christian churches here in these United States of America.
The advice being given is the exact advice back in the 50s and 60s and even a little bit in the 70s that a father would have given to his son.
And meanwhile, the advice that we give to boys is you know what?
And especially to their parents, he seems a little distracted.
Maybe if we chemically castrate him with some drugs.
You know, or we just need to teach him a little bit more about gentleness and quietness.
We literally take the verse of the Bible given to describe feminine beauty, inward feminine beauty that is beautiful in the sight of God in 1 Peter 3, that's distinctly prescribed to women, and we prescribe that to men.
And we start young when they're boys.
We say, you know what, what does a boy need to learn?
He needs to learn to be gentle and he needs to learn to be quiet.
And he needs to learn to be still.
We need to encourage young boys to be beautiful women, according to God's word given to women in 1 Peter 3.
That is the current state of the discourse.
And that is, in a nutshell, pretty much all the reactions that we've seen on X and elsewhere on social media, Instagram.
Returning to Christian Patriarchy00:07:47
I don't even go on Instagram.
We don't hardly do any.
We used to post on Instagram.
We stopped about a year ago because this is what I realized Instagram is a social media platform for women.
And so, naturally, I am not very appreciated in a place like that.
And so, we primarily try to stick to other social media platforms.
But I have no doubt on Instagram, certainly I saw it on X for the last few days.
Benny Johnson said, I'm going to have Andrew Tate.
He's a part of Big Conservative Inc., Big Con.
So, all the Big Con guys, Ben Shapiro, they come out, how could you?
This is detestable.
This is, you know, blah, blah, blah.
And then, of course, that trickled down to the evangelical conservative.
Conservative is in quotation marks here if you're just listening.
The conservative evangelical pastors, they then followed suit with Ben Shapiro and said, Yeah, we don't like it either.
This is terrible.
It's not biblical.
And we got all the hot takes that, you know, in the name of biblical fidelity that are not biblical at all, that essentially all boil down to the same thing.
When it comes to being masculine, you should do the things that the Bible says that apply equally to men and women.
And what you should avoid is the things that are actually distinctly manly.
That's where we're at.
My point is this if you don't like Andrew Tate, Evangelical church, you created him.
Andrew Tate is Frankenstein.
Well, no, he's the monster.
And the evangelical church, you are Frankenstein, Dr. Frankenstein.
He is your creation.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
And in a vacuum, a complete absence of masculinity in a gynocracy in a world run by women, where we just watched Pete Hedgeworth being, you know, in the American.
Longhouse with all the school moms, you know, your Elizabeth Warren, and all these people, you know, the cackling hens, you know, for hours just sitting there, you know, his eyes, you know, he had to close them because they were probably rolling so far back in his head, you know, that it was going to endanger, jeopardize his chances of, you know, being approved.
We just watched that.
Every man, every man with even an ounce of masculinity and testosterone coursing through his veins, he watches that.
They watch Pete and they've been there, been there, been there.
I know that feeling.
It's on that backdrop, in that Context of absolute rank feminism in every single realm of American culture, including the Christian church, that's where you get Nature abhors a vacuum.
That's where you get Andrew Tate.
Is Andrew Tate biblical?
No.
Is he a great example of biblical masculinity?
No.
But there is masculinity there.
There is masculinity.
And here's the deal the rubber band has been stretched too far for too long.
And what we are currently witnessing at every level is it snapping back at rapid speed.
Globalism snapping back to nationalism, feminism snapping back to patriarchy.
There will be a return to masculinity.
There will.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
We have been feministic.
For too long, and feminism doesn't work.
Stupid doesn't work.
And so eventually, nature is healing, it's restored.
And so, here's the reality it's not whether, but simply which.
We will have a return to nationalism.
It'll either be Islamic nationalism, Judeo nationalism, pagan nationalism, or Christian nationalism.
We will have a return to patriarchy.
It'll either be Andrew Tate patriarchy, or it will be Christian, biblical patriarchy.
And if you want to make sure that Andrew Tate wins, then keep giving the advice.
Christian pastors in America that you've been giving.
You are ensuring because masculinity is inevitable.
It's coming back.
It is coming back.
Patriarchy is coming back.
And you can either try to stand in the gap and create a third way of complementarianism to stem the tide and get just completely run over.
And then there'd be no Christian alternative, no Christian version of patriarchy to choose.
And Tate standing there alone.
As the only example of masculinity, flawed, although as flawed as he is, but the only example of masculinity that there even is.
And so, naturally, the only option will be the one that's chosen.
So, it'll either be that, or some Christian men will go and fill in the gap and say, Tate, his instincts are actually right.
They're debased.
They're debased and corrupted by sin and the absence of Christ.
But the raw instincts in the natural realm are actually correct.
And here is the Christian version.
Everything you love about Tate, but elevated and restored by grace instead of debased by sin.
Here is Christian masculinity.
Here is biblical patriarchy.
It'll be that.
And if there's that, then there were many young men by the grace of God who will choose biblical patriarchy over Andrew Tate, pagan patriarchy, or Islamic patriarchy.
But if Christian men stay in the longhouse and their churches continue to be ruled ultimately by the boomer women, Within their ranks, the shadow elders, they're not in complementarian churches, they're not actually an elder, they don't actually have the title, they don't actually preach on the Lord's Day, but they do call the shots, they do run the show.
If churches in the West, churches in America, even the conservative churches, continue to be run by the shadow elders, and the male pastors in those places subject themselves to them and try to keep the donor base happy and refuse to be too masculine, and therefore present the Christian masculine alternative, then Andrew Tate.
Will be the only thing left on the menu.
And it will be chosen because it'll be the only option there is in town.
And masculinity is inevitable.
What's not inevitable is Christian masculinity.
It doesn't have to be Christian.
The world actually, as atrocious as it was, human sacrifices with the Aztecs and the Mayans, and you've got the Nordic Vikings and all these kind of things, the world actually functioned for thousands of years without Christian masculinity.
But it has never functioned for more than a century without masculinity at all.
The world only works.
Nature is God, God is nature, that whole premise.
The world only works when it functions according to the natural order that God designed.
God made the world.
God will not be mocked.
A man will reap what he sows.
God has installed patriarchy into the fabric of the world that he made.
Father rule.
That's all patriarchy means.
The world was created by the Father, the Heavenly Father, and he has chosen to structure the world in such a way that men will ultimately lead.
So the world will not be able.
To function long term with feminism, it will revert back to masculinity, to patriarchy.
But what the world can do, it won't be pretty.
But what the world has done before for thousands of years and can do again, if Christians don't get into the ring and fight for a biblical option, is the world will return to masculinity.
It just won't be Christian masculinity.
It'll be Viking masculinity.
It'll be raw pagan masculinity.
It'll be Darwinian masculinity.
It'll be Islamic masculinity.
But it will be masculinity.
And what I'm trying to advocate for is I would like to see it be Christian.
But Christian masculinity will not be the choice that's chosen if it's not even one of the options listed on the menu, because all the Christian men have somehow decided that masculinity is icky.
The World Reverts to Masculinity00:17:03
There you go.
Let's go to our first commercial break.
We'll come right back.
We're going to hear from Michael Belch.
Our sponsor, Private Family Banking, wants to help you with one money move that'll implicate itself in multi generational wealth building starting the first day.
They help you to avoid taxation.
And to draw compound interest to your money.
Now, if you're a high net worth individual, someone who has maybe even $10 million in net worth, then they can help you even more.
W 2 workers, contract workers, business owners, it's all about cash flow and making tax deferred gains on all your money for the rest of your life.
Don't avoid this.
It's a big move, but it's a great time to make it.
Click the link below and you can get on Chuck de Lauderante's calendar and he'll go over your background and what you want to accomplish.
And he's going to help model a program that exactly fits your needs.
So go ahead and send an email to Chuck at Private Family Banking.com.
Again, that's Chuck at Private Family Banking.com.
Or you can click the link below.
Make a free discovery call now.
America is a country that was founded for the purpose of allowing Christians to do their duty before God, 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.
Their 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.
Reef Fund, Christian Capital, boldly deployed.
All right, welcome back.
Well, what's fascinated me about this whole conversation is the response, right?
I had a little bit more evidence that I was going to show from Twitter and X. I'll go through this pretty quickly, but Nate, you can put some of these up.
What's interesting to me is there's kind of a spectrum.
It goes everywhere from Andrew Tate is a huge threat to Christians and Christian men, to Andrew Tate is onto something, to Andrew Tate is a product of the church's feminization.
So I'm not going to read all of this, but some of the interesting banners of Andrew Tate's message is a threat.
Hans Fien says, You're entitled.
To whatever you want, you're a victim if the world doesn't validate you.
So he's saying that the only thing that Andrew Tate offers is basically male victimology, right?
An outrage that I haven't been given what I want, my place in society.
And so, Andrew Tate gives me permission to take that victim outrage out on the world.
Dean Abbott says he's popular because he's a symbol of unchecked ego, greed, and lust.
He's popular because he gives men permission to indulge their basest impulses.
He is popular because he represents moral anarchy.
And so, basically, anything that a young man would find compelling about Andrew Tate is simply their basest impulse.
And that needs to be expunged, controlled, and diminished.
And then Dre Baldwin actually was commenting on this.
He says, Andrew Tate speaks of the basis desires of men and tells them how to channel it in positive ways that produce the types of outcome that men are interested in making money, outachieving other men, enjoying the company of women.
And this was a critique that wasn't said positively.
Owen Strahan, I don't want to group him quite with the same because he did actually give acknowledgement to the fact that there are some male impulses, legitimate male impulses, that Andrew Tate is tapping into.
So he says he does represent a picture of what men naturally want to be.
They don't want to be weak.
They don't want to be cowed by feminism and leftism, etc.
But then he goes on to say But while Tate gives men a pathway to power, discipline, and agency, he too sells a counterfeit.
Leftism tells men that they will be men if they become more like women.
Tateism tells men that they will be men if they effectively hate women.
Neither approach is remotely that of Christ.
Both are ultimately bankrupt, even as each system has an element of truth in it.
And then I didn't highlight this, but then he does the Jesus juke.
Jesus Christ is the true man, he is the figure men need.
Well, We've said before on this show, Jesus came to earth, yes, to give his life as a ransom for many, but that was in service of his mission to utterly destroy and take back what was rightfully God's that God had given to him.
Like Jesus' mission was a masculine mission.
And the subservience and the giving up of himself, the denying himself, going to the cross, that was in obedience to God.
That was not in a sort of sense where masculinity ought to be seen as pushing aside the virtues of conquest or.
Taking dominion of the earth, beating back evil in a violent and forceful way.
So, the Jesus juke there at the end, I just, you know, it was to be expected.
But the final laugh we looked at too from that same author, he said something very similar that Jesus Christ is the true image of masculinity.
And there is certainly a narrow sense in which that is true.
It's in there was a first Adam, and Christ is the second Adam, the true man.
But Christ is not David, he's a type of David.
David is not Abraham, Abraham is not Paul.
Those men all had different roles.
I mean, Paul was a traveling missionary that made tents.
He never cut 200 foreskins off of Philistines because that was not the station that God had put him in.
And so, what ministers will do, the Mott and Bailey kind of is like, be like Christ.
Yes and amen to Paul.
Follow me as I follow Christ.
And then, what to say is the definition of masculinity, we're going to narrowly constrict it to the 33 years that Jesus was on earth as an itinerant preacher, as a carpenter.
And we're going to say masculinity looks only like these characteristics.
Forget David, forget Solomon, forget Abraham, forget Moses, forget all these other biblical examples.
There were kings and warriors and scholars and craftsmen and all that.
Forgo all of those.
And then the part that they don't tell you is, and then just be nothing but, like you were saying in the beginning, meek, gentle, soft spoken, mild because, and they'll go to the position that nobody could deny Jesus is the perfect example.
Well, within good men, there's not a single universal great man, but many particular expressions of good men that we see through scripture.
And whereas all those virtues exemplified, not exhaustively, but exemplified in Christ.
One of the most common denominators of a godly man.
Throughout scripture, especially the Old Testament, is that he's killed someone.
That's right.
Joshua.
Yep.
Moses.
Even Abraham.
Oh, yeah.
Abraham.
Even Paul.
Abraham.
That's right.
Abraham arguably killed giants.
Just throwing that out there.
Don't have time to go in there.
Feel free to watch the dozens of videos that I've done on giants.
But I mean, these guys, yeah, they were men.
They were men.
Back to you, Michael.
All right.
So then there are, and for the record, this next section I don't disagree with, but there was the kind of the outcry on Twitter that.
The rise of Tateism.
Well, the Christian, the effeminate Christian church is to blame for this.
And so, William Wolfe had, I just had to give him a little credit here because he had some great posts.
He said this in quotes, he says, The Andrew Tate phenomenon has nothing to do with evangelical leaders.
And then, for those of you listening, he posts, What's that?
He's being sarcastic.
He's being sarcastic.
He posts a video of the Jen Wilkin interview.
And there's a, you know, Sean something, right?
Colin Hanson.
Yeah, Colin Hanson.
That's good.
Yep.
Colin Hanson next to Jen Wilkin.
And then this is a post from the Gospel Coalition.
And in highlighted, the Gospel Coalition, what they say about this picture of Colin Hansen and Jen Wilkin is the Gospel Coalition advocates for visible female leadership.
In the church.
In the church, yes, specifically within the church.
But as William Wolfe points out sarcastically, the Andrew Tate phenomenon has nothing to do with evangelical leaders, right?
Of course it does.
And he goes on to say, William Wolfe in a separate post, he said, Some people aren't ready for this, but here it is.
Andrew Tate's appeal is the result of 50 plus years of man hating feminism.
Don't read this as a second for a defense of Tate.
If you want to understand who's to blame for his audience, it's the feminists.
And we put both of these together and we say within the church, we ought to lay the blame at the feet of the Christian feminists.
Right.
And in my opinion, like for all the guys who are saying, well, Tate, you know, the appeal of Tate is simply that, you know, he's appealing to, you know, the most debased appetites, you know, the most based appetites of men, you know, like pornography or women or, you know, or what, or Bugatti's, you know, and just, you know, this and that and the other, you know.
You know, quick gain.
The Bible talks about, like, there's nothing wrong with wealth, but the Bible does talk about, you know, quick gain, you know, where you can just turn it around and it's not the most ethical means of gathering wealth and these kinds of things.
And that's what made them popular.
And I would just say, yeah, those things are always going to be popular in the same way that even, you know, there's always going to be a brothel somewhere within a 50 mile radius.
Now, to be fair, under Christian nationalism, there does not have to be any brothels.
You can just, you actually, you know, little known fact, but you can actually just ban porn in all 50 states and, um, And anybody who makes their living by those means just has to get out of the country.
And that will affect certain people disproportionately based off of what people group you're a part of.
That's another conversation.
But here's the point you actually can get rid of it.
But historically, even in Christendom and even in places in Europe, you know, in places that were distinctly Christian, there was still the bad side of town.
But there's a difference in the bad side of town, you know, the dark alleyway that you don't want your kids walking down, you know, where somebody has to.
And it's frowned upon.
It's actually, it's not esteemed as a virtue, but it's actually frowned upon as a vice, the vice that it actually is, where somebody has, you know, is going to the bad part of town, the shady part of town to do something bad, you know, to get drugs or to go to a brothel, you know, these kinds of things.
That's always going to exist.
And because men are sinners, men and women, but men are sinners, there's always going to be a market there.
There's always going to be a market for a guy who tells you, here's how to pick up chicks.
So that you can have sex with them.
Or here's how to make money in sleazy, quick gain kind of ways that you can spend it on cars.
Or here's it.
Yeah, there'll always be a market for that so long as there's sin.
In the same way that Jesus said, you always have the poor among you.
Why?
Because you always have sin.
Poor people are poor because of their own sin, lack of work ethic, or because of somebody else's sin oppressing them.
But it's always related one way or another to sin.
So you always have poor people because you always have sin.
Jesus said that.
Well, you'll also always have guys who appeal to the most base appetites of men because for the same reason, because of sin.
But my point is that explains.
Maybe 10% of his popularity, maybe 10% of the millions and millions of views.
It does not explain an international phenomenon.
Most Googled man in the world.
It was the most Googled subject in 2022, both Donald Trump and COVID.
He was.
Right.
That, to me, that is not simply explained by, oh, well, that's just what sin gives you.
People are just, everybody's a sinner.
Yes, of course.
Everybody's a sinner.
And because men are pigs, and they just want.
Easy sex without any duty and responsibility and attachments, and because they want fast cars with fast wealth, it's gained through unethical means.
That explains Tate being the most Googled man on the planet.
Well, no, I don't think that does.
I think it's a combination of cheap means that would give you some notoriety, that would get you some appeal, some audience.
But exponentially, what multiplied that by a factor of 10 minimum, if not by 100.
Is not the sin appeal, appealing to men's sin and sinful lust, but the fact that you had that in a context, in a vacuum, where masculinity is despised in all its forms, whether it's debased or whether it's righteous.
It doesn't matter what kind of masculinity it is, whether it's masculinity that pleases the Lord or masculinity that's perverse and corrupt and that's hated by the Lord, masculinity in any version, any form whatsoever, has been.
Absolutely eradicated from Western countries for half of a century.
That's what explains Tate being the most Googled man in the world.
We'll wrap up with a couple of other tweets.
We've done quite a bit on the reaction, so I'll just mention them, and then I want to move on to why we think Tate is actually so popular and Tateism is growing.
So, JD on X, who had a fantastic essay on this topic, JD Hall, not the Oh, that's J.D. Grew.
Never mind.
Not J.D. Grew.
J.D. Hall.
J.D. Hall.
He said this.
He said, Andrew Tate is popular among young Christian men because they're comparing him to the gospel, to who the gospel coalition presents as examples of biblical manhood.
And he has a nice turn of phrase here.
Both are unfortunate examples.
Tate, because he's not a Christian, and the gospel coalition, because they're not men.
He's a great writer.
Yeah, he's really, really good.
And then Eric Kahn, whom we already mentioned, he's got the picture of the guy who's in the middle of the swords.
And what's the statement that you're going to say that's going to get you?
Surrounded by swords and people trying to kill you.
He says a generation of conservative church leaders who opened the door to feminism, browbeat men, and catered to leftist ideologies did far more damage to the Christian church than Andrew Tate ever did.
Just to give the devil his due a little bit, just because people might not be familiar with his background, where he came from, and everything.
I'm not going to go through the whole history, but just as a start, he's a world champion, four time world champion kickboxer.
I've done martial arts before, Muay Thai and Jiu Jitsu.
Kickboxing is a brutal, painful sport.
It takes a lot of discipline to get in shape and then to compete.
Not just to compete once, to train for one fight, do it, win, and call it off.
But I think something like 30 fights.
And then he built a lot of wealth, and some of those are means that are despicable.
They would not be allowed in a Christian country.
But he built an empire of wealth through a number of different means.
He's been the target of lawfare attacks.
People will attack him for being childless or not taking on a family.
The best estimates, he keeps his family out of the public eye.
But he has something like 10 plus children, and it sounds like he provides for all of them.
So both him and his brother have families and wives.
It would be multiple.
He's Muslim.
Multiple wives, children, people that he provides for.
And all of the lawfare, as it is right now, Literally, like 24, 48 hours ago, the state is essentially, this would be Romania, dropping the case for lack of evidence.
So, this is what's transpired over a decade.
A lot of these charges of evil things, if true, have been dropped for lack of evidence.
He has attained a large amount of wealth, some through terrible means.
He's a world champion kickboxer.
Like, these are some of the things when we talk about masculinity and ambition and achievement.
Those are just some of the factors that factor into it.
Now, none of those make a biblical man.
It does that.
Well, you've earned $800 million, and so therefore, that's it.
You're biblical, you're Christ like.
None of those achieve to that level.
But you're talking on a natural plane.
What were men as men designed to do?
These are achievements that, I mean, there are people critiquing him.
They get winded walking up the stairs and they're sitting there like, Andrew Tate, so weak, so unmasculine.
Like, of course they're not listening to you.
You are pathetic.
You're a walking consciousness.
And he's pathetic in other ways, but he's not weak and undisciplined the way you are for decades on end.
Yeah, well, it's two words Christian masculinity, or if you will, biblical patriarchy.
Christian, Andrew Tate's pathetic.
Masculinity?
He is masculine, right?
He is masculine.
On a natural plane.
Right.
Don't think vertical.
Right.
I'm not saying masculine in the way that the Bible describes it, but he is naturally masculine.
He has high testosterone levels.
He is physically strong with stamina and discipline in that arena.
I'm sure he lacks discipline in other arenas, which are just as important, and I would argue even more so.
But he is exerting and displaying.
Discipline simply by virtue of his physical health, his physical status.
And then he is appealing to women.
Of course, there are plenty of Christian women who are repulsed by him.
I get that.
Pagan vs Christian Mastery00:05:33
But there are plenty of women that like Andrew Tate.
Yep.
That is masculine.
Like, here are some of the masculine.
So, the fruit of the spirit, which every Christian should embody, these are not distinctly masculine.
These are, it's a one size fits all.
It's, Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness.
But each of these fruit of the Spirit have unique expressions depending on your state, your gender, your role.
Gentleness in a father will look differently than gentleness in a mother.
Gentleness in a king will look differently than gentleness in a pastor.
And so, but the idea of just this unisex biblical application, which is what the evangelical church has been doing for quite some time now, many decades, of just, you know, this is what the Bible says for everybody.
And there's nothing distinct to womanhood, and there's nothing distinct to manhood.
That's not going to work.
There are things that are innately masculine achievement, and I would argue even competition, achievement and tough butting of heads, war, fighting, competing, zeal, achieving, ambition.
Brother, too.
Him and his brother are close friends.
And I bet there's so many men that are like, I've never had a Jonathan like that.
That I would do all these things together with.
Things are, I do believe that those things are uniquely masculine.
That doesn't mean you can't find a trace of them or to a lower degree an element of some of those things in women, right?
I have four daughters.
My daughters, they like to compete.
Michael, we were talking about that, like your daughter likes to compete.
Like if it's game night, sometimes, you know, the girls might, you know, be even more intense about wanting to win that game than the sons.
That's possible.
And so we're not saying that there's a complete absence in the fair sex and in women of these kinds of things.
But these character traits are more dominant when we observe them in men competition, discipline, ambition, zeal, and then they can go awry if we don't master ourselves in a Christian expression.
So then, zeal, which is not inherently bad in and of itself, becomes fleshly anger.
And so, all these things have kind of a like Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde.
So there's the good expression, and then there's the bad.
Expression of these things.
And so, if a guy's not full of the Holy Spirit and he doesn't have one of the fruit of the Spirit, which is self control, and as that pertains to a man, self mastery, that pertains to a woman also, but the man is going to master himself in different ways and in different degrees.
But if he doesn't have the Christian aspect, then the masculine, that doesn't mean, well, if you're not a Christian, then you can't be a man at all.
I think that's what I'm trying to get to is I think that's part of what.
The evangelical Christian discourse is trying to assert that I just could not disagree with possibly more.
They're basically trying to say that there is no masculinity at all.
They're either saying that or they're saying you cannot achieve masculinity whatsoever unless you do so Christianly.
And what I want to say is no, there is male and female, masculine and feminine exist in the world as God made it by the sheer.
Virtue of nature, whether grace is restoring it or not, whether it's Christian or not.
Bulls are not Christian, not in the born again, eternal sense, and yet bulls, male cows, are still, they still have the masculine bull male traits.
So that's going to exist whether it's Christian or not.
So to say that you can't attain masculinity at all apart from Christianity is wrong.
What you will get is you will get masculinity.
It just won't be Christian masculinity.
It will be pagan masculinity or Islamic masculinity.
Everything that I've already said, Christian masculinity will prioritize self mastery over the mastery of others.
Pagan masculinity will have very little self mastery.
It'll have self mastery, but only insofar as it serves the mastery of others.
So maybe in the physical sense, a Viking may actually care about being physically strong and train and discipline his body.
But he will exert zero effort in trying to master his base appetites and his lust, sexual lust and perversion.
And like, that's what you see.
Basically, Tate is, he's a Viking without a chin.
He's a Latino.
He's a bold, yeah, exactly.
He's a bold Latino Viking that uses his legs in his fighting style a little bit more than his arms.
Other than that, the dude, like that, but he is masculine.
He is masculine.
And if you can't see that, then you have been so far removed for so long from masculinity that you just don't even know what masculinity is anymore.
He is masculine.
None of us are making the argument that he exerts Christian masculinity or biblical patriarchy, but he is masculine and he is patriarchal.
Sinning in the Right Direction00:15:20
And the big issues of today he hates homosexuality, he hates feminism, he hates Zionism, and he speaks out against, at this point in his life, pornography and OnlyFans.
So these four issues, he has spoken out in vulgar and profane ways, but he said that feminism, ridiculous.
Zionism, destruction.
Homosexuality, I can't even repeat the things he says about it.
But he mocks it the way Christians should mock wicked things.
So, these four areas that are the biggest areas where Christian men are like, Man, I am sick of this.
And I'm tired of pride flags on Pride Month.
And they turn around and they see someone, not Christian, but on all four of those, he's like, That's ridiculous.
That's ridiculous.
That's ridiculous.
And I can't, I have to imagine for some, what a breath of fresh air for someone just to say it.
That's exactly the point.
I mean, so two things here.
Another issue where he's outspoken, Wes, is on restoring national order.
Right now, for some reason, he's immigrated to England.
Immigration, fifth category.
And has decided that he's going to fix England, which I'm like, dude, principle number one with immigration is you got to be part of the country first, part of the nation first.
If you want to fix England, you can't be a Muslim.
Fair enough.
But my point is, there's something about the fact that he is willing to say, England is dying.
Someone's got to fix it.
I'm going to do it.
We were watching, my son and I were watching some of the Pete Hegseth confirmation hearings.
And I know he's trying to get appointed.
And so you have to tread.
On eggshells, unfortunately.
But I was telling my son, I said, if Pete Hegseth were to answer these women who are asking him about women in combat truthfully and say, Madam, you know, Senator, I don't think women should be in the military, period.
And in fact, I don't think you should be a senator either.
This is a man's role.
Go home.
He would not get the confirmation.
But what that would do is it would open the door to so many men, young men who are thinking and seeing the world.
That way, and realizing this is all wrong.
This is not a debate about whether women can be in this kind of combat or that kind of combat.
This is a debate about men's place in the world versus a woman's place in the world.
And sadly, the people that we have that are willing to be imprisoned for some of these basic right and wrong things are people like Donald Trump and people like Andrew Tate.
Again, not excusing, or if his past was much darker in this area, which I think it was, not excusing that at all.
But Why is it that they are the ones who are willing to say, I'm willing to lose my position in society?
I'm willing to stand up and speak about basic realities, even though it would cost me my career, even though it would cost me my influence, even though it would cost me my status.
Why aren't Christian men doing that?
Young men would love to cheer on a Christian man who's doing that.
But by and large, most of them are not.
Real quick, let's do this.
I'm watching the chat as we're going.
If you see my eyes go up, we've got a screen above one of the cameras.
And so I'm looking at the chat.
Let's give our bona fides for a moment.
Okay, so Michael was just ordained as an elder in our church.
He's a pastor.
I'm a pastor in our church, Covenant Bible Church.
Check out covenantbible.org if you want to find a good biblical church that's committed to expositional preaching, that's committed to biblical patriarchy, that's committed to nationalism over gay, you know, globo, homo, jihad, and things like that.
If you're looking for a good church, you're in Central Texas.
We're in Georgetown, Texas, about an hour north of Austin.
That said, we're both pastors.
A lowly layman.
A lowly layman, but not that lowly.
I'm jealous at times, Andy.
But he's a faithful churchman and a member in our church.
We are three Christian men.
Let's give our bona fides.
And what I mean by that.
Is let's pause here for a moment and let's just say it.
I feel like it goes without saying, but obviously it doesn't.
So let's say it.
What do we not like about Andrew Tate?
What do we denounce?
Where to start?
He's Muslim.
Yep.
He worships a demon god named Allah.
He's a foreigner.
He doesn't live in England.
He's traveling the world saying that he's for nationalism, but going into countries that are not his own.
He is perverse and profane as the day is long without any filter whatsoever.
Crude, perverse, lewd.
He sexualizes women, which is not Christian masculinity.
Right.
It is masculine.
Right.
It is masculine, but it's masculinity debased by sin.
It is contorted and corrupted masculinity.
But it is, when I say it's still masculine, maybe you've heard this expression, maybe you haven't.
Some people don't like it.
So, you know, which means it's a good one, which means it's good.
Yeah.
Have you ever heard somebody say, you know, he's sinning, but he's sinning in the right direction?
Have you ever heard that adage?
It's like, well, no sin can be in the right direction.
To sin is to miss the mark, it's to point, you know, the bow in the wrong direction, it's to go the opposite of the direction of God.
And so, all sin is in the wrong.
Yes.
No, duh.
Duh.
Of course, all sin is going in the wrong direction.
Away from God.
It's rebelling against God.
And so, therefore, in the macro sense, of course, in a theological, ultimate sense, all sin is in the wrong direction.
Here's what the expression means to sin in the right direction.
A guy who is a womanizer is sinning.
Okay.
Again, I said we're going to state our bona fides.
So let me say that again.
So it's blatantly clear sinning.
It's sin.
Andrew Tate has made a career for himself that has been marked in many ways by overt, plain, obvious sin.
Of course.
Yep.
Of course.
Duh.
However, the trans library story hour is not only sin, but it's sinning in the wrong direction.
It's, when I'm speaking of direction, I'm speaking of nature.
There's conformity to reality.
Conformity to reality, aka the natural world that God made, right?
We live in the Father's world, He made the rules.
The world, and therefore he made the rules.
He gets to set up the rules by which the world is going to function.
Gravity.
Gravity is not saved, gravity is not born again.
I'm not going to high five gravity and it's going to become my eternal best friend in heaven.
You know, me and gravity, you know, like gravity is not a person.
Okay, but gravity is Christian in the macro sense because everything that God has made and that's functioning according to his plan is, you know, like a tree is a glorious tree insofar as it's performing its role.
The way that God has made it, that it's going in the right direction.
And yet, even trees, you can have glorious trees, trees that are very treely, if you will.
And the more treely a tree is, the more glorious a tree is.
And you could say, in a macro sense, the more Christian a tree is.
So, a sequoia tree is a really, you know, if we still have them when Gavin Newsom gets done burning down his state, you know, but, you know, a sequoia is a treely tree, and therefore it's a glorious tree, and therefore, in a macro sense, it's a Christian tree.
But all of nature has still been tarnished by sin.
The curse, right?
When God gets to Adam, he says, He doesn't actually even curse Adam.
He curses the ground.
Adam was standing in as the head, the federal head, representative not just of all of humanity, all this posterity, but the whole created cosmos, the whole world, so that even the world itself, the earth, the very ground fell underneath a curse, not because the dirt rose up in rebellion and sinned against God.
Adam sinned against God, but he represented even the dirt.
He represented the ground.
He represented the trees, the rivers, the rocks.
That's why all creation, Paul says, is groaning, right?
It's under subjugation.
Feels the weight of the curse of sin.
And so, creation itself, not just people created in the image of God, but even rocks and trees and birds and rivers and plants are groaning with eager expectations for the sons of God to be revealed.
Therefore, the return of Christ when he restores all things, even the creation of the natural order itself.
So, you have this dual reality simultaneously at play.
A tree can be glorious and Christian in the sense that it is functioning in its tree sense.
It's being a tree.
It's healthy.
It's bearing fruit.
It's verdant.
It's green.
It's exactly all those things.
It's being a tree.
It's sturdy.
It's strong.
It can be used.
It's wood in order to build structures and buildings and society and all these different things.
In that sense, it's glorious.
But it's also under a curse.
That tree can be inflicted by parasitical, you know, by moss, you know, and it eventually falls and decays and all these things and it can die.
And, you know, and so too it is with.
With image bearing creatures, man and woman, right?
God created man in his image, man, that is mankind, both male and female, he created them.
Both man and woman bear the image of God, image bears of the living God, although man distinctly and uniquely also, in addition not just to the image of God, bears the glory of God.
Man is the glory of God, and woman the glory of man, is what 1 Corinthians chapter 11 says.
So man and woman in image of God, man, glory of God, in addition to image, and woman, glory of man.
Now, all that being said, fallen man.
Because of sin, he can do things that still conform into the direction, the overarching general direction of the natural order that God has established.
And those would be things like building civilization, sireing children, making physical provision for his wife and children, fighting and protecting them from threats within and threats that are foreign.
Hunting and right, taking dominion over the earth, subduing and taking dominion.
When he goes and charts new courses and explores the sea and makes maps and investigates innovation, invention, these kinds of things, these are uniquely human things.
And many of what I just listed, not exhaustively and not exclusively, but many of what I just listed are not only distinctly human things, but even manly things, distinctly masculine things.
And you can do all those things.
And not be a Christian.
And not be a Christian.
Even to do the woman.
There are women that are wonderful wives, love their children, love their husband, self controlled, never regenerate.
And they're wonderful women who raised children, who obeyed their own husband, led and cared for a commodious home.
Like take out the men and just do like the women.
There are many women who have done that.
They were never for a day Christian or regenerate, and yet they still were wonderful wives and mothers.
Right.
So a man, we'll just go with that theme for a second in terms of marriage and the relationship between a man and wife.
A man sinning as a husband, sinning in the right direction, it's sin.
Okay, don't miss that.
Sin.
But sin in the right direction would be domineering.
Right.
Domineering over his bride, where he's called to lead her.
He is called to have authority over her.
He has authority, whether he wields it or not.
He is under God placed in a position of authority.
So he's called to exercise authority and leadership.
But he's not called to be overly domineering, rather, he's called to recognize her as a co heir of grace.
So, in one standing, the internal, eternal sense and innate dignity, his equal.
But in a physical, temporal sense, his inferior.
Not inferior in terms of worth, but the weaker vessel.
Rank, like in the military.
In rank.
Yeah.
And in stature, temporal stature.
She is the weaker vessel.
And I think that speaks to the physical.
I also think it speaks to the not only physical disposition, but even emotional disposition.
And so he can do both things simultaneously.
Now, the man who recognizes, not only is it permissible, it is morally obligatory that a husband, it's a command.
He is commanded in scripture to recognize that his wife is a weaker vessel and then to treat her accordingly.
And what does it mean to treat her accordingly?
To make room for her, to exercise grace and compassion and gentleness towards her because of her weaker disposition.
But a man who is sinning, again, emphasis on sin, but sinning in the right direction would be a man who is exercising authority, but he's doing it domineeringly, in a domineering fashion, instead of taking into account in a spirit of.
Of compassion and grace taking into account her weaker frame, he is exploiting her weaker frame.
That's sin, but sinning in the right direction.
A man who subjugates himself to his wife, happy wife, happy life, limp wristed subjugation to the wife that exalts her as head of the home and subjugates himself as her helpmate is not only sin, but it's sin in the wrong direction.
Homosexuality is not just a sin, an excess.
Of something that God calls good or a mere perversion of something, but it's a disorder.
It's a reversal of something that God calls good.
Homosexuality is sinning in the wrong direction.
Womanizing is sinning, don't miss that, in the right direction.
The right direction meaning that it's pleasing to God?
No.
C point A, I gave all the disclaimers.
I can't give them every 15 seconds.
Lord knows I try, but I can't do it.
It is sin.
And in the macro sense, in the theological, ultimate, biblical sense, it's in the wrong direction, in the theological sense, because anything that's going against God's prescribed will in Scripture is the wrong direction.
You guys know what I mean.
You know what I mean.
But what I'm saying is there's a way to take God's natural order, his natural design for things, and do it wrongly.
So you're going, instead of against the grain, you're going with the grain, but you're going with the grain in wrong ways to wrong ends.
The wrong measure, the wrong degree, the wrong method.
There's a way of going with the grain sinfully.
And then there's a way of going against the grain.
Feminism is not just sin, but it's in accordance with the natural order.
No, it's sinning in the wrong direction.
It's going against the grain.
Feminism is not just a perverted desire, it's a misordered desire.
It's a desire that's been reversed.
Whereas a man who Whatever.
Unnatural Sins of Our Time00:06:23
I've already given the examples.
That's what I'm talking about.
And I think part of the appeal of Andrew Tate is that at the natural level, he gets a lot of things right.
At the spiritual level, he is.
I don't think it's possible to be more wrong.
I don't think he gets anything right.
I think he is wrong at virtually every level that you could possibly be wrong at, at a biblical, spiritual, higher, ultimate spiritual sense.
So, in the higher plane, the spiritual things, he's wrong at every level.
But we're currently living in a world, this is my point.
We're living in a world where it's not just ravaged by sin, but we're living because the world has always been ravaged by sin ever since the first sin that happened in the garden.
But there have been the vast majority, the lion's share of human history.
Even fallen human history has been ravaged by sin, but sin that still at least went with the grain.
It was according to the natural order.
Men were manly.
We're currently living in a time that's not just known for sin, but it's known for unnatural sins.
We're living at one of the higher echelons.
If you think of sin, you don't just wake up one day and decide to be a serial killer.
Sin has a progression, there's a progression of sin.
And in Romans chapter 1, one of the latest stages, right?
You think of like, Cancer, you know, there's stage one and two and three and four.
One of the latest stages of not just sin in an individual, but corporately in a society, in a civilization, and I would argue that the West fits this description.
One of the furthest, most severe stages of terminal sin at a societal level is that it's no longer just men being perverse, but it's that they exchange natural, there's the word, natural relations with one another and become inflamed with lust for one another, that they're now sinning.
Not only sinning, but they're also sinning in the wrong direction.
And then, even further than that, that's not the final stage.
The final stage is eventually not only the exchange of the natural.
So, not only sin with nature, but sin against nature.
Sin against nature.
And then, the final stage is that they not only do these things, but they receive approval for these things.
That it's not just homosexuality is 3% of the population and rising, but it's the whole population is standing on the sidelines applauding.
Right.
So you got the guys, you know, in New York in front of children with their junk hanging out in a parade.
And that's not the worst of it.
The worst of it is all the heterosexual parents who brought their children to the parade.
And then the whole rest of the town standing on the street corners cheering and holding balloons and smiling as though it's a positive thing.
That's where we are currently in the West.
So we're not just, we're not like, we think, here's the point you think that you're so much better than every generation gone by.
You're not.
Vikings who raped and pillaged would be disgusted by the sins of the West.
The Aztecs would be horrified by the sins of the West.
They'd be like, dude, we killed dozens of people annually.
You guys kill them by the million at Planned Parenthood.
Babies.
We never would have dreamed of doing that.
And we had to rip, if we ever did kill a baby, we had to rip it out of the hands of its screaming, crying mother.
But your mothers, Take their babies themselves and then post TikTok videos celebrating the decision of having them physically dismembered and sucked up with a vacuum cleaner out of their womb.
The Aztecs can't hold a candle to the West.
We're not just talking about higher degrees of sin, we're talking about distinctly higher, completely distinct categories of sin.
It's not just greater degrees, it's a whole other category.
It is sin in the wrong direction.
Andrew Tate is a very great sinner in need of the only great Savior.
That there can be no debate.
No one's arguing that.
But what we are saying is that part of the appeal of Andrew Tate to the natural man is that he's natural.
He is sinning.
He is perverse.
But he's sinning with the grain on the backdrop of an entire world and even an evangelical church, the church, brothers and sisters, that is sinning against the grain.
And to just add on to that, Joel, I think you correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think what we're saying is we understand why there is such an appeal towards Andrew Tate because the things that he's doing are the things that American society and evangelical Christian have told men.
You are not allowed to do, period, under any circumstances.
And in fact, we are going to discipline and breed and diet all of this out of you.
Now, we are not saying we have pictures of Andrew Tate up in our bedroom.
We are saying we want to be better men.
We want the church to produce better men.
We want to regain masculinity so that we're not having to say Andrew Tate is the best of the take ambition, go out and have self discipline, have a direction that you're going in that we have.
But unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, he is now a masculine man.
And God help us that that's one of the best that our culture might have to offer.
After the Olympics and that horrific blasphemous show, him and his brother went outside the French consulate and advocated on behalf of Christians, saying, We're not even Christians.
I think his brother still claims to be.
And we're here doing this.
That mockery shouldn't be like, Look at this.
Christians are going after it.
The shame should be the introspection.
Why would we not fight against those who would blaspheme our Savior?
And what we're frustrated about is that.
Evangelical pastors look at this, and all they can conclude is any guy who has any sort of urge to discipline himself, to achieve, to make something of himself, like Andrew Tate has done, is clearly immature, in sin, dangerous, and needs to be long housed back into meekness and mildness.
Fighting for Christian Wealth00:03:56
Right.
Yeah.
Right.
Should we go to our commercial break?
Yeah.
Let's go.
All right, the clock is running out.
You need to go and register now for our Christ is King How to Defeat Trash World Conference.
It's happening the year of our Lord 2025, April 3rd, 4th, and 5th.
That's a Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.
And by God's grace, we're able to provide for you an all star lineup.
We've got Steve Dace, Calvin Robinson, Orrin McIntyre, Dr. Stephen Wolfe, Eric Kahn, David Reese, Andrew Isker.
John Harris, AD Robles, Dan Burkholder, Dusty Devers, Ben Garrett, CJ Engel, and yours truly, Pastor Joel Webbin.
Come on out, join us April 3rd, 4th, and 5th, 2025, Thursday through a Saturday.
Go to RightResponseConference.com to register today.
Again, that's RightResponseConference.com.
Listen, guys, you probably listen to Right Response Ministries because you take the dominion mandate offered to us in Scripture.
Seriously.
Well, unsurprisingly, so does Dominion Wealth Strategist.
As the only distinctly reformed financial consulting firm, they help Calvinistic, covenantal, and confessional Christians to steward their resources faithfully in a way that actually aligns with God's Word.
Dominion Wealth leverages all corners of the financial service industry as independent brokerage agents, matching you with suitable products and services from dozens of top industry providers.
Their mission is to equip believers to secure their family's future and build a legacy that glorifies God by building holistic financial strategies that include budgeting, insurance, debt management, retirement planning, estate planning, and more.
In order to make wealth Christian again with a portfolio that might even put King Solomon to shame, go and take dominion over your finances today by visiting www.reformed.money and book an introductory overview right now.
All of Christ for all of life and all of finance for Christendom.
I need it indeed.
All right, we are back.
Real quick, if you are able to do so, don't do it at the cost of your family, don't do it at the cost of fake.
Giving and tithing to your local church, but if you're able to do so, we humbly request and are incredibly appreciative for those of you who are faithful regular supporters of this ministry.
You can go to rightresponse ministries.com forward slash donate.
The vast majority of our content is posted almost daily at this point.
We're coming out with content on almost a daily basis.
And the vast majority of it is not behind a paywall.
It's free for your consumption, for your edification, for your benefit.
And we are able to do this slightly in part because of our sponsors, who we're incredibly grateful for.
For our sponsors, but our sponsors are probably about 20% of what it takes to be able to do this on a daily basis.
And so the lion's share of our support comes from our faithful donors.
So again, you can go to rightresponseministries.com forward slash donate.
If you would like to help us with this ministry to see it continue.
Okay.
All right.
So, if I can summarize everything that we've said for almost an hour and a half now, Andrew Tate is appealing to a lot of people.
We understand why.
And we wish that it was true Christian masculinity that was leading the charge.
How True Masculinity Looks00:03:41
But sadly, that's not the order of the day.
So, what we want to do now is we want to spend a little bit of time here at the end talking about how to correct the ship, what True Christian masculinity might look like.
And, you know, Wes has a great analogy that's going to come up in an episode next week about how we are in a situation where, unfortunately, I won't steal your analogy.
I'll just say he's got one.
And it's similar to the pendulum idea, where you have to push the pendulum sometimes farther back than it needs to go because it's so far off the rail.
And so this is a topic that we're going to keep talking about as we go.
Look for some episodes next week about that as well.
But one of the things that I think is interesting is that in the time of coming out of the Middle Ages and the Reformation, even in the time, especially as England was forming, France too, they had these stories of the chivalric knights, chivalry, and the knight's code.
And so you've got the Song of Roland coming out of France, you've got Lancelot, you've got all the knights of the round table, you've got Arthur.
And one of the things that I did a little bit of reading into them, I read a lot of these growing up as a boy, right?
They inspired me, just fascinated me, the knight.
But One of the things that I think we have to acknowledge is that the stories of chivalry were lessons on how men can devote the strength, drive, ambition, resources, and even lethality, right?
The knights bore swords.
They can devote all of those masculine things towards good and proper ends.
In other words, the codes of chivalry were about how to direct masculinity in the proper direction so that it wasn't being abused in the wrong direction.
You are to use your strength to defend the weak, to punish injustice.
You are to devote your life to piety so that your ambition and your exploits are worthwhile, both to benefit your nation.
And to benefit God's kingdom, not just to benefit yourself and to exploit others.
So, even the code of chivalry, the stories of the knights, were largely there to direct masculine activities towards the right aim.
We see something similar when we look at the New Testament.
When we see Paul in 1 Timothy 2 directing men to lift up holy hands in prayer, it's in the context of not lifting them up in anger or in quarrels or in fights, right?
Like there's a testosterone in men.
That if unchecked or direct pushed in the wrong direction leads to brawling.
And so Paul says, take those masculine hands, devote them to piety also.
In 1 Timothy 6, when Paul warns against riches, the idea being not that wealth is bad inherently, but men, Christian men, remember that your masculine drive to achieve, to accomplish, to turn profit should not be a love and an idol that is the base and core identity of your being.
And I think what One of the contentions that I think we have to just realize is the time in history that we live in, both with the diet and the plastics, the feminism and feminization of all of our society, not just the church, but the church also.
We live in a time where the masculine drives have been really killed and subsumed and totally hidden from what most men would even think about doing.
And so, while it's true that we see throughout history and even in the New Testament, Some cautions or some redirections of the masculine energy.
Reviving Hidden Masculine Drives00:06:08
One of the problems that we have now is that the masculine virtues have been so hidden that most men don't have any idea, myself included, sometimes, right?
Like, we're not immune to this.
We all live in the sea that we are criticizing.
We're as wet as the rest of the fish, right?
And what we want to do is we want to say, okay, if it's been that subsumed, we need to dig it out, right?
And yeah, when you dig something out of the ground, it might have some dirt on it.
Right?
It may have rusted or corroded a little bit, but we have to dig it out.
We have to pull it back.
We have to restore it.
And probably there's going to be an overcorrection.
I mean, Joel, you're right about the rubber band.
There will be an overcorrection, right?
There will be an overcorrection in some of these areas.
And so, gentlemen, I have some thoughts on this, but as far as masculinity goes, biblical masculinity, let's weigh in.
Let's give some comments and thoughts here.
Yeah.
I can give an example of my dad.
I think what he did well, good Christian man.
He's still alive.
I love him.
We have a great relationship.
But there can be a tendency to make the spiritual what it's all about.
And my best memories of my dad, they're not him expositing the glories of the gospel from Romans 5 at family worship or singing or fasting.
Those are good and right, and he did them.
He led us in family worship.
He taught us the scriptures, all of those things.
But my best memories of my dad are the natural things.
We searched, it was a multi year long search to find the hottest hot sauce and the hottest pepper.
We plunged into frozen lakes.
We, uh, Hunting and shooting bows and arrows.
He wasn't boring.
And what endeared me to him as a man, masculine, was the competition, the brotherhood, the camaraderie.
We did two 50 milers together, 50 mile races, finished both of them together.
We suffered together in that.
And at no point did my dad say, like, yeah, I could do this with my son and I could do this.
Or we could just stay home and read books.
Like, there's famous pastors and their sons, and I won't name them because they apostatized, but they said their favorite memories of dad were going to Christian conferences or canceling family vacations.
Because all dad could think about, all that was on his mind, were simply the intangible spiritual things, which are real.
But Paul does say in 1 Corinthians 15 the natural comes first and then the spiritual.
We live in a natural world that will eventually be taken up.
Consummated in the spiritual, but the natural's here.
And man, if you can give.
You don't mean first in priority, but chronologically.
Yes, chronologically, exactly.
You can't get to heaven if you.
You can't be born again if you were never born once.
You can't be resurrected if you have no body in the first place.
Right.
So, one thing I would just say, gosh, don't be a boring man.
Don't be boring.
Don't be a boring dad.
Like, that's a little cold.
We could catch a cold.
My daddy just took us one time.
He's like, let's shingle the roof in the rain and see if we can catch a cold.
And women don't like that.
They're like, but, but, huh, they could get sick.
And he said, no, this will be good for him.
And I would credit that type of fatherhood.
Me and my brother both turned out to be good Christian men by God's grace.
But it was also because my dad didn't play it safe, didn't aim to be boring, didn't just make everything a spiritual life lesson, but he got his hands dirty.
He loved us.
There was brotherhood, camaraderie competition, all of that.
And that needs to be said.
Do not neglect those things, especially for fathers.
And then as brothers and friends to a lesser degree, certainly that drive, competition, et cetera.
Yeah.
One of the things that I would say, if I was to sum it up just with one characteristic or one word, would be ambition.
Most of the Christian books written towards men for quite a while now have demonized ambition.
They've glorified and lionized, you know, lowly and meek, gentle, quiet, but pretty much any kind of Ambition has been frowned upon, has been, you know, men have been told mostly within the church that their ambition needs to be suppressed, it needs to be uprooted,
that ambition is simply fleshly, that it's vain, that it's inherently vain.
And the reality is that there is such a thing as vainglory.
There is vain ambition, but ambition in and of itself is not inherently evil.
There is glorious ambition, there is vainglorious ambition.
There is godly ambition.
There is wicked ambition.
The question is, what is it that you're ambitious for?
That would be one of the questions.
And the second is, why?
What are your motives?
What's your incentive for trying to achieve X, Y, and Z, for trying to accrue X, Y, and Z?
So there's a way.
So, one thing that I think that is distinctly masculine and that's been missing for quite some time is.
Is helping young men and inspiring young men to pursue ambitious goals in the workplace when it comes to accruing resources and wealth to be able to, at some level, to be ambitious even for status.
I think of the proverbs that say, you know, we don't like the word status, it sounds vain.
And you can desire status for fleshly reasons, and you can go about trying to acquire.
Status in vain and wicked ways.
But again, that status would be another example of something that's not inherently in and of itself unbiblical or unchristian.
I think of the proverbs that say that a good name is worth more than gold.
What is a good name other than acquiring a certain degree, a certain level of status within your community, within the world?
That people, they know who you are and they think well of you.
Power would be another example.
So, status, and it's similar to power, but accruing power.
Needing Christian Doctors Now00:03:03
I think guys who are right now, there's a few of them.
Not many, but a few guys who are emphasizing the dire need and urgency for Christian men to accrue Christian power and to wield it in Christian ways, I think are going to experience a lot of success because I think there's an incredible need there because it's been absent.
And I think for a lot of young men in the vortex, you know, or the vacuum of this absence, there's an incredible hunger there as well.
And so accruing, we want Christian men to be powerful in our society, in the world, and not just status or position within the realm of the church, but outside of the church, in the world, in the political world, in the cultural world, in media, in medicine.
We need Christian doctors right now when the entire medical establishment, virtually the entire medical establishment, Um, has so discredited itself and lied to us, right to our faces, for uh ad nauseum, uh, day after day after day, getting up and and telling us, uh, you know, like you can't do this because it's bad for you, you can't do that because it's bad for you, and here's something that's really really good for you.
You know, eggs are bad for your cholesterol, you know, but uh, but this sugary cereal, you know, you can do that every you know, every single morning.
That's you know, um, guys, guys have now that you know, the the blinders have come off, the veil has been lifted, people can see through that.
But something has to fill the void.
And we need Christians to fill the void, right?
I still need a doctor.
So the fact that I'm doctor pilled, right, that I know that the medical establishment is corrupt is not enough.
Because you need an alternative.
So it's one thing to diagnose the problem, it's another to present solutions.
The solution is Christian men.
Because at the end of the day, every single Christian household cannot simply, you know, Do their best to self learn and go on WebMD, you know, and diagnose and prescribe, you know, some kind of solution to every single one of their medical problems.
So, we need Christians in medicine.
We need Christian media.
We need Christians in finance.
Finance has been incredibly corrupt.
We did a whole episode on usury and all these things that the Bible, you know, strictly forbids.
And so, we need Christian, good Christian men in finance.
But you're not going to have.
Christian men in finance, if all the Christian men are poor.
So, we're going to need Christian men who avail themselves.
I mean, I think of what Paul writes to slaves.
He says that they should obey their masters, but he also says that if they can gain their freedom, that they should avail themselves toward that end, that they should do so.
Delegated Authority for Men00:16:20
If there's any way to become a free man, Paul doesn't argue that being a free man isn't superior, that it's not a better position of life.
Of course it is.
And so, he says that slaves should respect their masters, but insofar as it's within their power to avail themselves.
Towards being free men with free agency, that's vastly superior.
They should work towards that endeavor.
And it's the same concept or the same principle applied at every single level.
If God has ordained and through providence has seen fit that you be content with little, fine.
But the Apostle Paul, when he's talking about Christian contentment and godliness, right, that godliness is great gain, contentment with godliness, he even states in that context, he says, I've learned how to abase and abound.
So he doesn't just say, I've learned how to have nothing.
And be content.
And so now, nothing in this life, in the temporal world, I've made that actually my aim.
That's not his point.
His aim is not to have nothing.
His aim is to be content, regardless of what he has.
The aim is not nothing.
The aim is contentment.
That's the aim.
But Paul even admits that, even for himself, as a missionary who was radically persecuted by the Jews primarily, but also some Gentiles, despite immense persecution, he admits that there were seasons of life where he.
Was abounding where he had more than enough.
We have all the scriptures that even say that let the thief no longer steal, but work with his hands so that he might have not just enough to get by, not just meeting his own needs and the needs of his household, but that he might have more than enough.
He might have a surplus so that he might be generous to others, so that he might be able to give.
We need Christians in power.
You look at Elon Musk, despite all his flaws and H1B and America First, just means America is a Sports team, and we need to sports ball even harder.
And, you know, and we need to get people who are not Americans, you know, and have nothing in common with our values, you know, to put on, you know, the American sports jersey, you know, in order for us to be America first.
Because America first, you know, God forbid it means Americans first.
It actually just means America as a sports team winning on the global stage that we beat China, you know, in terms of GDP and blah, blah, blah.
Yeah.
So he's got problems, right?
Elon Musk has, that's just one of them.
But there's still something to be said for the ambition.
Of wanting to go to the stars and the incredible ingenuity and innovation and what he's been able to achieve and build and problems that he's been able to solve and all that as it relates to power and particularly what I'm arguing for, Christian power that I think is distinctly masculine, right?
Women are called to embody gentleness and a quiet spirit, whereas men, I think, are to be strong, but it needs to be Christian strength to be powerful.
God made us to be powerful, but to have Christian power.
And so, what would the world be like?
If we had a Christian Elon Musk, like I remember one of my friends put it into perspective like this.
He said, You know, we always think like the government, you know, like nobody could take down, you know, the government is just, it's a Leviathan, right?
It's, and it's true.
I mean, we have a bloated government in many different ways, but, you know, it's a Leviathan, it's a titan and a tyrant.
And so there's no competing.
The household, you know, families can't compete with the government.
But what is Amazon other than House Bezos?
You know, what is Tesla and SpaceX and Starlink and X and soon to be maybe TikTok and everything else?
But what is that other than a household?
It's House Musk.
That a family, you look at biblical times, like Abraham, his house, it wasn't that he was necessarily filling the role in an official sense of a civil magistrate and that he was the president of a country.
But no, as a private citizen, As a household outside of the sphere of the state and in the realm of the family, his family was a force to be reckoned with.
It was formidable.
He had over 300 servants.
He had acquired and amassed an insane amount of wealth.
He was rich.
And so, even though he wasn't a king in the formal sense himself, holding that civil position, he still finds himself negotiating with kings and rivaling kings and whole foreign governments and entities and all these kinds of things as a singular household, but a household that accrued power and was wielding that power in righteous directions.
And so, That's one thing that I would say is distinctly masculine and that the church needs to talk about men embracing and pursuing godly ambition in the temporal natural world, not just spiritual first in terms of hierarchy of priority, but natural things right alongside that.
Grace doesn't abolish or destroy nature, but rather elevates and restores it.
So, pursuing the spiritual and the eternal first in terms of priority, but in addition to that, also pursuing power.
And prestige with godly ambition in the temporal plane, in the realm of politics, running for political office, in the realm of finance and wealth, accruing multi generational wealth, so that your grandchildren will have more wealth than your pagan next door neighbor's grandchildren, so that they'll be able to use that and wield that wealth in righteous ways and righteous means and have more of a stake,
more say, more power in society, in civilization than the wicked.
We want the righteous.
We want to outpopulate, right?
So be fruitful, multiply, get married, have children.
If you can, by the grace of God, have several children.
Pursue wealth, pursue knowledge.
Knowledge is power.
You do need to read, do the reading.
Pursue status in a claim within the medical society.
All these different things, as best you can, be ambitious and pursue power.
Power and a good name, a name that is good in terms of purity, but also a name that's known, not just a name that's good among your wife and your children, nothing less than that.
That's first, nothing less than that.
But if you can aspire towards more, that you would have a name that is known by many people and that is held in high esteem by your friends and by the household of faith, and a name that by the grace of God is feared by your enemies, who are ultimately God's enemies, who are the wicked and who hate Christ and who are working.
Against him, acquire these things, be ambitious towards temporal things, not at the cost of spiritual things, but in addition to them.
I think that that's a uniquely masculine trait godly ambition.
And almost every book that you read, especially not just Christian books in the general sense, but Christian books specifically designed towards men, I have been astounded by how many Christian books for men ultimately demonize any kind of ambition in the temporal world whatsoever.
Yeah.
Well, and I would add on to that the, the, Trait or the neglected area of masculinity that I've been thinking about actually flows directly from yours, Joel.
Because if you think about, let's say there's an employee in a company and he is employed by his boss.
And so he has a lot of ambition.
And so he starts to take his position in the company, the access to the research or to the clients or to the leads.
And he starts out of his ambition trying to steal away from his company what is due to his boss.
That would be an ambition that's improper.
Why is ambition a good and healthy and God given attribute among humans?
It is because of God's command, his delegated authority.
And I think, I've thought quite a bit this week about the question of how are some of the things that we would say are masculine or feminine, you know, read your Bible or be self controlled, be disciplined, be strong.
Scripture speaks of the strength of a woman in her arms.
What is it that makes something inherently masculine as opposed to inherently feminine?
And I think.
At the core of the issue is the question of authority.
When God gave the dominion mandate, which to the question earlier was not part of the covenant of works, it preceded the covenant of works.
It was why God created mankind to take dominion and to steward.
When God issued the dominion mandate in Genesis 1, he then said that he made man in his image, male and female.
There is a particular way that God made mankind to.
Exercise dominion on the earth.
And the way that it works is that he then gave man, the biological male Adam, the authority to name the animals.
He also gave Adam the authority to name his wife.
And at the core of anything that's masculine, why should men be strong?
Because God has delegated to them an authority.
Why should men be self controlled?
Because God has delegated to them an authority.
Why should men lead their households in worship and in what you were saying, Wes, in taking adventures?
Because God has given him an authority.
And I think, really, at the core of why men are floundering in our society, they think I should be strong.
And then they're told, no, don't be strong.
I should be self controlled and discipline my body.
No, don't do that.
You know, all of these things is the question of authority.
We have lost the fact that God has given authority for authority.
The family, for the church, for the state, for the dominion of the world to men.
And what he has done to enable that is he has equipped the man with a helper.
He's equipped the man with someone who will support, someone who will aid, someone who will assist.
But at the core of whether something is masculine is whether it is something that you are preparing and equipping yourself as a man to do in order to carry out the authority, the duties of the authority that God has given to you.
Why do we train ourselves?
Because God has really said, take authority of your family.
You can't be a fat, lazy slob and take authority of your family.
Why do we study politics or business or any of those things?
Because God has said, take authority of the political life, take authority of the economic life, take authority of all these things.
They are given to men.
And so, masculinity to me is a preparation and a carrying out of authority.
Preparation and a carrying out of authority.
And we really have this so backwards because men, and this is part of the curse I realize, we are wanting to see this authority.
To women at every turn.
And I came across a quote by Calvin this week.
I was going to say, we need to land the plane, but we've got to get that quote from Calvin.
I'm leading up to that quote.
People will hate it.
The reason why this is so important is that God has not given the same kind of authority to women as he has to men.
And that's why the duties of women are different than the duties of men.
So this is from Calvin.
It was from a sermon that he preached.
Published in Men, Women, and Order in the Church.
Real quick, and not just the duties, because part of the problem with complementarianism is it agreed, it acknowledged the distinction of roles, but it didn't acknowledge the distinction of nature.
Right.
So when we say duties, certainly, like God is given, what you're saying is that the underlying principle is authority.
So God has uniquely given authority to men in a way that he has not given it to women.
And that corresponds to their duties.
But because God is not capricious, but rather kind and logical, he's also not arbitrary or random, but he works logically.
God cannot contradict himself.
He works within the laws of logic, which stem from him that he himself established.
Not only does God give men certain duties stemming from that authority, but because men are called to harbor this authority and to fulfill certain duties, he also gives them a certain nature.
Correct.
And I think that was part of the problem with the 1988 complementarianism, halfway house for egalitarianism, because that's really what it was, was that it said, well, yeah, sure, we acknowledge that in the Bible there's a distinction of role between men and women.
But it basically asserted, you know, like anything you can do, I can do better.
I can do anything better than you, but I won't because I'm complementarian.
You know, so it's like the wife, you know, or like the Christian woman.
Let's take it outside of the realm of the home and put it in the realm of the church who says, well, I can preach.
In fact, I can preach better than most men, but I won't because I'm complementarian.
I think that that misunderstands, one, the nature of men and women.
And two, that also fundamentally misunderstands the sheer nature of preaching and what preaching is.
That preaching is not just a pep talk and it's not just informational or educational.
And that it's also preaching, it contains some of these aspects of providing spiritual nourishment for sheep that are hungry and need to be nourished.
And so you think, well, that sounds distinctly feminine.
You know, like women are, you know, cooking and making meals for their families at home.
And so why can't a woman make a spiritual meal for the family of God?
You know, in church, if that's what a sermon is, if that's all a sermon is, I don't think it's less than that, but I think it's more than that.
If that's all a sermon is, is just education, informative.
And if a sermon, all it is, is just nourishment for those who are hungry, it's a spiritual meal, then why can't, you know, women do it?
And I would argue, well, because a sermon is that plus more.
What a sermon also is, is that a sermon is rallying the army of the living God into war, into battle.
It's akin to William Wallace going down the line as, As all the Scotsmen are lined up in order to fight against the enemy, the horde that is surrounding them, the impending doom that's encroaching closer and closer.
And there are men who are afraid and shuddering and fearful.
And he gives them a riveting, inspiring speech that causes them to dig deep and to find strength.
And he rides down the line, slamming the brunt of his sword into their swords and their spears and rallies the men into battle, into war.
That is another aspect of preaching.
And it's not just something that a woman is not allowed to do.
It's something that a woman can't do.
It's not just a matter of role, distinction of role.
I could do it, but I won't because I'm not allowed.
No, God has given you the role that you have to where you're not allowed to do it, but also because He has not equipped you in the realm of nature to do it, or at least not to do it well.
Men have not just been given the role of exercising authority, they've also been equipped in the realm of nature to be able to exercise authority in a way that a woman can't do.
Can't men and women have distinct roles because they have distinct natures.
So, Calvin says this, and this is this would be my thing to men on masculinity stop hiding behind women, exercise the authority that God has created you in your nature and given you in your roles to do.
So, Calvin says this, yet consider now whether women are not quite past sense and reason when they want to rule over men.
He's saying, is it crazy for women to want to rule over men?
In a word, he says, it is madness.
General Deference in Society00:12:13
For were men made for women?
It is true that today men are as channels through which God causes his grace to stream down upon women.
For from whence does labor come?
From where do all the most excellent things and highly esteemed things come?
To be sure, it comes from the men's side.
So, God is well pleased for men to serve the good of women, as experience shows.
Yet, St. Paul has an eye here to the beginning of the creation, where it was said that it was not good for the man to be alone, and that he needed someone at hand who would always be ready to help.
Since God was thinking of the man, it certainly follows that the woman is only an accessory.
And why?
Because she was only created for the sake of man.
And she must therefore direct her whole life toward him.
She must confess I am not supposed to be without direction here, not knowing my purpose and station.
Rather, I am obliged by God if I am married to serve my husband and render him honor and reverence.
And if I am not married, I am bound to walk in all soberness and modesty, cognizant that men have the higher rank and that they must rule, and that the woman who disregards this forgets the law of nature and perverts what should be observed as God's command.
This, then, This then, the place to which St. Paul brings back women.
Yeah, the last thing I'll say is this.
I remember I preached this all the way back in like 2018 or 2019, and it upset a lot of people.
I've been fond of saying the prophets weren't killed for being right.
Later on, you know, people end up building tombs to Jeremiah and Isaiah and everybody else that their fathers killed.
So eventually, you know, the right side of history, you know, will win out in the end.
And so eventually everybody agrees.
And so it's not so much that you're.
Persecuted, the prophets are killed for being right.
They were killed for being first.
They were killed for being right about something at a time when everybody else was still wrong and claiming that what was wrong was right.
And so I remember I got a lot of pushback at the time for this.
It was a little bit before my time, before people were having some of these conversations.
But what I said was chivalry is that in Ephesians 5, the husband, like Christ, who gave himself up for the church and sanctifies her by His blood, he sacrificed for the church, his own life.
So too, husbands should be willing to lay their lives down for the wives.
But then the argument that I made is that stemming from this, that's central and the highest priority a man's duty and responsibility, his role towards his wife.
But from that, we can argue out in ripples, if you will, to children.
Like we wouldn't say a man is called to be willing to take a bullet for his wife, but not for his daughter.
And we say, well, yeah, that fits too.
Even though it's not expressly said right there in Ephesians 5, but yeah, that's a good, right sentiment.
But then we can argue even further from that that if a man was single, and let's say that his mother has already passed 10 years ago, and he doesn't have any sisters, he only has brothers, and he has a father, and he has an uncle, but no aunts, no grandmother, no mother, no sisters, no wife, no daughters, is it good and right and pleasing to the Lord if his country enters justly into a war for him to serve in his country's military in order to fight back?
The hordes of invaders, in order to protect other women that he doesn't have a direct relation to.
And we say, yes.
Or what about a man who, you know, to make it a little bit less now?
So, not so much laying down the life in the physical, literal sense, but what about when a man opens a door for a woman or just prefers a woman that she goes in first?
Or what about the sentiment on the Titanic?
You're a single man, you're there, no relative is there with you, you know, and then, you know, all of a sudden the ship is going down and they say, you know, women and children first.
Is women and children, is it just my wife and my children first?
Or is it women and children in a general sense of civilization, society as a whole?
Whole first.
And I would argue that that's a good sentiment, whether it's opening the door or whether it's women and children first, you know, at a meal, you know, like, you know, our church has potlucks, you know, and often it's the women and the children that go first and the men go last.
We used to have that as a society and we call that chivalry.
Here's what I added to that that got me into trouble I said that I do think that that same principle, it's taking what is explicit in scripture, but then deriving from it a general principle that ripples out.
And so it's not necessarily as potent.
The further ripples go out, the less.
Potent they are.
So it's not held to the same level or same degree, but the principle still is there.
It still remains intact, although it's maybe applied a little bit more loosely or to a lower degree.
But the principle of chivalry is central on a husband towards his wife and a father towards his children, but then extends out to his neighbors and society, and that a man is called to sacrificially love others at the cost of himself with provision and protection.
And what I argued was I said that I think that the same thing exists.
That same kind of principle in the opposite direction for women.
I think that there is, and in times past, in godly societies, was, and by God's grace, can be again, or at least should be, the female equivalent to being chivalrous, to chivalry.
And what I mean by that is that a woman, just like a man, is called to be willing to lay down his life for his bride.
But if the Titanic's going down and you're not married, so you have no bride on the ship, there's still a sense of women and children first.
On the counter side, for a woman, a woman is called to submit to her husband.
But a general sense of deference practiced by women in a society at large towards men in general, even those men who are not specifically your husband or specifically your father, but just to say in general, as a woman, I recognize my God given station in life and I'm not going to seek to usurp or domineer over the men in the society, not just those men that I happen to be married to, my particular husband.
Or I happen to be the daughter of my particular father, but even those men that I have no familial relationship to, but still just in a general sense, the men of society, I'm going to practice deference.
In the same way that the men in the society would be willing to practice a general sense of sacrifice of themselves for all women, not just their wife, but for all women, so too women in society, a general sense of deference towards the men in society.
I'm not going to try to lead you, I'm not going to lord.
Things over you.
I'm not going to longhouse you.
I'm not going to school marm you.
I'm not going to scold you.
I'm not going to try to exercise authority over you.
And not just in the church, aka women not being elders and not preaching, but even in society at large.
I believe, I believe, Isaiah says this explicitly that it is a judgment of God.
It's not something to boast in, it's not something to be proud of.
It is a judgment for a nation to be ruled by women.
It's a judgment.
And so for women to say, I know my place, and that doesn't mean that I don't have any voice at all.
I have the ear of my father.
I have the ear of my husband.
The men are the ones who are sitting in the city gates.
That's where they would rule and make determinations for the village, for the town.
They're sitting in those chief seats of making determinations and ruling and determining what's going to happen.
They're also the defenders.
The city gates are part of the city wall so they could see if there's any threat that's looming or coming.
The woman, Proverbs 31 and other places, praises her husband in the city gates.
She's not sitting in the chief seats making the determinations and ruling.
But she still has a voice there, but it's a voice in relation, it's through the agency of her husband in the formal position that he holds.
There have been powerful women throughout history, biblical history, also human history and church history, but the most righteous of women who exercise that power, except for in rare occasions, like a Deborah situation, when it was actually God's indictment towards the men of Israel, saying, You are so pathetic, I'm going to use a woman, not because it's my natural design, but as a judgment.
To you, right?
I mean, that's what Deborah says to Barak, you know, when he's like, Will you come with us into battle?
And she's like, Yeah, but the history books are going to say that the glory went to a woman.
And she's saying that as an insult to him.
And so there are some rare occasions like that.
But the normative principle throughout healthy societies is not that women are voiceless, but that the voice of a woman, a wise woman, is through the ear of her husband, through the ear of it.
So there have been queens that have wielded immense power.
Immense power through influence, and what made them so powerful?
Um, it's not that they were the formal ruler, but it's the fact that their proximity to the king, right?
You think of Esther, Esther had insane power.
That's what Mordecai, you know, her uncle goes to her and says, You know, if if you don't do something now, I get that you're scared, but you got to do something, and if you don't do something now, salvation will still come for the people of God, but it'll come from someone else, and you and your house will be forgotten.
He's not saying it because Ezra or Esther, rather.
Actually, she has the formal authority to be able to do something about this impending threat that's coming from Haman towards the people of God.
He knows that she doesn't have any power, and that's her excuse that she gives.
That's her counter.
She says, Mordecai, you don't get it.
And he's like, I get it.
And she's like, You don't get it.
I don't have any power at all.
I haven't even seen the king for this many days.
He hasn't even called on me.
And in fact, even though I'm his bride, I'm the queen, I'm not even allowed to go into his proximity without being summoned by him.
Unless it's at the threat of my life, you know, and, but, but what Mordecai got, what he understood, and he was right, is he was like, I think you're selling yourself short.
In terms of the formal positions and titles and labels of authority, you're right.
You got nothing.
You got nothing.
You're, you're a chick, you know, God bless you, you know, but like that's, that's your, your role is not an authoritative role, not formally.
However, what you are radically underestimating is the informal power and persuasion and influence of, The wife of a king, the queen.
And you actually can turn the tide of history, not formally by wielding the scepter yourself, but by virtue of your proximity to the one who does.
And so, my point is, I think, you know, that quote from Calvin, it just makes me think of chivalry in the general.
So, not just a man and his duties and roles corresponding to his wife in the particular, but also from that stems out the more general ripples.
Of his duty to society and those women who are not his wife.
There's still a general sense of women and children first, not just the woman I happen to be married to.
And I do think that you can make a biblical argument from principle, deriving principles, an implicit argument that there is a female equivalency of chivalry, or at least that there should be, and that in healthy societies throughout history, there has been, where the woman uniquely and directly submits to her husband.
She doesn't directly submit to all men, but there is a general deference, a spirit of general submission afforded to all men, even those who are not her father or husband, while there's a direct And more formal, higher degree of submission to the man who actually is her husband.
Supporting the Ministry Series00:07:56
And I say all that to say it's not enough.
If we want to right the ship, it's not enough that we just don't have women preaching on the Lord's Day, that we just tell Beth more to go home, as glorious as that is.
And I appreciate it.
But it's not enough just to say women can't preach and they can't be elders and the man is the head of the home.
The nation is, in a sense, a home.
What is a nation other than an extended family, an extended household?
And And a nation that puts women in positions to rule over men, even outside the home in the church, but in politics, in government, in culture, even in industry and business, is a nation that is misordered.
It is usurping the roles and duties of men and women because it is neglecting and just directly disagreeing with the nature, the distinct differences in nature of men and women.
So that's all we got for you today.
I hope that you've been blessed by this episode.
And again, if you'd like to support this ministry, you can go to rightresponseministries.com forward slash donate.
We need your help.
There's a lot of people who do not like us, as I'm sure you're aware.
You may be one of them.
You may be hate watching right now, which is impressive because you've been hate watching for two hours straight.
So good on you.
Congratulations.
You gave 10% of the day.
Yeah, you gave 10% of the day to just out of spite, just watching.
Right Response Ministries.
But for those of you who are not hate watching and appreciate this ministry because we talk things that a lot of the church is not talking about, we need your help.
There are not a lot of ministries that are having these conversations, and therefore there are not a lot of people who are willing to support ministries like ours.
So if you're willing to give a donation, we greatly, greatly, greatly appreciate your generosity.
Again, you can go to rightresponseministries.com forward slash donate.
Also, I encourage you strongly to join our Patreon.
That's one way that you can support the ministry.
Financially, but it's also a way that you'll get a lot of tangible benefits that are extended to you.
Right now, we have a nine part series with myself and Pastor Andrew Isker on all things surrounding the topic, the hot topic of the day Israel.
How to think about modern Israel today, ethnically.
Are these really the same as the people of Abraham?
And nationally, covenantally, spiritually, all these different things.
How should we think about Israel?
Today, what does the Bible actually say about that?
The whole psyop of Judeo Christian Christianity and Christian values.
Nine episodes.
It's almost nine hours of content.
Each episode is about an hour in length with myself and Pastor Andrew Isker.
That is slowly dripping out to the public, but it'll take weeks or actually a couple of months for it to all come out.
But you can get every single episode right now.
They're available, all nine episodes ad free, exclusively for our Patreon members.
Go to patreon.com forward slash right response.
Patreon.com forward slash right response ministries.
And not only will you get the series with me and Pastor Isker, but you will also get that's a nine part series, you'll get a 10 part series, 10 hours of content that will not be released to the public for several months.
It'll start slow dripping out one episode per week in April and May and June.
So you'll have to wait almost six months to get all 10 of these episodes.
But it's a 10 part series on Christian nationalism and how to actually implement Christian nationalism.
So the theology, the political philosophy, the theological framework, and also the practical implementation.
And some of the hurdles that will have to be overcome for Christian nationalism, particularly in these United States of America.
It's with myself and Dr. Stephen Wolf, who wrote The Case for Christian Nationalism.
So we had him in the studio.
Same thing.
You can wait months for it to drip out one episode at a time, beginning in April, or you can get all 10 episodes available today, ad free, again, exclusively for our Patreon members.
Again, that's patreon.com forward slash right response ministries.
And the final thing I'll say, I'll be remiss if I don't mention it one final time.
April 3rd, 4th, and 5th.
Thursday, Friday, Saturday, April 3rd, 4th, and 5th.
We have our conference coming up.
It's Christ is King, How to Defeat Trash World.
We've got an all star lineup, a lot of guys, guys that we don't agree with on everything.
We're going to have multiple panels, and we'll probably see some of those debates.
We're going to have a formal debate between Dr. Stephen Wolf and Pastor David Reese on theonomy versus natural law.
And so we're going to actually have the debate.
Stephen Wolf defending natural law and David Reese being a Going against him in terms of natural law.
And so we're going to have that formal debate.
It'll be 90 minutes long.
Wes is going to be moderating that debate.
But we're also going to have other panels in addition to that with guys like Steve Dace and guys like Orrin McIntyre.
And you've got Dusty Devers, you've got Eric Kahn, Andrew Isker, and CJ Engel, and all these different guys, Adi Robith, John Harris.
And so we're super excited about this conference.
It's going to be, I believe, seven or eight main sessions and three panels.
One of those is a formal debate, the other one is where we're hashing it out.
We're trying to figure out.
How do we defeat the trash world?
What does the Bible say?
How does Christian nationalism actually work here in America?
Who can we actually be co belligerents with?
Who can we not?
Where do we draw the lines?
All these kinds of conversations are going to be happening.
And more than that, right?
Because you can eventually get the content online.
But more than that, it's the camaraderie, it's the brotherhood that we've been talking about in this episode, it's the chance to touch grass and get offline and be in flesh and blood with a thousand other people.
Who are like minded to be to get just that annual reminder that you're not crazy and perhaps even more importantly than that, that you're not alone.
It's to network and to make friendships.
Real friendships are made.
We've had weddings that have come out of our conference, not just friendships, but marriages.
And so we strongly encourage you to go to Right Response Conference.
So, not Right Response Ministries.
This one's different.
Rightresponseconference.com.
Rightresponseconference.com to register for the conference today.
And if you can't come because you're in New Zealand or Australia or whatever, first, I'm sorry.
May God bless you living in some of these police days.
In trash worlds.
Yeah, you're living in the heart of trash world.
But for those of you who just can't come for practical reasons because you're international or you live here, but you're across the country and you don't have the finances to be able to travel or to take off work, we get it.
And I just see point A. Let me divert you back to what I said earlier.
Our Patreon members.
Not only do you get the nine part series on Israel with Andrew Isker and the 10 part series on Christian nationalism with Stephen Wolfe, but you also will be able to live stream in real time.
You're going to be able to live stream every single piece of content, all seven or eight main sessions, all three panels.
As it's happening, you're going to be able to live stream the entirety of the conference.
And simply by being a Patreon member, you can get all the series the Israel series, the Christian nationalism series for, I think, our lowest tier, the silver tier, $5 a month.
But For the live stream of the conference, that is the gold tier, which I believe is $10 a month.
And I would encourage you to go ahead and not wait, but sign up and get ready now.
You can start enjoying the content from Isker and Wolf, and then you'll be ready in two and a half months.
It's not far away, two and a half months to be able to live stream the conference if you're not able to make it in person.