THE LIVESTREAM hosts argue that women's suffrage ruined America by empowering the poor to tax the rich, citing a 2002 study linking female voting to increased government spending. They claim the 19th Amendment stripped half of men's votes like monetary inflation and connect the movement to socialist ideologies, noting Elizabeth Cady Stanton blamed the Bible for hindering emancipation. The discussion promotes their April 2025 "Christ is King" conference while advocating for repealing the amendment to restore property-based voting rights and traditional gender roles modeled in the home. [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
History Unfolds God's Order00:02:33
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.
For decades, liberals have assured us that history only moves in one direction.
Toward so called progress.
They built their entire moral framework on the idea that the past was oppressive, the present is enlightened, and the future is an inevitable march toward egalitarian utopia.
But lately, reality has been catching up with their delusions.
Across the political spectrum, a once unthinkable idea has resurfaced the repeal of the 19th Amendment.
What was once the domain of obscure reactionary circles is now a Growing conversation in mainstream politics.
Even Project 2025, the policy blueprint that sent the left into a full blown panic, was accused of making this one of its long term goals.
Why?
Because history isn't just some endless progressive revolution, it is the unfolding of God's created order.
And that order, no matter how much they resist it, always reasserts itself.
We are witnessing the slow but certain return of nature.
The distinctions between men and women, once blurred by Marxist ideology and evangelical cowardice, are becoming undeniable once more.
Feminism is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.
And the left, which once mocked the idea of patriarchal governance, now finds itself terrified by the growing number of men and women that are rejecting their lies.
For over a century, the progressives, alongside their naive Christian allies, labored to erase the natural order, calling it justice, while dismantling the very structure that held civilization together.
But they were wrong.
The world was never meant to be built on their abstractions.
The past they despise is now returning.
Conference Registration Details00:07:01
And the real question is, who will have the courage to welcome it?
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 by going to patreon.com forward slash right response ministries, or you can donate by going to right response ministries.com forward slash donate.
Tune in now as we welcome the return to God's natural order.
All right, all right.
Welcome back.
Here we are.
It's a Monday afternoon.
For those of you who are new to the channel, a very merry GA.
Good afternoon.
We've got our very own Michael Belch.
He's an elder in our church, Covenant Bible Church.
By the way, if you're looking for a church, you live in the central Texas area.
We're about an hour north of Austin, Texas.
35 minutes.
I drive to the Capitol pretty frequently.
35 minutes, not far at all.
Cool.
Not far at all.
Far enough to keep the police from being defunded.
Right.
But close enough to where you could technically, you know.
Go to the Capitol.
You could go and work for Elon or Oracle or Apple or whatever.
So, anyways, if you're looking for a church, go to covenantbible.org.
Not Covenant Bible Church.
That domain was already taken.
That's the only reason we don't have it.
Covenantbible.org to check out the church.
So, we've got Michael Belch.
He's an elder in the church.
We've got Wesley Todd.
He's a faithful member in the church.
And myself.
And one quick couple of announcements, real quick, and then we'll hop into the episode.
So, if you're new to the channel, we live stream on Monday, Wednesday, Friday at 3 p.m. Central Time.
Monday, Wednesday, Friday, three times a week at 3 p.m. Central Time.
We also have the Friday Special.
Right now, it's a series with myself and Pastor Andrew Isker on the subject of Israel.
How should we view modern day Jews today?
Are these the people that are being addressed in the Bible?
Are there any lasting future promises for them, physical or spiritual?
All those things.
It's a nine part series.
It's dropping weekly every Friday at 8 p.m. Central.
We call that the Friday Special, a deep dive, multiple part series.
It's a nine part series with myself and Isker.
And Q2, starting in April for the Friday special, it's going to be myself and Dr. Stephen Wolf on all things Christian nationalism.
So there's a lot of great things happening.
All that said, the next cool thing that's coming up pretty quick is about six weeks from now, we have our conference.
We've titled it Christ is King.
The subtitle is How to Defeat Trash World.
So we have the Christ is King conference.
It's happening April 3rd, 4th, and 5th, the year of our Lord 2025.
It's a Thursday, Friday, and a Saturday.
You'll see a commercial in this episode just a little later on that'll tell you all.
The speakers, but there's two important events, sub events at this conference that I want to go ahead and put on your radar.
We want you to be able to sign up now.
So, one of them is we are officially having a singles mixer, and it's not just going to be organic where you're just kind of walking around hoping to have a conversation, but it's going to be really intentional and designed and organized.
And so, we have somebody on our right response team that's going to be heading up that event that's happening during the conference, kind of like a speed dating scenario where you're getting.
A woman and a man getting to talk to each other for a couple minutes and then going down.
We're going to have tables lined up in a separate room.
And hopefully, relationships will come out of this by God's grace.
I've already got to officiate one wedding of two individuals that met themselves at one of our previous conferences.
And I'm hoping that this year, by the grace of God, I'm hoping that 10 marriages would come out of this conference.
Now, what we're lacking is we've put a cap on it.
We can't accommodate everyone.
So we're going to have 20 guys and 20 gals.
We are full on the guys, but we are lacking on the gals.
We believe by the grace of God they're out there.
Ecclesiastes sometimes discourages me a little bit where it says, you know, I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one woman among them all.
But I believe that maybe there's, you know, a particular context to that and that it's not for all places at all times.
There are godly women.
I believe it.
They're in our church.
I pastor them.
It's a privilege.
So if you're a godly single lady and you would like to come to the conference and register for this singles event, I think currently we have about 10 gals and we're full already with 20 guys.
So we need 10 more single godly women.
Who wants to come to this conference and participate in the singles event?
What you would do if you're one of those women is you go to our conference website, so not rightresponseministries.com, but go to rightresponsaconference.com.
Again, that's rightresponsaconference.com and go ahead and scroll down past the registration for the conference and you will find the singles event and go ahead and register today.
Second thing with the conference is that we also officially people have asked, some people asked being, I think, strategic and shrewd.
It's perfectly ethical and fine, but They're saying, hey, look, I'm a business owner.
I want to come to the conference and I'm going to come either way, but I would love to be able to write it off ethically, legitimately, as a business expense.
And is there any kind of official business type content?
And so what we're doing is we have decided officially just now that we decided 15 seconds ago that we're going to have a business networking lunch.
And so we're going to cater lunch.
And so we're not trying to charge an arm and a leg, but we do want to at least cover.
Lunch plus the delivery and the tip and the tax and stuff like that.
So, we're going to charge 25 bucks.
Okay, so for $25, same thing, go to rightresponseconference.com, scroll down, you'll see where you can register for the singles event.
You'll also see where you can register for the business networking lunch.
Business networking lunch.
Registered for the conference.
Yes, for both of these, if you want to come to the singles event, you do need to be registered for the conference.
If you want to come to the business networking lunch, you need to be registered for the conference.
So, these are sub events within the larger event of the conference.
So, it's not just open to the public.
It's for our conference attendees.
So, register for the conference at rightresponseconference.com and then scroll down on that same website, same page, and register for the singles event if you're a godly single gal and register for the business networking lunch.
That's going to cost you 25 bucks.
It's just to cover the food.
And we'll organize, put a little bit of organization on that, and I'll be a part of that event as well.
So, I'll be there for the business networking lunch, and I would love to meet every single one of you.
And even talk about ways that maybe if you're interested, you don't have to.
The main thing is for you to network with each other.
But if you're interested, how you could also network with Right Response, and that maybe we could try to give a little bit of visibility to your business.
We would love to see Christian business owners thrive.
Okay, that's all of our talking shop, covering the bases.
Networking Christian Business Owners00:15:05
And we are ready for today's episode.
Michael Belch, this is yours.
You outlined it, that cold open.
I just got to brag on Michael and Wesley and Nathan.
So I. My job's fairly easy in this regard.
I sit my butt down in this leather chair, and Nathan puts something on the teleprompter, and it usually takes a couple tries because, like Ron Burgundy, he will read anything that's on that teleprompter.
So, if there's a misplaced comma or something, then I mess it up.
But what happens is that Michael and Wes alternate writing the show, and included in that task is writing a cold open, an introductory framing of the episode.
And so then I pre record that, put it on the teleprompter and read it.
And then Nathan, to brag on him for a moment, he's our tech director.
He then takes that and adds music and B roll and all these kinds of things.
And that's impressive to do in any podcast context.
Like New Christendom does great cold opens.
And I'm always impressed.
Oh, yeah.
But to brag on right response a little bit, just for a moment, it's one thing to do an incredible 20 minute long cold open.
Nobody should disparage that.
That's amazing.
But it's another thing to do it the day of three times a week.
Right.
Not every two weeks.
This is for a live stream.
Exactly.
Because we're live streaming.
So this is literally the day of that morning.
You guys are writing it, getting it to Nathan, who records it with me real quick.
And then he's doing all the music, sound editing, and B roll for anywhere from three to five minute long cold open.
And he's doing it three times a week in addition to all his other responsibilities for a video that's going to be live that afternoon.
Really impressive.
So, way to go, Nathan.
Way to go.
All right.
So, this is Michael's episode.
Lead us off.
I would love to jump into the episode, but Joel, we've had some.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Some super chats that we need.
Oh, we have.
Okay, let's do it.
Hit.
So, Nathan, let's go back up to, yeah, a bunch here.
So, we've got some Siege D super chat.
Thank you very much, Siege D.
Yes.
And shout out to the Angry Feminists.
Amen.
Granddad Farms, super chat, $49.99.
Thank you very much, Granddad Farms.
Very generous.
Whoa.
Super awesome.
That's a family.
I've talked to them before on X. Wonderful supporters, wonderful people.
Thank you so much for that.
$50.
Guys, seriously, that means the world.
That's really generous.
And we will put that money.
To noble work.
Everything that you give, just for the record, everything that you give is going towards a nonprofit Christian ministry that is our whole objective to resource Christians, not just within the ecclesiastical, you know, the church institute, but in every single realm of society and life to push for the crown rights of King Jesus.
So thank you so much, Granddad Farms.
Okay.
So he said Idaho is on board with repealing the 20th century, if not longer.
Appreciate you, gentlemen.
Same to you, Granddad Farms.
Idaho, the House put out a resolution.
Asking the Supreme Court to revisit Obergefell versus Hotness, which would be the gay marriage ruling.
So the House came out and said, Hey, I saw that.
Why don't you redo this one?
So I'm leading the way.
Dude, all right.
We gave a lot of credit to Grandad Farms, but this one, okay.
So this is Ben Huffstedler.
I think so.
Yeah.
Okay.
Ben Huffstedler.
He gave us a $100 super chat.
God bless.
See, all you have to do is do an episode.
The people, it's a, I'm telling you, it is a crowd pleaser, right?
When you think of what gets the people going.
Right, what is so well, such a centrist, moderate position, well within the bounds of the Overton window, like beloved, a position that's just beloved by all?
Repeal the 19th Amendment, the people love it.
The super chats begin to flow.
Right, if you we need it, we need the support.
If you are a 19th Amendment repealing fan, super chat, get it in, you can do it.
God bless.
Uh, so this is from Ben.
Huffsteadler, $100 super chat.
Incredibly generous.
Thank you.
He says, Wes, could you read it?
Said this Let's go, guys.
Appreciate you all.
Always watching.
How do you suggest talking to the new age Christian, if it's unquote, Christian male regarding a proper Christian woman?
Conduct, head covering, submission, et cetera.
Side note, still waiting on the Emojo music single to drop.
Hashtag pick color for life.
Oh, piccolo.
Yeah.
Because I sound like I would play piccolo at the conference.
I'll be honest.
So, really great chance that that does not happen.
But I will keep it in the back of my mind.
We'll hit this question at the end because Michael's got a lot of material.
Yeah, that takes more time.
But we so appreciate your generosity and we will hit it.
Michael, can you hit those last two?
Yeah.
So this is from Bo Cannington.
Good to see you again, Bo.
Thank you.
And thank you again for your generosity.
Just supporting your ministries.
Keep it up.
God bless you.
You too, Bo.
Thank you very much.
And Cole Billiatt, Super Chat 499, says Cole from Politica Christiana here.
Can y'all speak to the relationship with Prohibition and the 19th Amendment?
Yeah.
Dr. Yeah, we might touch on that some.
Good connection, though.
The problem with feminism in the early 19th century is it was touching everything.
Everything, yeah.
And that page, Politico Christiana, that's an Instagram page.
She puts tons of great stuff from the founding fathers, actually, a lot of American history.
Cool.
So go check them out.
Politica with an A, Christiana on Instagram.
On Instagram.
Okay.
Yep.
And Christianity Unplugged, thank you very much for the $5.
Repeal the 19th.
Amen.
Well, we're going to get into that.
It's not quite so simple, actually, unfortunately, but we'll be getting to that as we go.
The funny thing, Joel, is that you mentioned we are hitting this, and you were speaking sarcastically, this middle of the road milquetoast position.
And of course, the implication is that base people actually don't want the middle of the road milquetoast position.
Milk toast position.
They want what's biblical and natural and historical.
However, this issue of repealing the 19th Amendment is quickly becoming milk toast.
It is.
More.
And I remember when I first heard this question, it was kind of like when I heard the idea that the argument that the abolitionists of abortion argue for.
It took me a minute and then I thought, yeah, it should be illegal in all cases, right?
When I heard about repealing the 19th Amendment, I kind of thought for a little bit and I thought, actually, yeah, this seems logical.
But at the time, I remember when I heard that, that was like the most fringe thing I can imagine.
And I remember my brother and my brother in law and I had a conversation.
It was kind of in hushed tones.
It was like, What do you think?
I was like, Well, what do you think?
And we all agreed.
And now it's so mainstream that places like Kim Poole, Pearl Davis, it's on Twitter.
I addressed it with Joshua Haymes, who has a podcast.
He's a good Christian guy.
And he asked me in an interview when he was just starting podcasting, And I think I could be wrong, but Nathan, it was.
I was at a conference, and I think it was 2019.
No, this was like 2022, 2023.
Oh, yeah, no, you're right.
I'm sorry.
That's way too early.
2022.
I think it was 2022, like October.
Okay, 23.
Okay, so 23 then.
So this is like fall of 2023.
Yeah.
So we are what we're coming up a year and a half.
Yeah.
Year and a half.
So that just gives it the reason why it matters is I got.
I remember it went viral.
I got tons of death threats, and I guess that could happen today.
Probably will.
We've got what?
Like, we've got.
No, probably won't, honestly, because you've got two different categories of the insufferable hate watchers.
You've got the true, like, leftist, progressive, unbelievers who hate Christ, hate the church, hate Christianity.
And they're the ones who would probably make it go viral, you know, and clip you out like your right wing watch.
Yep.
But these days, Our much more devoted hate watchers are effeminate Christians who have nothing better to do but comb through eight hours of content weekly and try to clip anything they can to destroy our ministry because they're mad about something.
So, anyway, so those guys, I don't think actually, because I think those guys, as much as they hate us, actually agree on repealing the 19th.
They can see where we're coming from.
They see where we're coming from.
Yeah, so we probably won't go viral.
But the point is, we did go viral a year and a half ago, not that long ago.
And all that is to substantiate Michael's point that, I mean, we are talking about the Overton window shifting at the speed of light.
So, an interesting case study about this is a man who ran for and actually won a U.S. representative seat in the state of Michigan.
And when he was in college, he went to Stanford in 2000.
He started a think tank, it was just kind of a local campus network.
And he wrote a paper on that think tank website that completely called for the total abandonment and appeal of the 19th Amendment.
And in it, he's based.
He says, you know, women are not fit by God for political rule.
And he went through all the things that we talked about last Friday on our episode.
And then he ran for election in 2020 or 2022.
And all of this resurfaced.
And actually, he backpedaled significantly, but it still came out.
CNN headed out.
They had it all over their headlines for his election cycle, his campaign tried to kind of help him weasel out of it by saying, well, he was in college.
He doesn't hold the position anymore.
Nevertheless, he still beat the Republican incumbent, even with that in his past and blasted all over the headlines, which I take as an interesting case study of where we are now.
He could not publicly totally endorse it, but he had that in his past.
And the things that he said were unbelievably based.
They were not just what a lot of people talk about, where they say, well, it's because men still get drafted.
So we either have to draft women or we have to get rid of the 19th Amendment.
Now, his was.
Nature and God's design.
I mean, it was full on patriarchal.
Good for him.
He still won his representative seat and Trump endorsed him, which I think is, you know, an interesting commentary on the times that we live and the direction that the Overton window is still pushing right now.
I grew up like just conservative, Republican all the way.
Never in all my time growing up until my mid to late 20s did I ever hear that idea.
Nobody talked in those categories at any platform, at any level, in any popular discourse whatsoever.
I never even thought about repealing the 19th until probably about 2020, and then publicly said it in 2022, and then with Joshua Hames in 2023.
And now I'm like, oh, yeah, that's one of my more tame positions.
So our goal, this episode is not to retread everything that we did on Friday, but I do just want to, in case you're just catching this for the first time, it's important to point out that the arguments that we're making, and really the best arguments against something like the 19th amendment is not simply equality and it's not fair that women don't get drafted.
That's not the argument that we're making.
We're making a patriarchal argument from creation, from the Bible and even from Christian tradition um, over over centuries and millennia um, and and that's not like, like I said, we're not going to go through all of that right now um, but it's interesting to me that um, That this has been the dominant approach for Christian civilization for pretty much since the beginning.
There's been no Christian civilization that has ever put women forward voluntarily into the public sphere in this way.
What's interesting to me also is that this actually is a question that has been discussed in America's history a lot, even from the very beginning.
Even from the very beginning, there were questions about, well, we're starting something new.
Should women be allowed to vote?
And Wes and I were chatting before this about how.
Whether the church is leading or not, the church always affects culture.
And one of the reasons why, when the Constitution was being debated and even leading up to it and after the time it was ratified, there were already questions about whether or not women should be voting and participating in public life.
And part of it was the Quaker church polity, which allowed men and women to speak in services.
And so, because they had that position, they were saying, well, this has to flow outward into the political and public sphere as well.
And so, From the beginning, actually, there were calls that women ought to be given the vote.
And John Adams, I'm going to read a quote from John Adams.
He reacted very, very strongly against this.
So we'll take that first quote from Adams.
He said, this is a, yeah, why exclude women?
Because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience in the great business of life and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state.
Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children that nature has made them the fittest for domestic cares, and children have not judgment or will of their own.
Depend upon it, sir, this is in a letter.
It is dangerous to open such a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to change the qualifications of voters.
Listen to this.
He says, we can't go tampering with this.
He says, there will be no end of it.
New claims will arise.
When will we demand a vote?
Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to.
And every man who has not a dime will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state.
It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions and surrender all ranks to one common level.
You want to talk about prophetic and you want to talk about a man who understood what's what.
That's an incredible quote.
John Adams.
This is the same, very same John Adams who says the Constitution is only fit for religious and moral people, wholly unfit for any other.
Good grief.
The guy.
The early centuries of America, it was white, free, property owning men that could vote.
That's just who voted.
So we had a democracy, and they saw that as good because they.
We were coming out of a monarchy and a tyranny of a king that could abandon and say, I'm not going to protect you.
I'm not going to do trade with you.
I'm going to let parliament levy taxes.
So, coming out of a monarchy, they come to a democracy.
Voting Rights Evolution00:15:14
And there were a good number of men that had a stake in the future that were free, they weren't slaves, that they could vote.
And those people did decide and passed bonds and chose their delegates.
So, the House of Representatives, the Senate, like that's how it worked.
And for the most part, it was over 21, land owning.
And at that point, if you own land, it meant you had an education, it meant you had a stake.
The other thing was that the men who fought in the Revolutionary War, the War for Independence, I mean, when you read their documents, they said, We pledge our lives, our honor, and our sacred honor and fortunes to this endeavor.
I mean, there was a sense where they really were all in it together.
They had put everything on the line, and it was fitting to have a society where men of that caliber and that commitment had a say in what was going to go on after the war.
Right.
Having people, I think we said this on Friday in our episode, but having people who it's.
They had a stake when it comes to the past.
Fathers, I've said it before like, honor towards your fathers in the past and hope for your sons in the future.
So you're looking in both directions with the corridors of time that you're saying, I have a stake in this place.
It's my home.
It's not just a set of propositions or an economic zone, but it's my country.
These are my kinsmen.
It is my home.
And I can trace that back in terms of heritage, fathers looking back, and I actually have posterity.
I have a stake not only in the country's past, in its history, but in its future.
I actually am raising the next generation that will then, Lord willing, raise the next generation.
And then the free aspect, you know, like in terms of like a general equity type principle of application, I would look at that and say, you know, today, like we don't have.
We don't have slavery.
We do.
We have plenty of slaves, you know, but we don't have slavery like we once did.
It's changed the nature of it.
But I would still look at the same principle.
So, I would say that if you are dependent on the state, which means ultimately the state produces nothing, therefore the state doesn't have money, right?
The United States government doesn't have money.
All it has is your money.
That's all it has is your money.
So, when you're receiving state handouts, what you're receiving is the taxes of your fellow citizens.
You're taking somebody else's money, your neighbor's money.
And I would just say that if If you're on welfare, I would like to see welfare abolished.
Now, I'd like to see it done humanely, and I recognize that it would probably take, there would be a process involved.
It would take time.
But I would like to see welfare abolished because I do believe it goes against the scripture.
That said, though, in the meantime, you would think that at minimum, yeah, if you're not paying taxes, and instead, not only are you not paying taxes, but you're actually receiving taxes from others, then no, you know.
You don't get an equal voice to someone who is paying for your food and your rent.
And of course, of course not.
Aristotle called that out with like the rich and the poor.
He said, You got to be very careful.
So, like in the Athenian states, for instance, it was men that were free and often they had to have military service.
But the point with the rich and the poor is like, if you make suffrage universal and you give it to all, the poor will be greater in number.
That's how resources are distributed.
And they're going to demand of the rich.
So, policies and candidates that want to say, Well, we distribute wealth, we'll give free handouts.
And you give all of the poor, all of the slaves, and you add women into that too, you'll have a mass of 80% of people that want the stuff that the rich have.
And so, all of these states from Athens, from Rome, and others, if there was voting, it was very carefully guarded.
You had to be the son of a citizen, you had to own property, you had to have some of them even the time to do it.
So, if that had to be your profession, was to vote, you had to have military service, you had to be all in, ties to it.
And so, in that way, you didn't have masses of people with little to their name voting to take it from the rich.
Well said.
And the reason why we're mentioning this right here at the outset is because, yeah, we are not 19th Amendment respecters.
But beyond that, to be a little bit, to not just pick on women having the vote, we really, what we despise is universal suffrage.
It's not just the 19th Amendment, but altogether.
And here's the funny thing pretty much every red blooded American, right?
Whether you're white, black, male, female, pretty much everyone disagrees with universal suffrage.
And what I mean by that is nobody thinks that two year olds should be voting.
Yep.
Right.
Right.
So everybody at some point, it's kind of like the argument like everybody's a cessationist at some point, right?
Like nobody thinks that we have apostles of Christ who are eyewitness, you know, eyewitness, you know, people to the, you know, the, uh, to Jesus Christ himself, to the resurrected Christ, and are being commissioned by him for writing new books of the Bible to be added to the canon today, right?
So like no matter where you land on that theological issue of, you know, continuationism, cessationism, everybody is a cessationist at some level.
And to be fair, everyone's a continuationist.
To some level, because we still think there are certain spiritual gifts like mercy, helps, administration, teaching that still existed.
So, everybody believes in some part something's continued, and also to some part something's ceased.
So, the question is simply at that point a matter of degree.
It's a question of the matter of degree.
Nobody believes in boundless universal suffrage.
We all agree that there are certain elements and certain sectors of the populace, whether you limit to children or on the other end, it's like if somebody has dementia.
Right?
If somebody is.
Felons.
You know, and this is strictly hypothetical.
I would never stoop so low to give it.
But if somebody has dementia and doesn't know where they are, they shouldn't be able to vote, much less be the president of the United States.
That's just so, whether it's the very elderly, we love the elderly, but those who literally are starting to, their mind is beginning to degrade, or the child, everybody, I think, just about with common sense agrees yeah, voting shouldn't be everyone.
And not only that, but this has been, Wes, like you said, this has been kind of a no duh for most of history.
Nate, let's show quote number two.
This is from a political writer and thinker named Michael Walsh.
And he says this In no previous historical iteration of either a republic or democracy was universal suffrage allowed or even contemplated.
The Greeks and the Romans had a quaint notion that only productive male citizens, especially those who put their lives, honor, and sacred fortunes, there's the line again, on the line for their city, nation state, or empire, and And who bought their own weapons and armor, by the way, could earn the right to vote.
There was some sense where it was passed down through citizenship, but then also there was, as Wes said, sometimes provisions for men who fought and wore.
They could earn citizenship if they've survived long enough to come back to Rome and kind of be not commissioned, like not necessarily the same thing, but kind of commissioned as an officer would be kind of a similar way of thinking about it now, or being a veteran who returned in good standing, that sort of thing.
So this has been.
This has been kind of normal human thinking about this topic.
And Wes and I were talking, both Wes and I moved to Texas.
And Wes, it would be good for you to share the comment that you said about voting in Texas elections.
Yeah, so it's very easy, you know, for three white men that are, you know, property owning, have children, members of Protestant churches.
I was adopted.
I don't know my birth father.
As far as we know, who are you calling white?
You could be an albino.
Yeah, who knows?
Joel can't vote.
So it's very easy for three of us to sit here and say, like, well, universal suffrage is a farce.
Which of course it is.
But here's the deal I'll take Texas for an example.
I didn't grow up here.
I didn't even grow up in the South.
I grew up in the North, in Pennsylvania, in New York, moved to Texas a couple of years ago.
I should not be allowed to vote here.
I don't have a connection to this land.
Like my children, maybe even my grandchildren, yes, they should have the right to if they stay here and they put down roots.
But if tomorrow morning a decree went out, you have to have three generations of continuous living, productive employment, living according to law, no felonies, ownership, membership in a church.
If that's required, And I would lose my right to vote in Texas and never be able to gain it in the rest of my life, I would be perfectly fine with that.
I would sleep.
I would be happy to not have to go.
You would be stoked.
You'd be like, I can't vote.
Yes, I can.
I don't have to go to the municipality now once every two years and look at a bunch of names and be like, gosh, these all sound terrible.
I'd be fine with that.
Right.
And you would know that those who could vote by those just laws, those who could vote in your state where you're raising your children, would be the most informed, responsible, moral, upright voters that you could possibly have.
You would know that you couldn't vote, but the state of Texas would only improve.
Exactly.
Yep.
So it's great.
I think I have good ideas and make good choices on bonds, that this or the other, but I could recognize, even though I, in the macro, in the individual, I think would be a very capable voter, by God's grace, I can recognize if that was taken away for even more capable, those who maybe voted more reliably as a whole, and I'm not part of that group because of children or ownership or heritage or whatever, be perfectly fine with that.
So if you're here, like, I don't like that idea of taking that right away.
Who cares?
You go vote every two years, you don't have something in your calendar now.
Yeah, the question is not about what about my rights.
The question is, what is going to be good, number one, for the glory of God and according to his word?
Number two, what is going to be good for our country and the future of our country?
My children, my posterity.
Not just, well, what about my independent, atomistic, you know, individual right?
No, like voting, to be frank, just like universal income is not a right, universal health care is not a right.
Right?
There are, what is it?
Active rights and passive rights?
Is that the delineation?
So there are certain rights like life.
Natural rights, we've talked about.
Yeah, natural rights that are God given, inalienable rights that every single human being has.
The individual actually has.
You have a right to self defense, right?
You have a right to not just be plowed over and exploited by the judicial system and the law and those kinds of things.
So it's the right to defend yourself in court and those kinds of things.
The right to true religious worship.
But you don't have a right, and gosh, I'm going to sound like just a.
Normally conservative, but these things are true.
But you don't have a right to other people's labor, right?
So, when it comes to a right to healthcare, what you're saying is that somebody else who spent their life acquiring the skills and the knowledge to be a healthcare professional, a doctor, that he somehow has a moral obligation under the law to devote toward you a certain portion of his time, his energy, and his resources, that he owes it to you.
So, what you're essentially doing is you're taking every healthcare.
A professional and no longer treating them as a professional, but enslaving an entire class of people based off of their profession.
Because you chose to go into the field of healthcare, we have now determined that all of you are slaves.
How'd you get there, Joel?
What's the correlation?
Because they don't any longer have ownership over their own time and labor and skills.
The government must provide them to you.
The government must provide them to you.
So, all that being said, there are certain rights that are inalienable, like the right to life and self defense and these things.
And then there are other rights that when you say this is my right, what you're really doing is you're infringing upon someone else's rights.
You're saying you don't have a right to your labor or you don't have a right to your money, right?
Because of welfare.
I have a right to the money that you have acquired by your work.
100% of your income.
And it's the same with voting.
Not exactly the same, but voting is not an inalienable right.
There are distinctions, but it is not an inalienable right like the right to self defense.
If it was, then anyone who lives in a monarchy is somehow.
Right.
Well, then you would have to.
You sinned against.
And some Christians do this, sadly.
So I understand why people might be confused about this.
And when I say some Christians, I mean 90% of them.
But some people would go so far as to say it's not just that equal weights and measures and just laws are prescribed in the Decalogue and summary law, moral law, and also through the general equity of the civil codes.
But not just that, but forms of government are explicitly prescribed in scripture.
So that a constitutional republic is the only.
The only moral system of government and monarchy is not just a different system, it's not just different, it's immoral, it's sin.
It's actually sin.
I know guys who would go that far.
Now, I disagree.
That said, I do think that a constitutional republic is ideal if you have a society that's fit for that.
But that requires, we always forget our constitutional republic that we used to have, we now pretend we have it, but what we used to have, it didn't just spring up out of the ether one day.
It came out of a thousand years of Christendom, or at that point, about 700 years of Christendom.
And what was the common form of government for that 700 years of Christendom?
Monarchy.
So, monarchy was the shoulders, it was the giant shoulders that a constitutional republic eventually stood upon.
So, after the populace, a people being shaped by Christian ideals from a Christian monarch for seven centuries, then the people were ready.
Then they were ready for self-hard rule of law, too.
That's right.
Crushing public execution, cutting out 10, 20, 15%, whatever, of the populace, the deviants, the violent, for centuries and generations.
Once you culled all of that, Had a monarchy instructed for centuries in Christianity.
That was about the point where men that owned property that were Vanglo Saxon citizens.
Then you were ready for self representative government, but even then, it still wasn't universal.
It still wasn't for everyone.
It was for every household, every free, tax paying, law abiding household.
And even in that case, each household had one representative namely, the head of household, the father, husband.
So, we just forget all of these things.
You don't know.
The universal right to voting is not a thing.
It's like, well, that's what the Bible teaches.
What Bible?
Maybe the Schofield Bible.
I was about to say the post World War II Bible.
Women's Suffrage Impact00:16:02
All right, we're going to hit our first commercial break.
When we come back, we're going to be talking about some of the roots behind the push for women to gain the right to vote.
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 La Torrante'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 and not to have their consciences ruled by the doctrines and commandments of men.
Reese Fund exists in order to see the Ten Commandments properly applied, not just as a plaque on the wall, but to actually be used in business as though they're commandments from God that we're supposed to obey.
Our goal is to find businesses and to buy them and to build them up.
We want to find manufacturing businesses and use them to make sure that we can maintain our capacity to do things here.
Reese Fund, Christian Capital, boldly deployed.
All right, welcome back.
We want to transition now into talking a little bit about some of the roots of the movement that pushed for women to have the right to vote.
Honestly, this is a fascinating historical time period, and there were a lot and a lot of moving parts.
And so, we're not going to do it justice here.
I found it super interesting as I researched and as I've researched in the past, like just from a purely conceptual idea, like what was going on.
Again, I'm more and more convinced that we need to take hope in the fact that even when we look now back at the beginning of America and we say, oh, they had everything right.
It was so stable.
It was so solid.
And it was.
And they had a lot more right than we do now.
But even then, there were always moving parts, always moving pieces.
And that should give us encouragement because we live in a time with a lot of moving parts and a lot of moving pieces.
And all it takes, while it's, Joel, you're famous for saying this, it's not easy, but it's simple.
All it takes is for us to be wise and courageous and to live in the time that God has put us in and to act accordingly.
Right.
So it's not complicated, but it is hard.
Yep.
You know, or it's not easy, but it is simple.
Yep.
Yep.
I found it really encouraging.
I'm sorry, Michael.
Yesterday, you said like it's 80 years that things typically happen.
So the Revolutionary War, 1776.
1780 to the Civil War.
Yep.
Civil War then to World War II.
And we are on the cusp of a generation that is, things are changing quickly.
The American Caesar.
Yep.
American Caesar.
He's coming back.
Baron Trump.
He's coming.
We took two L's and now we're going to take the W. Yep.
There we go.
Yeah.
Seriously.
Good.
So there was a, I mentioned already the Quaker influence in this, but there was a very deep spiritual movement going on underneath the push for women's equality in the vote.
And what's, Really interesting is the way that in the first wave of feminism, as they were pushing for, and by the way, they were pushing for a lot.
It was a whole movement.
They were pushing for temperance.
That's true.
They were pushing for universal suffrage.
They were pushing for many, many other public policies rather than just the right for women to vote.
They were pushing for divorce laws.
They were pushing for all sorts of things.
But underneath it all.
They were pushing against head coverings in church.
Absolutely.
That was a big one.
Yep.
That's absolutely right.
Underneath it all was a sense of.
They would not have articulated it like we do now of the divine feminine, but there was a sense of spiritual empowerment for women as well.
And the movement, for being in a Christian time, was incredibly anti Christian.
Like no one could come out and say, we hate Christianity, we want to do away with all of it.
That just would not have been viable.
But even people that are now regarded as heroines in history, people like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, she said this about the movement.
So, Nate, this is the third quote.
She said, the Bible and the church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's emancipation.
And so, in a very real sense, the Bible still is.
The church is not.
We used to have two safeguards against, but now we only have one, sadly.
The church is pathetic.
And I'll throw this in here too.
Jewish women were a big part of the women's suffrage movement.
They were involved, they organized, they rallied, they funded.
No.
And you're.
Believe it or not, Jewish women were a part of this movement.
I can't believe it.
But I don't know if you're going to talk about it here communism and socialism stemming from the same branch Karl Marx, the Communist Manifesto.
Marx was Jewish.
There's a revolutionary spirit that contributed.
Not all of them, like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, was not Jewish, for instance, but they were very much involved in pushing suffrage and temperance and all of these things.
And probably, I imagine there was probably, I think you said this, Wes, so I don't think I'm just imagining.
But like with a Christian version of pushing women's rights and then a non Christian.
Yes.
Like spiritual Jewish women who were involved in that, trying to stop, you know, um, you know, stop the patriarchy, where you know, they did it through a thin Christian veneer for those who would, you know, that that that kind of controlled opposition would be more compelling, more persuasive, and then they also did it just through a secular, yes, uh, vein as well.
Yep, yep.
In fact, Nate, we could jump right over to the screenshots then.
Um, this was from a track that would push that was put out by actually a Catholic um group.
And one of the things, and I have it over here on the right, these are little snippets from that tract.
It says this.
It says, first, there are millions of socialists in this country, and all are unanimous for women's suffrage because they hope by the women's vote to help themselves politically.
All socialists are opposed to anything Christian, but they bitterly hate and attack Catholics.
Why should Catholics join themselves with such?
I can't read that last one.
Such a body.
I could read this next one too.
And then the next one, second, the great cry of the suffrage body is for the individual liberty.
They demand the vote because they object to their husbands, fathers, and brothers voting for them.
And so it makes, it's so interesting to me, the connection with the Jewish influence in the communist and socialist revolutions in Europe.
So the socialists were like 100, unanimous is what that quote said.
Yep.
Like there's a million socialists in this country and unanimously, if there's one thing we agree on, It's women should vote.
Everyone should vote, but women in particular in this case.
America and communism had its real swell in the 20s and 30s.
It died down with obviously like the Red Scare and everything, but that was the high watermark for the American Socialist Party, presidential candidates, all of that.
And to the point, it was a big movement, actually had a decent size, and it was unanimous voting rights for all.
Yep.
Because that eliminates all hierarchy and all distinction and really, man, did a number on Western civilization.
Just that idea, which we don't need to do, it's old territory for us.
But again, there's more going on here.
When we say repeal the 19th Amendment, there's more going on than hating women.
Right?
Right.
Which, for the clip's sake, we're not saying we hate women.
None of us hate women.
But the claim would be that's all we care about.
Didn't all three of our wives, my wife voted.
Yep.
And that's another thing that just, I've mentioned it before, but real quick.
And someone asked it too.
Real quick.
So we are people who have convictions.
All three of us are men who have convictions and principles.
But there's a difference between being principled and being an ideologue.
An ideologue will, you know, in God's sweet providence, there will be occasional moments where something really good will be right within his grasp and he will pick it up and throw it down and crush it on the floor in the name of the perfect.
It's like, you know, if I can't have absolute perfection now, then we'll have nothing good.
You know, we can't have nice things unless we have everything I want.
We are not ideologues, right?
Response ministries.
Is a ministry that loves theology.
We love principles.
We're deeply conservative.
We hate what God would consider to be genuine compromise.
And yet, at the same time, although all those things are true, we are not ideologues.
In fact, we hate ideology.
So, that being said, if there was something on the docket to repeal the 19th Amendment, we would vote for it with our wives.
Now, here's the thing for all the bad faith listeners, and there's hundreds who listen to every second of every episode hoping that this is the time I'm going to get you and shut you down.
So for you, there's nothing I can say to appease you.
But those guys, the bad faith listeners to our ministry, they're going to think, oh, well, that's hypocrisy, right?
That's the only category that they could think of is you think women shouldn't vote, but you had your wives vote with you for Donald Trump in 2024.
That's hypocritical.
And we would say, nope, that's strategic.
So, if there was literally on the ballot a bill for recalling, you know, repealing the 19th Amendment, we would vote with our wives for that.
And the reason why is because until the female vote is repealed, the way I see it, and I've said this before, but I'll say it again, is that for every man in our country, half of his vote was stripped away from him.
That's ultimately what's going on.
Your vote was stripped away from him.
It's not like, it was just like when the.
This is the best way I could explain it.
It's just like when the Fed prints money.
When they print money, they don't actually create money.
They actually inflate money.
They devalue all the money that's already out there.
So when they print a trillion dollars, what they actually did is, however many trillion dollars were already in circulation, they took a little bit away from that.
So too with the 19th Amendment.
They didn't create an extra vote, they took half of your vote.
And so until the 19th Amendment is repealed, my wife votes with me because what she's doing of her own volition, for the record, Because she's a woman who fears the Lord and actually respects and loves and submits to her husband.
Is she saying, Joel, I believe that through sin and wicked men, half of your vote was stolen from you.
But I, as your loving wife, am going to give back.
I'm going to make restitution and give back what was stolen from you by voting with my husband until the full vote belongs to him.
That's not hypocrisy.
That's.
That's social justice.
That's restitution.
It's biblical.
It's just.
It's right.
Yeah.
So, one of the things that I'm seeing in the chat here is the history of women's suffrage is actually interesting because the 19th Amendment guaranteed from a federal requirement that all female citizens of the United States be allowed to vote.
But the reason why this was actually going on already was that the Constitution, before the amendments that gave Universal suffrage in all of its ways, so 14th and 19th and 24th, 25th, things like that.
Before those were passed, the Constitution, because of its federalism, actually gave the power of determining who can vote and when to vote to the states.
And so leading up to 1919, 1920, which was when the 19th Amendment was finally passed into law, many states had already, because it was within their purview, They had already given women the right to vote.
And in fact, one of the questions asked about heads of household, if you're a widow, like, yes, they voted then.
Like, if the husband died and she took over the farm or the plantation or whatever.
Because she had a stake.
She had ownership.
Yep.
They were black property owners.
She's an older widow.
So it's like she doesn't have a father.
She may not even have a brother.
Correct.
Similar to like your 1 Timothy chapter 5 widow.
The widows that would be taking care of the church, they don't have a brother, an uncle, or a father, or a husband, or even sons necessarily to care for them.
So, that woman who's there's no male line lineage anymore to represent her family name, and yet she still is alive and has the family estate and therefore has a stake in the country and its future.
That makes sense.
And that's going to get past her sons, her children, and maybe they're young at that time.
There were situations where black property owners, free black men, also voted.
In fact, before the 19th Amendment was passed, in 1797, New Jersey was already allowing women to vote.
And then New Jersey.
Yeah, that is a classic.
We've just taken the L early.
Early.
We're here to be a loser state.
Hold on.
Hold on.
I'm going to redeem New Jersey.
Just for a second.
In 1807, they actually voted to restrict it to only free white males.
Oh, I'm sorry.
So, yeah, yeah.
Gotta love New Jersey.
New Jersey white pill.
All right.
But 1869, Territory of Wyoming.
1890, the state of Wyoming, then Colorado in 1893.
Washington, 1910.
California, 1911.
This was already going through the states.
Oh, is this what we talked about before the show?
Your black pill?
Yes.
So, I do have a black bill here.
Go for it.
Because if we were to repeal.
The amendments related to universal suffrage, 19th Amendment primarily being the one that we're talking about today, that actually doesn't fix the problem for us because the delegated power to determine who gets to vote is actually in the original Constitution up to the states.
Which we support.
Yes.
That's great.
That is a good thing.
But if we were actually going to fix this problem, we as a nation would have to pass a positive amendment that says, Only men who are heads of household and own property and have been here this long, etc., all the stipulations that we're saying are allowed to vote.
It's kind of similar to the abortion issue, except in the other direction.
Obviously, there's separate topics, but also in the inverse.
With abortion, it's like Dobbs, praise God, it beats the heck out of Roe.
Right.
But to be fair, like a lot of our abolitionist friends who we love, they would say Dobbs is a wicked decision.
And in the technical sense, in the biblical sense, They're right.
Right.
Repealing The Nineteenth Amendment00:06:14
Because the right, just decision is not, you know what, states can decide whether or not they want to kill babies.
No, the just position is to actually not just say Roe is done and now it's just a state's issue.
No, the just decision is at the federal level.
Now, states can go against it.
And then the state would be exclusively morally responsible before God for that wicked decision.
But at the federal level, to say, I'm sorry, but under Christian nationalism, the human sacrifice.
Must end.
That's right.
The Molech worship must end.
So, not just saying no more Roe, but saying no, no, no, no.
We're going, it's because from Roe to Dobbs is really kind of from like a negative to a neutral.
Right.
But the neutral is still negative.
It's still not just.
And so, what you're saying is with the 19th now, back to our topic at hand, repealing the 19th would kind of be similar to like a Dobbs decision.
It's like, okay, we recognize the 19th was wicked.
But it wouldn't really be until two things happen, well, three things, repealing the 19th, and then at the federal level, there would need to be a positive amendment.
That would have to pass, they would say only so and so can vote, however, we decide that.
And then at the state level, there would also have to be a positive decision made for each state.
Not necessarily.
If a federal amendment passes, that supersedes anything in the state.
Unless the state consciously went against it.
No.
No.
Like no state was allowed to say after the 14th Amendment, no black men can vote, right?
The federal constitution supersedes all state laws.
It's a state can't count.
But if the federal constitution did that, and a positive amendment, so not just repealing the 19th, but a positive amendment of this is who can vote at the federal level, constitutionally, and then let's say it wouldn't be Texas, but let's say New Jersey.
Let's say New Jersey is, no, everybody can still vote, and they're voting in a national election.
You're saying that it just won't count.
Yes, because that's where power matters.
Because the constitution says the powers not specifically delegated to the federal government in the constitution belong to the state.
At that point, the Constitution is delegating to itself the power to decide who gets to vote.
And so a state might still try and say, you can go pound sand.
And then it would be whether or not the federal government has the willpower to enforce that new voting amendment on New Jersey in this hypothetical situation.
What does Steve Dace always say?
And I think he says it really well, which, by the way, because I don't want to get him in trouble, Steve Dace, great guy, loves the Lord, coming to our conference, he would disagree with this entire episode.
Probably.
Maybe.
But we still love them.
Maybe.
I don't know.
Who knows?
It's moving so quick.
Maybe by the time we get to the conference, six weeks from now, Steve Dace is going to get up there and be like, yep, repeal the 19.
Who knows?
But, anyways, but he always says, we are not a nation of laws.
Yes.
Right?
Did you know this guy?
Yes.
We're not a nation of laws.
We're a nation of political will.
Yeah.
He said, we're not a nation of laws and never have been.
We're a nation of political will and always will be.
Yes.
Something like that, which is so true.
Like, even when you saw the standoff between Biden and some of the.
The governor, state governors of the southern border, they were all like one by one, all the Republican states were.
It was like, come and take it, kind of thing.
At the end of the day, somebody has to exercise the will, the power.
What I've realized, the words on the paper, they don't really matter that much political will and power.
Like in Arizona, abortion on the law, in the Constitution, was illegal.
None of them would enforce it.
There was no political will.
Gay marriage, as approval of it in the American public, goes from 40 to 30 to 20, one way or another, will not be legal.
It is all downstream, they change and they do matter because then they teach and toodle and uh tutor, instruct, tutor, and instruct.
Uh, but ultimately, it's will, so and that's why the Christian Caesar happens before, yeah, 20 years of well, how many states have to ratify that's what I'm saying.
This is this is not an it's look, the overtime window is moving fast enough that we're not black pilling, right?
We're just but, but there's two ways there can be a convention of states, which has never been done for a constitutional amendment, or An amendment has to pass with two thirds of both chambers of the legislative branch, so the House and the Senate, and then three quarters of the states have to agree to it, ratify it for an amendment to pass.
So, well, you know what?
This is what I know about these United States of America.
We have had in our history two, and I repeat, only two, opportunities to elect a female president.
That's right.
And we said resoundingly, no.
Hell no.
Hell no.
That's right.
In both cases, and as Brian Sauvet would say, America, we were so real for that.
We had two opportunities to elect a female president and we said no both times.
America, you were so real for that.
Yep.
So I'm hopeful.
This is why, as all of these debates were happening in the states and then even leading up to the passage of the 19th Amendment federally, people were really opposed to it.
I mean, there were guys who had their eyes wide open to what was going on and they warned and they pled and they argued against it because they knew number one, if it does get passed, it's going to be hard to undo.
And number two, it's going to do incalculable damage.
This next quote is from Thomas Sedgwick, who was writing in the late 1800s.
And he just saw down what was going to happen if America moved in this direction.
So he said, or William Sedgwick, my mistake.
He said, if women's suffrage would mean a denigration and a degradation of human fiber, which would turn back the hands of time a thousand years.
Hence, now he was optimistic.
Hence, it will probably never come.
For mankind will not lightly abandon, at the call of a few fanatics, the hard earned achievements of the ages.
Gosh, he was wrong.
Yep.
Boy, was he ever wrong.
Yep.
Yeah, and tragically so.
Tragically so.
Predicting Historical Progression00:08:34
Now, here's the white pill the temperance movement, the abolition of alcohol, the prohibition.
Prohibition.
It passed.
It was ratified by the states.
It was enacted in the Constitution, repealed like 10 years later after people were like, they got a dose of their own medicine.
Yeah, and that's what we kind of covered that a few times.
We've covered that for the last three years, but we really covered that, I think, last week on a couple of our episodes and just saying it's a simple concept, but just encouraging the listener, and I feel ourselves, just encouraging each other that.
History, history, it was in the cold open today.
History is not just, you know, just what is the way you word it?
A revolution, like where it only moves on progression.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Like a march towards progress or something like that.
Yeah.
Like an eternal, perpetual march towards, you know, progress, which really means, you know, regress until the end of time.
That's actually, you look at history, that is not the way history has played out.
That's a very dispensational, novel idea that everything has just gotten worse and worse and worse.
Or better and better and better.
Yeah, that's not the reason.
That's the opposite of the dispensationalism.
Both of those are immature.
Both of those are immature.
And people, for again, the bad faith listener who might be tuning in and saying, well, that's your view.
You hate on dispensationalism, but aren't you post millennial?
So you think things only constantly get better.
That's not the post millennial view.
The post millennial view doesn't say that things only with a steady incline, with no dips and no challenges along the way, that they only ever get better.
No, we're just saying that the overall trajectory, Is going to be in the positive direction.
But that can include in certain times and certain places, and those places, for the record, could be big, like half the world, like all of Western civilization.
And those time periods are not just necessarily 10 years or 20 years, but can be three, four, 500 years.
You absolutely, on that overall trajectory up, you can have some massive dips along the way.
And we would say that we've been in a dip for quite a while, at least since the Enlightenment.
But that's kind of the overarching macro picture of steady trajectory up, but some big dips along the way.
But then, in some of the smaller battles along the way that are more contextual to this nation and this time period and blah, blah, blah, there's ebbs and flows.
In fact, I was, you know, there's a member in our church that they live two and a half hours away and they come to our church faithfully, a wonderful family.
And my wife and kids and I, we try to go and see them, you know, making pastoral visits, relational visits as often as we can.
So we went on Saturday and it takes all day.
It's a five hour round trip.
But we went and packed up the van and spent the day and had a great time.
And he was showing me, you know, he had on the wall a picture of Robert E. Lee.
And he was showing me a quote from Robert E. Lee that's like, I was like, was Robert E. Lee Postmill?
You know, it was really, really encouraging.
But he was just talking about standing at the seashore when you look at history.
And when the water recedes, when it's pulling back, and you think, like, this is it, you know, not realizing that the bigger the ebb, the greater the flow.
Like if the water is pulling way back and you're standing at the shoreline, Then, for all you know, it could be ebbing and receding and pulling back further and further, like the tide, like when a barge goes down, you know, and it like sucks all the way.
It could be pulling back, not just your normal ebb, flow, ebb, flow, but then all of a sudden it just keeps pulling back and back and back.
And it goes back, it recedes 20, 30, 40 feet, then 50 yards and further and further.
And you're like, what is going on?
And then all of a sudden comes a tidal wave, a revival, you know, and we're not revivalists either.
We do think that God can and may send revival.
We're just, um, I just think we should be busy in the meantime.
But, anyways, it was so encouraging.
I got the quote here.
I got it.
I didn't read it.
This is Robert E. Lee.
Robert E. Lee, the truth is this the march of providence is so slow and our desires so impatient.
The work of progress is so immense and our means of aiding it so feeble.
The life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief, that we often only see the ebb of the advancing wave and are thus discouraged.
It is history that teaches us to hope.
Amen.
One more time.
That is God.
That is fire.
The truth is this the march of providence is so slow and our desires so impatient.
The work of progress so immense and our means of aiding it so feeble.
The life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief, that we often only see the ebb of the advancing wave.
And are thus discouraged.
It is history that teaches us to hope.
Amen imagine, imagine tearing down and burning that guy's statue, maybe.
Maybe it's not just about the Civil War.
Yeah, that is crazy.
Talk about ebbs and flows, so like there's a little ebb, you know, in 2020.
Very dark time um, but I would like to think that we're going to get an even I I think for for every Confederate statue that was torn down, we're going to get a replacement 10 times as obvious, rebuilt Robert E Lee.
He will rise again, But, yeah, that's all that being said.
It's like, oh, well, now that we have basically universal suffrage and the wheels are off, there's no going back.
But you don't know.
In one sense, it's hard to go back.
But that's one of the arguments that we've been making these past few weeks, is saying, on the other hand, you know what's really hard to do?
Like, USAID has been proof of this.
It's really hard to convince people in third world countries that a boy is a girl and a girl's a boy.
How do you do that?
Well, come to find out when all of a sudden the veil is lifted and we're getting to see.
Well, it turns out it required billions and billions of your tax dollars in order to carrot and bait and switch and indoctrinate entire cultures and countries into thinking things that fly in the face of nature.
But to go with the grain, right?
That's when you're trying to make pigs fly.
But when you're just trying to teach a bird to fly, it's natural and it's actually easier.
And so a return to nature is actually going downhill.
It's going against nature.
The progressive revolution is actually the uphill climb.
The return to God's natural order is natural.
It's actually the direction with the least resistance.
Now, legislatively, some of the practical law dynamics get hairy, like, easier to give a vote than take it back.
But again, this is not a prediction.
We've said this not a prediction, or I'm sorry, not a prescription saying we should do this.
But it is a prediction of what might happen, whether we support it or not.
Yeah, that's where you might get your American Caesar who comes in and says, you know, it's hard to repeal because we've lost all of our ambition and all of our good sense, and we've created universal suffrage, and we can't get everyone to vote to repeal it because we've allowed the.
The most foolish of society to like, we like, we've basically created a no win scenario.
So, um, as a benevolent dictator, I'm going to seize power and take it away, right?
Whether you like it or not.
The Roman Republic had a provision for this, I know how it ended.
I know that the man that they gave it to's name was Julius.
There's a great guy, but there was a name after the salad dressing, that's right.
But there was a provision in their laws that in times of crisis, they could hand you know unilateral power temporarily to a man that they trusted.
Turns out, you know, as far as the Republic went, that was the end of the Republic.
Right.
But as far as the Roman civilization went, so I'm not saying we should transform into an empire with an emperor permanently.
But I'm just saying, all Western civilization has understood that sometimes you do get into a situation where someone just needs to come in and clean house.
President of El Salvador, what do you do with a country overrun with gangs and corrupt judges and bribery?
Turns out you get in, you rewrite the constitution, you instate term limits because you said I can do this, you investigate them all for bribery, and you say, I'll be president for however long I want to be.
And he was reelected with a 90% popular vote, the highest approval rating in the world.
You can just do things.
Dominion Over Finances00:04:13
You're done.
Judges that have blocked me and impeached, you're out.
You are going to prison, all of you.
You are being investigated.
That's what we're doing now.
Get with the program.
Yeah.
All right, we're going to go to our second commercial break.
And when we come back, we're going to talk about some of the consequences of women's suffrage.
Okay.
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 Wolf, Eric Kahn, David Reese, Andrew Isker, John Harris, A.D. Robles, Dan Burkholder, Dusty Devers, Ben Garrett, C.J. 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'll give it to you.
All right, here we are.
So, right here in the chat, Phil, how would you say?
Newfeld.
Newfeld.
He said, would love to write off your conference, Crisis King Conference, April 3rd, 4th, and 5th as a business expense.
I saw your comment earlier today on X.
I appreciate it.
It was a good idea.
And I told you that we would get it done, and we have.
So, Phil, and everybody else who's thinking the same thing, we officially are going to have a business networking lunch at our conference.
So, go to, you need to register for the conference.
And if you're already registered, you need to go back to that page.
So go to Write Response Conference, not ministries, but writeresponseconference.com.
Scroll down and register if you haven't already.
If you already have, then keep scrolling and then you'll see where it says, you'll see the singles event.
Anybody who wants to sign up for the singles event, make sure to do that.
Or go down to the business networking lunch and register.
We're going to charge $25 just to cover delivery, tax, tip, and food.
We're going to cater food for that lunch.
That's it.
$25 free lunch.
And I will be there personally.
And I want to meet all these Christian business owners.
I want to meet you guys and see if there's anything I can do.
To help give visibility towards your business.
We want to see it succeed.
And then the biggest thing will be you guys networking with each other.
And I think that that will be perfectly ethical and up to code with tax regulations that you can say, yeah, I'm going to a conference and there's a business portion of it and I'm going to go ahead and write off this expense.
So, Phil and everybody else who's in your boat, go ahead and register for our business networking lunch portion of our conference today.
Yep.
All right.
War Without Bullets00:07:57
We want to touch briefly on some of the impact and the fallout of women's suffrage.
So we'll do that briefly.
And we do want to save some time at the end for some questions.
And we do want to honor our promise to, especially the one with the super chat that we mentioned we would touch on earlier.
But if you do have questions along this topic, we'll try and get to some of those as well.
So you can start putting those in the chat as well.
Put a question in front of it, or you make sure you use proper punctuation with a question mark at the end so that Nathan knows to mark it for us later on.
Well, obviously, as we are finding out, elections have consequences, and the vote and the passage of the 19th Amendment had consequences as well.
And there's a lot of different directions we can go with this.
The fact that women were voting gave them the power to vote against their husbands, in part with prohibition, in part with divorce laws.
But in general, too, there's a sense where a woman's nature is going to be more compassionate, more.
Focused on tending to the needs rather than administrating justice.
And so you can look through history and you can see how largely, and I'm going to quote a study here in a minute, largely the result of women voting in the public forum and federal issues and state issues has been we need, we see pain.
Well, what we need to do now is vote so that federal or state tax money goes to alleviating that pain.
Right.
And then what happens, unfortunately, is that what people who want to push social change all they need to do is convince half of the population, women, that there is an abuse or an oppression or a pain or something like that, because a woman's heart is naturally going to go to that.
And that's beautiful and good.
Like that, we've talked about that a lot of times.
We want moms tending to skin knees and bruises.
It's beautiful.
Yeah.
Like we should be.
I feel like we've been clear, but let's be clear again.
There is nothing about the God ordained nature of a woman that we despise.
It's wonderful.
But what we're saying is that it's only wonderful when it's in its role, right?
It's wonderful in the same way that a Navy SEAL is wonderful.
That's right.
But all your Navy SEAL ness is not, you know, well, unless it's like Arnold Schwarzenegger, kindergarten cop.
Did you ever see that?
Maybe it comes in handy in a, you know, Children, kind of situation, and defending them.
But the point is that a hammer is wonderful for a nail, right?
A screwdriver is wonderful for a screw, you know, a saw is wonderful for making cuts.
So we love women and we love their nature.
But that nurturing instinct of someone's in pain and crying out for help, and I want to go to them, that is a great instinct for children in your home.
That is not a great instinct for going to the voting booth when you have a full blown invasion at your southern border and a ton of propaganda from liberal media saying, Look at this poor AI generated picture of a little girl being ripped away by ice from her mother.
And then all these single white.
College educated, you know, Marxist women go to the voting booth and make terrible decisions.
Whereas their nature is in the right direction.
I know we get in trouble with that one, but like their nature is in the right direction.
It's just being funneled incorrectly because you take that same concern and sympathy, maybe not so much empathy, but sympathy and nurturing spirit, and you give them three kids, and gosh, they're going to be doing great.
Yep.
They're going to be doing great.
So, yeah.
And this is exactly what has played out.
A 2002 study in the Journal of Political Economy.
Nate, this is going to be the next quote.
This is by two researchers named John Lott and Lawrence Kenney.
And they found that this was the net result of women entering the voting pool.
They said this paper examines the growth of government during this century, so this is the 19th century, as a result of giving women the right to vote using cross sectional time series data.
For 1870 to 1940, we examined state government expenditures and revenues, as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations, and the passage of a wide range of different state laws.
Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue, and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives because they were now getting pressure from women to cater and to court the women's vote.
And these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise, which is of the right to vote.
Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s.
In other words, their point is it arose immediately as soon as women started voting in the late 1800s.
And it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.
The growth and the increase of government spending, the federal government has, in fact, let me get my quote.
Let me make sure I'm right here.
Within 11 years of the 19th Amendment, per capita government spending had doubled.
Federal government spending had doubled.
And women have a tendency historically of voting overwhelmingly for social programs, progressive policies, and an increase in welfare.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Checks out.
Yep.
And again, it doesn't mean that women are wicked.
Yep.
It means that women are kind and generous and nurturing.
And those good, God given instincts are wonderful in their proper place, but ill suited for the political realm.
Yep.
I like the way Pastor Andrew Isker has said it.
He said this in his book, Boniface Option, which was a great, great book.
And we, even him and myself and AD Robles, the three of us did a whole series, which you can go and you can find on our YouTube channel or our website or on Patreon.
You can get all 10 parts.
It's 10 episodes.
And the whole thing was me and AD Robles and Pastor Andrew Isker covering, you know, in a 10 part series, his entirety of his book, Boniface Option.
And one of the, can't remember which episode it was, but one of the episodes in that series covering a portion of his book, We addressed women voting.
And the way that Andrew worded it in the book and then also on that episode that we did together was, I think, really well said.
He just said that politics is war.
Politics is war without the bullets.
Every time you have a political disagreement, what you're ultimately doing is you're taking two sides of the country on a particular issue and you're rounding up all of your troops, right?
You're rallying your armies.
And then what you do is you march out and meet each other for battle.
But right when you normally would begin firing bullets and there's a death toll when it's a real hot war, instead of doing that, You both parties agree, both armies agree that instead of actually firing the bullets, what we'll do instead is we'll count your army how many men enlisted, and we'll count the other army how many men enlisted.
And the bigger army will go ahead and will allow him to win, the smaller army will concede, and we won't fire a single shot.
It's war without the bullets.
Um, and it is improper to enlist women in war.
Yep, yep, that's the argument.
And we lose something, we have lost something beautiful.
Let's go to the next.
Um, quote because I found this is from a woman who was opposed to women's suffrage.
Race And Political Voting00:08:10
Um, and this is Ida M. Tarbell.
She says, All evidence proves that the adoption of women's suffrage brings into evidence the bold, obtrusive woman whose conduct cheapens the sex and deprives all other women of a portion of the chivalry and respect which are their birthright.
When we think about chivalry, we think about the knights, but there was also the ladies, and they were entitled to being treated a certain way.
Honored in a certain way, provided for in a certain way, and defended and esteemed in a certain way.
And what Tarbell is saying there is that the women's suffrage has stolen women of that proper obligation that is owed to them as well.
That was Holden Dabney wrote a lot on women's rights because there's feminist movements.
Even then, that was a big thrust of his argument.
He said, if you take women and you just flatten the playing field, make them equal in all these different stations, you're going to subject women to the barbarism that men are typically subject to.
You're going to return her to a primitive state where she is forced to compete and do all the drudgery.
Christendom lifted her up.
Christendom esteemed her.
Christendom put her in the home where she had delight and children, all these different things.
It was women's suffrage that ripped her from that, threw her to the rat race, and said, You're going to go compete here.
You're going to work under fluorescent lights for 50 hours a week and use a mechanical breast pump to pump milk for your child.
You're going to do that.
Yeah, no, you're absolutely right, Wes.
That's really well said.
That's compelling.
And in that, it was Christendom that really provided the barriers, the boundaries that allowed not only for a woman's flourishing, her health, her prosperity.
But we could also include in that her beauty according to what God considers to be beautiful.
First Peter, I believe it's chapter three, that says, you know, that the imperishable beauty, that which is beautiful in the sight of God, is the inward beauty of the heart.
And then God further, he gives further specification of what that looks like.
What are the characteristics of an imperishable inward beauty for a woman, a beauty of the heart?
And he defines it by two primary characteristics a quiet and gentle spirit.
And when you throw Women into a man's domain.
You take away the shield and the providence, the protection, the barrier that allows for them to embody beauty, and you rip that away from them.
And you basically do the opposite.
You say, You know, beauty is a luxury.
It is.
And that luxury is no longer afforded to you.
In fact, we're stripping it away.
And now, in order to survive, you have to be anything but beautiful.
You have to be.
Snarky.
Snarky.
Delicate.
Right.
You have to be in the public sphere.
You now have to be not beautiful and filled with grace, but you need to be polemical.
You need to be snarky.
You need to be a beast.
You need to be a warrior.
You need to be a beast, a boss babe.
You need to be bombastic.
You need to be aggressive, be aggressive.
And so that's why you see even allegedly conservative female podcasters in the public sphere.
If it's not something that's distinctly for women in the domestic feminine context, right?
It's one thing when Lexi Sauvay does a podcast one day a week, not five, from her home, audio only, not driving into the studio, after the kids are already tucked into bed with her husband about.
Cleaning supplies.
That's just, I'm not into that one.
Like Brightheart.
That's just different.
Can we all admit that is different than five times a week going into the studio, leaving the home during the day, and then doing a podcast that, yeah, a lot of your audience are female listeners.
But in terms of the topic of what you're addressing, it's cultural, it's political, it's far beyond just the domestic realm of the home for women.
And you're even engaging with men who we would all agree are wicked men.
Who needs to be put in their place, but you're now, you're polemically, right?
Aggressively, polemically, with confrontation.
You're confronting men like Joe Biden or like truly wicked men, but you're a woman doing that.
And there's nothing quiet and gentle about it.
And therefore, I mean, call me old fashioned, but I believe the Bible.
And if the Bible says that what the characteristics that are defining of true feminine beauty, Is quiet and gentleness, and you're now.
I don't see quiet and gentleness as being compatible with being polemical in the public square.
I don't think that you can do both.
You got to pick.
You got to pick.
You can't do both.
And so, what we've done by leveling the playing field, by making women equal, is we've made women ugly.
Yep.
It's funny.
This was a while ago, but my brother posted on social media.
It was long enough ago that it may have been Facebook.
He said something about liberal women.
Why are liberal women always ugly?
And a friend of a mutual friend of ours who's more liberal said, How dare you?
He said something about physical appearance.
He said, I know lots of beautiful, attractive liberal women.
And my brother said, It's interesting to me that you assumed that I was just talking about face shape or eye shape or whatever.
I'm saying they are ugly people.
And a lot of them happen to be physically ugly as well.
But they are, they're unattractive people.
People.
They're unbeautiful people.
In the truest sense.
In the truest sense.
And Nate, I'm going to go to the last quote.
I'm going to skip the ones before that in the graph.
This is a more recent comment from a feminist at Stanford who was talking about the end goal of feminism and women's suffrage, what they're going for.
This was on the anniversary.
So this was in 2020.
She was writing about 100 years of women's suffrage.
And she was saying, making the case that women's suffrage was just.
A stop on the train, and we need to make sure we keep the train moving along down the track.
And so, this is how she analyzed women's suffrage in the broader scheme of quote unquote progress.
This is Estelle Friedman, she's a Stanford professor.
She said, This in our time, we witness women of color taking the lead in identifying the intersections of race and gender, whether in Black Lives Matter, reproductive justice, or environmental movements.
Gender runs through all of these, race runs through all of them, our humanity runs through all of them, and we can never separate entirely any one cause from another.
Feminism has to expand to question all social hierarchies to truly achieve what it professes.
This has been the goal.
This is why, even though we are saying carefully here that we want a whole reconsideration of what it means to vote in our nation, right?
Like we are starting with removing the vote from women.
That would be the beginning point because the goal from the beginning has been.
The destruction of hierarchy, the leveling of the playing field, and the disordering of nature.
I do have to just give one caveat with voting patterns and stuff.
You can slice it by gender, but race is a big one.
If it was Kamala and Trump and only white women voted, they actually would have elected Trump.
And this would be comparison to all other racial groups.
So there are disparities even in that.
And that's some of that professor's getting at.
She's saying that black women have been the ones that have led a lot of progressive movements and vote overwhelmingly in the 90% Democrat.
Like 92, 93.
Yeah.
If it was only white single women, Kamala would have been elected.
Yes.
Right.
But white women, not just white, if it's white married women, definitely Trump in a landslide.
If it's white single women, Kamala in a landslide.
If it's white women, both married and single, it still falls for Trump.
Yep.
Yep.
And it's closer than what if it was like white men only.
So men versus women of the same race.
Yep.
Women are less conservative, less Republican.
But still, all said and done, it would be Trump a little bit.
Men Sharpen Ideas Together00:09:18
Yeah, that's true.
Okay.
Well, let's move into some questions then.
Yeah, and then we'll land the plane here.
Great.
So, we want to start with that super chat from the beginning.
I'll read it again.
This is from Ben Hufstedler.
He says, How do you suggest talking to New Age, quote unquote, Christian males regarding a proper Christian woman, conduct, head covering, submission, et cetera?
Side note.
Oh, yeah.
Okay, that's the one.
So, I'll read it.
The difficulty of a bunch of men who have been so indoctrinated with feminism.
How do you begin to talk to them about proper submission, proper roles of women, men, et cetera?
This is a tough one because I've been thinking about it in the back of my mind the whole episode.
I have ideas, but go for it.
The tough thing with men, you back a man in the corner and you'd be like, listen, bucko, this is what you got to do, or like confrontation.
Like it rarely works, especially in the moment.
There is something to be said for mentioning it when it comes up, like, oh, you're looking to date or whatever.
Have you looked for a woman that will be supportive and take care of your children at home?
So, certainly working it in without it being confrontational.
I think a big way, though, is them seeing it modeled.
So, you could explain in theory to a man what a woman's submission looks like, what her care for the home, her love for her children.
You could explain all of it.
You could even show pictures and video.
But also, just having someone over for dinner and them seeing you as the man seated at the head of the table, your wife, which you love and care for, but the way she defers to you, respects you.
Him looking at that, assuming he's unmarried, assuming he's kind of a new age Christian.
And then he's looking at that and he's like, wow.
Because it's nature.
Men, by nature, God has made nature patriarchal.
And so men, by nature, can recognize oh, that seems like the appropriate, fitting status for a man that he's gracious and kind, but he does rule and he is the head of his home.
And so, as much as he, if you're probably ministering to someone or discipling them, as much as they can be in a context where they see a loving, submissive, godly woman, respecting her husband, caring for her children, is going to model probably more than most books, articles, podcasts, videos will do.
So, work in where you can, the actual information, like here's what the church used to think, here's how we used to conceive of this, but then model it as well.
And I would add on to that, just saying if he's in a church, if the men of the church, not their only topic of conversation, but if it's coming up in their conversation, how do I not just serve my family?
How do I rule my family?
How do I lead my family?
How do I, you know, like if that's part of what the men in the church are talking about, that is going to come across if that's the kind of books that they're reading, if the pastor is preaching that way.
Wes, you're right, though.
It really is part of the community of the church and the culture of the church.
And some of this is not going to be worked out of guys until they're placed in a situation where they see it modeled, they hear it talked about, and then they begin to try it and they realize, oh, okay, I actually need to grow myself.
I need to be more assertive.
I need to be more decision making.
I need to be more responsible.
I need to be more protective.
I mean, all like, I think.
That one of the reasons why men like complementarianism and egalitarianism is it absolves them of the responsibility.
And so, the only other thing that I would say is a call to true responsibility, not a fake responsibility of you may need to make sure that you're doing the dishes every night.
True responsibility, men are gonna resound with men.
Like, think ahead, plan for your family, consider the needs of your wife and your children, like, be proactive.
Um, it you were calling them to something higher.
We're not just bashing them over the head with what they're doing wrong.
Yeah.
That's good.
Cole Billiatt, we hit this one a little bit the relationship with the prohibition and the 19th Amendment.
Yes, absolutely.
They were closely interlinked.
These movements were going out at the same time communism, socialism, all these different things, temperance, and that were closely linked.
And part of it was also I've read that part of the temperance movement, prohibition, was that the pub was, because they didn't have social media, those kind of things.
So, in a lot of ways, The pub was kind of the public square.
You think of like the Inklings, you know, you think of like Tolkien and Lewis and stuff.
And like that's where a lot of the ideas would formulate and guys would sharpen one another and, you know, sometimes even, you know, organize in a formal sense, but, you know, regularly in an informal sense, organically, you would have ideas presented, debated, sharpened, and then from that place eventually trickling down and being patronage networks.
Yeah, and being applied, you know, in the public square at large.
But a lot of it, it all circulated around men, high caliber leading men, who were sharpening like iron sharpens iron with one another.
And typically, ordinarily, we're doing that in the physical context of a pub.
And so by shutting down all the pubs, you were basically shutting down the place where men gathered.
And so it was, so yeah, so the suffrage movement had a vested interest beyond just whatever.
Whatever moral issues there might be circulating with alcohol, to say, we don't want our husbands leaving the home and spending time with one another, which I would say, real quick, as just a pastoral application for women today, especially young wives, and this doesn't any longer relate to pubs, or at least not exclusively, but it's vital that you allow your husband to leave the home on occasion.
He needs to be present.
We're not saying always, but this idea of like your husband saying, Like, I've heard guys say this, you know, like, it's good to be a man, you know, said.
A lot of people I remember got really upset and they were like, I can't believe that this was said, you know, because the authors pushed back a little bit against the idea of a man's wife being his best friend.
He said, no.
And it's not to degrade my wife.
My wife is in a position that is vastly superior to the position of my best friend.
She's my wife.
Wife is above best friend.
But no, I have friendships with men.
It doesn't mean I don't enjoy my wife or love my wife.
And I'm not even saying I necessarily agree.
I remember even when I read it, it was like, well, I mean, I know what they're getting at.
And I certainly am not clutching my pearls.
I think it was completely, it was either right and good and helpful at best, and at worst, it was.
Yeah, you know, that ain't it, you know, and benign.
Certainly wasn't something for people to lose their minds with, but they did.
Oh, they did.
But, anyways, the point is still true.
So, whether it's not, whether wife is best friend or not, in either case, she's certainly not.
She may be your best friend, but I can at least say this definitively she better not be your only friend.
She better not be your only friend.
There are many such cases.
There are many such cases.
Oh, my goodness.
And part of the reason there are many such cases is because men sometimes are pretty lousy at friendship, but also, Because it's weird, but like sometimes, what like young women who are married, please listen to me.
I'm not beating you up.
Please listen.
I'm trying to give you some pastoral counsel for just a moment.
You want your husband to have friendships.
And I don't know what it is, but I've seen it in my pastoral ministry where there's like this weird jealousy, like almost like he's having an affair by going to a guy's night.
Right.
You know, and it's like, no, no, no.
He is, no, you have his allegiance.
You have his devotion, his fidelity, his love.
He is not betraying you by going and spending time with men.
It's like, well, why doesn't he want to spend time with me?
Because you're not a man.
It's different.
Right?
It's different.
And he's not.
In the modern work environment, he spends nine to five around a bunch of women.
Exactly.
His work is surrounded by women.
And even if it's with men, it's still governed and dominated by female sensibilities, female, you know, the cackling hens of HR.
You know, it's all just our entire world is a female longhouse.
So to allow him.
Once a week or once a month, even to get out of the feminine longhouse for a couple hours and go smoke a cigar with some guys or whatever it is to talk.
And because you know what men end up doing in those contexts?
It's like, well, there's nothing productive.
They're just, no, no, it's only productive.
It is only productive.
Guys do not get together and talk about the weather.
We don't.
We get together and we're talking about philosophy and politics and theology.
It's like the G.K. Chesterton quote where, He says, you know, people always say, you can talk about anything except for politics and religion.
And he says, I talk about nothing but politics and religion because there's nothing else worth talking about.
And that's what men do.
You know, they get together and they talk about those kinds of things and they throw out ideas.
And then another man in a truly, you know, masculine fashion will say, that's dumb.
Paul Teaching Men Authority00:15:34
No, that's dumb.
You know, and then it'll be like, well, why is it dumb?
You know, and then they start to hash it out.
And then, you know, three other guys, they pipe in, you know, and then.
And then you go back to your wife and your kids, and you kind of are pondering and thinking about it over the next few weeks, and then you do it again.
And they're all being sharpened and being shaped and being bettered.
So it's a really good thing.
So, all that being said, wives, especially young wives, start the habit early.
Do not be threatened by your husband having male friends.
Yeah.
I do want to hit Jenny Weston just said, I don't know maybe where.
He or she is coming from this.
The pubs also sent drunken men home to beat their wives and having spent his paycheck to starving children.
Alcohol was a scourge on England and America in the early days.
There was a lot of drunkenness and violence.
And you read, they had really grappled with what do you do with men stumbling drunk in the street every night, violent, railing, abusive.
Like those are real problems.
And so the temperance movement, part of it was, of course, like the men are getting together and I don't like it.
And then some real problems of how do you address all of these workers that are drunk blind on a daily basis.
And that is a difficult problem to address by the civil magistrate.
But it would seem the 19th Amendment was not, or what amendment?
The 17th, I think.
Oh, probably.
The prohibition was not the way to do it.
So there were real concerns, and I understand the problem you have when hundreds of thousands of men drunk daily.
Well, it's kind of like so many.
Right?
So it's like, were there real racists and were Jim Crow laws unjust and those?
Yeah, sure.
But to have a legislative order and a de facto pseudo new constitution that effectively replaced the actual constitution of the United States that then became the beachhead to ram through alphabet soup, you know, LGBT, LMNOP rights, and everybody says, well, I'm in that amendment too.
You know, I find myself here and I'm an oppressed minority and I'm an oppressed minority.
No, something needed to happen.
There really was not just Marxism, you know, made up sin, racism, but actual animus, unjustifiable hatred on the basis of ethnicity.
There really were, not necessarily everyone by any stretch, but there were some cases of that.
But there were ways to combat that without coming up with.
A set of laws that replaced our nation's constitution and paved legislatively the way for all the wokeness that we see today.
If you don't like wokeness, you should question the civil rights movement.
You should.
Yep.
All right, Nate, can we see the.
We have a few more super chats that we want to make sure we hit.
So BJJ wins again.
Oh, no, above that.
Sorry.
80s nostalgia guy.
$10.
Thanks, 80s.
Um, he says, Do you believe that female Christian teachers on YouTube are trying to find a loophole to be able to teach men?
Many of these women have thousands of followers, both men and women, and teach theology.
I can speak to that, I'll try to do it concisely.
I'd be disappointed if you didn't.
Seven words in, I was like, Yes, I don't even know what you're going to finish this with.
I agree.
Um, so, so this is what I think.
Um, so I actually am going to go with no.
Um, I'm going to give the benefit that I so to again, the question to be fair to the question, do you believe that female Christian teachers?
So, they're Christian and they're female.
On YouTube, they are trying to find a loophole to be able to teach men.
So, we're weighing out motives.
So, what we think are motives.
Exactly.
So, number one, we're in the realm of speculation.
So, it's already, we're on thin ice.
So, I can't say anything definitively.
But if you're asking me my best guess, I would actually say no.
I don't think that they're doing it because they want, because they're trying to find a loophole to teach men.
I think they just want to teach.
They just want to talk.
They have opinions.
I don't think they're like, I really, really hope that this many men tune into my podcast this week because I really actually want to shape men.
No, I think they just want to have a podcast.
They want to be a celebrity.
They want to be famous.
They have ideas.
They have a dream.
They want to have a voice.
They want to have a platform.
And I think that they actually would be genuinely content if it turned out that their entire audience was 100% female, so long as it was still a relatively large audience.
I think they really would, honest to God, be content at the end of the day if they found out here's the metrics.
You have a podcast that's followed by a million people.
It's successful, it's large, you're a micro celebrity, and it's 100% women.
I don't think they would love that.
They'd be like, great.
So, I really don't think it's that they want to teach men.
I think it's just that they want to be in the public square and publicly teach.
Here's the only thing that I disagree with, and this has been my position for multiple years at this point.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again Titus 2.
Because people all say, well, then what's the problem with that, right?
Older women get to teach younger women.
Like the Bible allows for that, women teaching women.
And if men are tuning in, that's not their fault.
They're not making men tune into their podcasts.
And, you know, like, so they can't be held responsible for that.
I'm with you, I hear you.
Here's the difference.
This is where, you know, your normie kind of complimentarian, Calvinistic, you know, Titus II respecter, you know, alleged respecter, is like, Joel, I don't see the problem.
Why are you being so extreme?
Because my exegesis of Titus II, which I do believe is a historic exegesis, I don't think it's extreme.
I think it is the correct position.
Is it when the Apostle Paul says that older women should train younger women and teach them the good, that headline right there, the good, That older women are to teach younger women is not a blank canvas for anything that you want to include in that bucket, but that the good, right?
That's the overarching.
Like, so what class are women teaching?
They're teaching a class called the good.
Okay.
And what's the curriculum for this class that they're teaching to women, the good?
Well, Paul actually then begins to list it out.
So I don't think it's, they can teach anything that you might relatively be able to consider good.
No, I think.
Paul then actually specifies what the good is.
And here's the deal it all has to do with the home.
He then says, the good, and what does that look like?
What is the good?
Being obedient to their husbands, lovers of children, not given to gossip and slander or much wine.
He lists all these things, but what they all have in common is they're all intrinsically applicable.
They're not abstract, they're not general, they're very specific and applicable to the fairer sex.
To feminine sensibilities.
So, even on the prohibition side of avoiding gossip or slander, it's avoiding sins that men can commit.
Men are not immune to slander in the same way that men aren't immune to being deceived.
People right now are losing their minds.
I've never said that men can't be deceived.
I've said that in general, women are more susceptible, I believe, to deception than men.
Of course, men can be deceived.
But the question is in general, When Paul roots as his argument for male headship, he doesn't just cite the order of creation, that man was formed first, and that woman was formed from man and for man,
but he also cites not just the order of creation, but the order of the fall, that woman fell first, and that in her fall, both the order of the fall, she fell first, and the nature of her fall, the man sinned knowingly, with his eyes wide open.
The woman sinned after having been deceived.
And so you're making excuses for the man?
No.
His moral culpability is greater.
The fact that he sinned knowingly only makes him all the more guilty, not less.
So it's not an argument about guilt, if anything.
Adam is more guilty on two accounts.
Number one, his position, the position of headship and authority.
He bears a greater responsibility, moral responsibility that comes with authority.
Number two, not just his position, but the nature of his sin.
He sinned knowingly, he sinned with his eyes wide open in pure defiance.
Of what God had spoken.
So, Adam, both in terms of his position having sinned and the nature of how he sinned, he bears greater responsibility, not lesser.
However, when Paul is constructing this argument, it's all within the context.
This is 1 Timothy 2 now, not Titus 2.
All within the context of why a woman should not lead.
And it's two prohibitions, not just one.
It's not conflated into one.
She cannot teach men or have authority over men, not teach with authority, one prohibition.
But teach or authority over men.
And when Paul gives these two prohibitions for women, authority over men or teaching over men, he cites both the order of creation, but also the order of the fall.
So all I'm doing in my theology is I'm simply including both, not just one, but both of the arguments that Scripture makes.
Scripture, because what Paul does is he then says, why?
Why can a woman not exercise authority over a man or teach over a man?
Well, because of the order of creation, the natural created order, but also.
If that's where it stopped, then that's where it stopped.
But that's not where Paul stops.
He goes on, he says, also, not just the order of creation, woman made from man, that is, man formed first, woman second, from man and for man as a helpmeet, her purpose, her telos.
But then beyond that, not just the order of creation, but the order of the fall.
She fell first, created second, but fallen first, and the manner in which she fell, the nature of the fall.
She fell with her eyes closed.
Adam fell with his eyes wide open.
This doesn't mean that Adam is absolved of guilt.
If anything, his guilt is increased, and I would argue it is.
But what it does mean is that the woman was more susceptible to being deceived.
Can you find one individual woman who is less easily deceived than one individual man?
Of course.
In fact, you could do it with thousands.
I have no doubt.
But we're talking about group dynamics, generalities.
In general, men are physically stronger than women.
Likewise, in general, I believe that men are less susceptible to deception than women.
And I'm basing that off of experience, statistics, studies, and most importantly, scripture.
And one of the qualities, I believe, because the whole context is in the context of leadership, one of the qualities for good leadership is having been at a higher degree of being impervious towards deception.
So now, all that, back to now Titus chapter 2, a woman can, she cannot teach or exercise authority over a man.
She can, older women can teach women.
But even the what.
Not just what they can do, but what are the contents and the parameters of her teaching?
It's all feminine and domestic.
So, even the sins against gossip or slander, can men commit these sins?
Can men gossip?
Yes, I have gossiped.
Can men be deceived?
Yes, I have been deceived.
But in generalities, are men as notoriously deceived as women?
I would argue no.
Scripture, more importantly, who cares about Joel?
Scripture would argue no.
No.
Are men as notorious or as known for gossip as women?
No.
So even a woman's teaching, the curriculum is specified, and it's the good things to esteem, submission to husbands, lovers of children, and the bad things, the prohibitions to avoid.
And even on that side, it's not just sin in general.
It's specific sins.
And which sins?
The ones that tend to be more common among women, which means that a woman can teach, not men, but women.
If she has a podcast and men happen to tune in, that's not her fault.
But if it is a podcast for teaching women and the kind of teaching that is actually permissible in scripture for a woman to teach women with, then it's going to be a woman teaching women about womanly things.
I'll say that again.
It's not just, well, as long as it's a woman teaching other women, then we can teach whatever we want.
That's not what Titus 2 says.
There's a third requirement a woman can teach if she's teaching women, but also if she's a woman teaching women about womanly things.
Things.
And so if you're doing a podcast that is directed towards women 50% of the time, 60% of the time, but still has on a regular basis, not gentle and quiet characteristics, but bombastic, snarky, sarcastic, polemical aspects in the public square where you're belittling men, you're actually going to war, politics is war against men, exercising a polemic against men,
and it doesn't have really anything to do with.
With the domestic feminine space, then that's not Titus 2.
So, all that back to the super chat.
Do you believe that female Christian teachers on YouTube are trying to find a loophole to be able to teach men?
My answer is no.
I don't think that they're in their heart of hearts, they're trying to be sneaky because they really want to teach thousands of men.
But what I do think is they just want to teach.
And they actually are perfectly content if their audience is exclusively made up of women.
But the problem is not that they don't want to teach women.
I think they do want to teach women, but they don't want to teach women things pertaining to women.
And that, I think, is also prescribed by scripture.
Not just that you must teach women, but you must teach women womanly things.
And that's the part where I think they are finding a loophole.
And that's where I, as respectfully as I can, disagree.
Yeah.
Fair enough.
We have two more super chats.
Wes, you want to read the middle one, and then I'll read the last one.
BJJ wins again.
Thanks so much for the super chat.
If slash when does a widow become the head of a house and vote?
Actually, like we were talking about it, like the only ones that would vote would be white men, they'd be property owners.
And I would still stick to that.
And so, even a man that wasn't married, for instance, I would still say it would be men that owned property and were citizens of the land.
Real quick, when you say you would stick to that, I won't speak for you.
I'll just speak for myself.
But I think you will agree that in America, as it is today, Heritage America means something.
However, that would not be, it would be predominantly white, but it would not be exclusively white.
So, if I was king for a day, and I think Wes would agree, we would not limit it to white men.
But we would limit it to free men and the citizens.
The modern day application of that would be free citizens.
Also, I would argue, maybe free from debt, not reliant on welfare or taxpayer supplements and property owning and their family men.
Yep, exactly.
And if a black man meets those qualifications, and many would, then go for it.
Defining Heritage America00:04:25
Great.
Free citizens that would be property owning.
I think you still stick to it.
I don't think it's, at least for me, and maybe you would disagree, Joel.
I don't think it's the idea of like there's this head of the household and then sometimes it's men, sometimes it's women.
I think just men decide the direction of society.
And if there is a woman that in God's providence becomes a widow, for one, we're talking about a tiny amount of women that wouldn't even be able to enact or repeal legislation.
Right.
Very small percentage.
And you say they wouldn't be a formidable voting block.
Would you say you will be represented by the civil fathers?
So that's what I would say.
I would say at a voting level, there would be no situation where a widow would rise to that level.
She'd be taken care of by the The civic fathers, the familial fathers, the church fathers, even as they care for widows that were in the church, that washed the feet of the saints, and all of that.
That would be my position.
Right, because really you only come down to the widow is like, well, there's no one to represent her.
But I think what you're saying, and I think I agree, is no, but in God's economy, she actually still does have representation.
She still has, even if she doesn't have an earthly father, a familial father, or a familial husband, she's still outside of the sphere of the household.
She still actually does have male representation.
She has ecclesiastical fathers, her pastors, she has civil fathers.
Her representative still represents her.
She still, therefore, has a voice and people who are advocating for her.
And the lesson from 1 Timothy 4 is that, in general, not in general, in almost all of the situations where something like that happens, a woman ought to try to find male headship to come under.
If she's a young widow and no children, she should probably go back to her father's house and then be represented by her father.
If she has older children, maybe she is now represented in a sense by her oldest son.
If she's very old, she's an elderly widow.
She's probably not remarrying.
But even there, she is, like you said, Wes, represented by her civil fathers and even her church fathers who are going to consider her need in their voting for public issues.
Yep.
So, Alicia, I think Walk.
Yep.
Super chat, $10.
Very kind.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Yep.
Fellow 1689, love to see it.
Homeschooling family, my children instinctively boo when they hear the name Susan B. Anthony.
Fantastic.
Love to hear it.
Would you consider making a t shirt that says repeal the 19th, make America patriarchal again?
I would buy the t shirt, I would buy the t shirt, and um, I would wear it around the house out to Aldi, all to HTV.
I would, uh, if I wasn't preaching that week, I might wear it to church, but probably not because I was still under the suit, yeah, under the suit, yep.
Um, you gotta dress nice for church, um, but there, you know, when I go out in public shopping, for instance.
It's like, what?
I thought you were patriarchal.
Doesn't your wife do the shopping?
Yes.
But occasionally we have to cook brisket or steaks, and I can't trust her.
I was about to say, who's going to pick my wife with a strip?
Right, exactly.
There have been times I'm like, all right, babe, look.
And we, like, literally, we will take like half an hour and I'll be showing her pictures, you know, on Costco.
This exact cut, this, you know, like very specific.
You want to look for marbling here in this cutback?
Right.
But if I have time, you know, like for meat, I'll go and do that shopping.
It's not beneath me.
I'd love to serve my wife in that regard.
Servant leadership, right?
And so.
But yeah, if I'm going to the store, if I'm going to HEB, Herbert E. Butts, God bless him.
That is his name.
And HEB, dude, I just saw a video of a guy who is constantly uncovering all the soy and red dye six and stuff.
And people were telling him and telling him and telling him because HEB is like a Texas thing.
It's not necessarily nationwide.
And they're like, please do a review of HEB.
So he finally went and he did a review and he's like, guys, it's fantastic.
And he rips everything apart.
He was like, there are more.
Private family owned instead of a major like everything you go to syrup, you go to butter, you go to there is a private family owned Texas owned option for virtually every single food in the store.
And then when you look at the ingredients on the back, some of them aren't great, but none of them are like what you would find at Kroger or you'd find.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
And he was just like, This is incredible.
So, anyways, it love HEB.
I'm a Texan, but if I go to HEB, I'm not wearing that shirt because what you are doing is you're FaceTiming me if you should buy a $100 ham bone.
For the kitchen counter.
Reviewing HEB Stores00:06:11
You heard you FaceTime me?
You're like, Wes, should I get this?
Is that like the Serrano ham?
Yeah, I was at Costco with my family.
Those things are good.
You know, and my wife is just rolling her eyes.
She was not being particularly submissive that day.
But she's rolling her eyes as I'm on FaceTime in the middle of the store, you know, holding my son Franklin.
And we're looking at this.
What was it?
It was a serrano ham where it comes with a knife, a ham, and you don't have to refrigerate.
You just put it on the counter.
You're like, what is this?
Can I put this on the counter for six weeks and just be eating ham off of it constantly?
You didn't get it.
I had no constant price.
It was like $140 bucks.
It lasted so very long.
So I asked you, exactly.
I asked you, I was like, is this worth $140, which was a bad idea because Wes was like, of course.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Of course you're three.
You're going to fail your notes.
Okay.
Any other?
We just had one last super chat come in.
So, from Michael, thank you very much.
$1.99.
Appreciate you very much.
Who gets to vote in Mr. Mom style houses?
Nobody.
You forfeited.
Again, you have to throw the caveat.
If this is a situation where he's confined to a collegiate or something like that, there are certain circumstances.
Yeah.
Let me just say this is the mark of an intellectually unserious individual.
If you take the exception and they continually bring up, you take a pattern, they continually bring up the exception.
They are demonstrating that they are not capable of extrapolating averages, means, Medians, all of these things, patterns across time and space, they can't do it.
Well, I know a quadriplegic or I know a woman who can bench more.
Okay, you are just, you're intellectually, you're not in the same league here.
Love you.
That's great.
The big boys are going to make laws now.
No, that's right.
The person who always, always tries to play the devil's advocate, ultimately, to stopping any progress that conservatives might actually achieve by bringing up the exception is not a serious person.
You don't have to be mean towards them or hostile, but yeah, they don't get to.
They can be in the car, they don't get to drive.
That, that, because here, conceptually, that's exactly how we got here.
If you hate progressivism, you have to recognize that their number one play, you know, like, like, you know, give the ball to the tailback and run them up the middle.
Like the number one most common play that was done again and again that got us to our current juncture here in these United States was pointing to the exception, right?
So no child left behind, you know, like, Americans with Disabilities Act.
Right.
So, exactly.
So, we've got, you know, we've got some people, um, You know, some ninth graders can't read.
And so, what's the solution?
Well, now no ninth grader is going to get to read.
You know, and it's just bringing everything down to the lowest common denominator.
That's how they achieved equality.
So, that's how the leftists worked.
It was they said, but, well, this may sound good, but it's not really loving because we can point to this.
That's what they did even with transgenderism, right?
Yeah, right.
Wasn't that the play?
They said, well, but even in nature, not just with surgery, but in nature, there's the 0.0000, Kleinfelter syndrome and other things.
So, there's these.
Incredibly rare cases that do naturally occur, and because of that, now, um, when you go to Target, uh, your wife and your daughter, uh, if they have to use a restroom, uh, a dude might be in there, right?
So, yeah, like, have you noticed too, like, all the advertising?
It's always like, just real quick, if you're a conservative, if you're Neil Shinvey, I'm just gonna say, if you're Neil Shinvey and you're using the same kind of argumentation that was used for transgenderism, then yeah, like.
Just be honest and don't say, oh, I'm conservative, but they're the woke right.
Just be honest and say, I'm not a conservative.
I'm a liberal.
You're not a leftist either.
I'm not going to be hyperbolic.
Neil Shenfee's not a leftist, but just say, I'm a liberal and I really like the 20th century.
And I want to stay there.
So the thing is, it does require a specific type of discernment and wisdom.
And you want, you know, so you've got, let's say you've got a family in the church who their child is born with Kleinfelder syndrome.
Like, you do need, in the particulars, you need people who are wise and can bring discernment and biblical principles to those issues, but you don't apply those to the macro scale and use that to make all.
So it's not that we don't care about actual exceptions.
Of course we do.
But those are so exceptional that they need to be approached on a case by case basis.
That's right.
The law and the principles and the patterns of nature are larger, and you can make general statements about them.
Amen.
Real quick, this one.
Is uh, because we don't want to just favor the super chats, although we do favor the super chats.
Um, but this is Miss Ingham, and I just wanted to read it because honestly, I'll admit I'm personally biased, I found it encouraging, and so I just wanted to read it out loud to answer her question, but also just for other women who might be listening to the channel.
She said, Would you consider creating a playlist specifically for your content that deals with that's directed towards women?
There's been a lot of it lately, and it's really helpful and worth hearing again and again.
Thanks.
So, I just want to At minimum, say thank you.
That means a lot.
I'm glad that despite the popular opinion out there in the interweb that we are, you know, hate women, are chauvinistic, misogynistic, and blah, blah, blah, I'm really encouraged.
Thank you, Mr. And every week, there are a lot of women that watch this channel constantly and they're in the chat and they say, We love this guy.
So that's true.
For those of you, Aaron, for the women who follow Right Response Ministries and not hate watching, but actually follow it.
You, my goodness, you are a patriot.
We honor you.
Thank you so much.
I hope that your husband also enjoys the show and knows that you're watching and enjoys the show and approves.
Yeah, but thank you so much for that encouragement.
In terms of actually answering the question, it's just Nathan is doing a million things.
But you know what?
When you're doing a million things, what's a million?
I was going to say, why a million or one?
Sins Versus Crimes00:05:24
Exactly.
So I will talk to Nathan.
He's the boss around these parts for Right Response.
And We'll see if we could try to make some kind of what is it called, Nathan, on YouTube when you make a playlist?
A playlist, yeah.
We'll try to make a playlist.
Okay.
80s nostalgia guy.
Right at the last minute.
Should a gay man be allowed to vote?
No, but also, I don't think the state needs to be in everybody's home.
Right.
In a general Christian populace, you're not investigating, you're not requiring forms and attestations.
So, no, but a couple would probably slip through the cracks.
Well said.
So, do we think that sodomy is a sin?
Yes, we're Christians.
The Bible says that.
Do we think that sodomy should be treated by the civil magistrate as a crime?
We would say that not all sins are crimes, but this one is.
Historically in America, it was.
In many countries in Europe, it was.
We believe that this one is not only a sin, but it actually is a crime, that it actually has a degrading effect on society as a whole and doesn't just stay in the home.
That said, there's a difference.
There are things that are sins only and not crimes.
There are things that are sins and crimes, but even if it's a sin and a crime, it doesn't mean that it's a crime that needs to be policed.
Right.
So, there are some things where it's like, you know what, we need to actually, this is so nefarious, it needs to be searched out because it cannot be allowed to persist even privately.
It is that dangerous.
We would say that, like, so for instance, we don't think that there should be public parades towards Islam.
But we also don't think that there should be, if we were a Christian nation, Under Christian nationalism, we would not have the Islamic, you know, the Muslim police that goes and rounds up Muslims in their homes.
Searching for the Quran.
Did you read this critically?
We would not do that.
We would say, though, that no, you don't get to have any public Islamic holidays.
I'm sorry.
Is Iran having public Christian holidays?
No.
No.
So, no, we would be a Christian nation and we would act accordingly.
In the public square, it would be Christ and the Christian religion that would receive favorability, preference.
It is discrimination.
Of course it is.
You would discriminate and say, no.
Things that are Christian nation, things that are Christian, they get preference.
Things that are not Christian do not get preference.
However, there is a sliding scale.
Not preferring Islam does not necessitate that you're then policing and rounding up each and every private Muslim worshiping in their home.
Likewise, same with sodomy.
No, no gay pride parades and any known, publicly known homosexuals would certainly not be able to serve in public office.
But someone who's privately sinning in that way is not going to be snuffed out and therefore would be able to vote because we wouldn't know about it.
That's just how it would shake down.
That's how it shook out in the past.
That's how it would shake out.
Again, the big idea here would it still be a private sin?
Would they still be held accountable before God on the final day?
Absolutely.
And apart from mercy and grace, it's found through faith and repentance of sin in Jesus Christ alone.
Then they would go to hell.
And so eventually, you know, that sin would be held accountable by God Himself.
But the big concern, as we're talking about, you know, culturally and politically, is we're saying it's not so much that this cannot be done in any isolated private case whatsoever among 330 million people.
No, what we're talking about is the public square.
That at the end of the day, someone, I've said it before, someone will always be in the closet.
Every society, it's not whether but which, every society has its proverbial closet.
And if the homosexual is not in the closet, but rather being celebrated and worshiped and praised in the public square, then the Christian, the Bible-believing Christian, will be the one in the closet.
And we believe that that's wrong.
So it's not whether, but which.
Every society will have its closets, and someone's going to be in it.
It's not whether someone will be in the closet, but which person will be in the closet.
And we believe that it is more honoring to God and more conducive.
To the flourishing of society as a whole, which includes Christians but also even unbelievers, it is better, even for unbelievers in society, for Christians to be esteemed publicly rather than homosexuals.
I think that that is biblically faithful and also an argument that's supported simply by common sense and logic and nature.
Amen.
It's not extreme.
And you know what?
It's 2025, the year of our Lord 2025.
And I'm just going to go on record and say that's a moderate position now.
That is a centrist moderate position.
Okay, thank you guys so much for tuning in.
Any last words, Michael or Wes?
Nope.
I think this was a great stream.
I hope you guys were blessed by it.
And Lord willing, we will see you again at 3 p.m. Central Time on Wednesday.