Chip and Joanna Gaines face accusations of betraying their Christian base for featuring a homosexual couple on "Frontier," with hosts alleging the adoption of boys indicates human trafficking. The discussion critiques the 1973 removal of homosexuality from the DSM, citing statistical risks and contrasting modern tolerance with historical norms where shame deterred destructive behaviors like out-of-wedlock births. While referencing Andrew Clavin's defense of his son and Megan Basham's response, the segment argues that cultural disgust, not just facts, is essential for moral flourishing, before announcing co-host Antonio's part-time return until January 2026. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Why We Leave Our Comfort Zone00:13:46
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.
Chip and Joanna Gaines put the gay back in games.
They have betrayed their entire Christian base.
They built their audience primarily off of Christian soccer moms driving their Suburbans or their Honda Odyssey minivans living in the suburbs and buying all the different trinkets from Magnolia.
Then they turn around and slap them in the face.
They have a new TV show.
I believe it's called Frontier, kind of like a survivor type of show.
And they've chosen, selected one of their families to be a homosexual couple, two men who are allegedly married, who have adopted, right?
This will shock you.
They adopted two boys.
Have you noticed it's always boys?
I mean, it really is always boys.
Whether you're Dave Rubin, allegedly a conservative, adopting twin boys with your gay partner, or whether you're Sam Altman adopting a boy, or whether you're this.
Gay couple on Chip and Joanna's TV show.
Again, it's always adopting boys.
It's not a coincidence.
It's not.
And we shouldn't treat it as a coincidence.
We should acknowledge it for exactly what it is.
It's human trafficking, baby boys, ripping them away from their mothers, paying money, selling boys on the market and purchasing them with money for gay men who have the highest statistical likelihood of sexually abusing those boys.
Now, whether or not this gay couple has done that, I don't know.
I'm not omniscient, but I know that gay men have the highest likelihood of sexualizing and abusing boys, and they tend to always adopt boys.
Now, I couldn't help but somewhat find a little bit of a silver lining.
If you're familiar with the sitcom that was very popular just a few years back, Modern Family.
In Modern Family, you have two gay guys who are married, allegedly, and they adopt a girl.
And so I appreciate that in this reality TV show, With not just paid actors living out some kind of script that the writers are able to cook up, but with an actual family that, in this case, when it comes to reality, it's more realistic.
You have two gay men and they're adopted two boys every single time.
This is what we see.
And Chip and Joanna Gaines are not just saying, well, hey, we want to be inclusive, or you're not just including homosexuality.
You are including human trafficking.
You are including.
An immense amount of perversion that comes at the cost of children.
That's what they're doing.
It is a profound betrayal to their Christian base.
And I hope and pray as a pastor that no Christian patrons their business or their services ever again.
Let's tune in now.
This episode is brought to you by our premier sponsors, Armored Republic and Reese Fund, also by our Patreon members, as well as our generous donors.
If you'd like to join our Patreon, you can go to patreon.com forward slash right response ministries.
And if you would like to make a donation today, you can do so by going to right response ministries.com forward slash donate.
Again, that's right response ministries.com forward slash donate.
So here we are, boys.
We are talking about Chip and Joanna Gaines.
We're talking about the outrageous decision that they've just made by including this.
A homosexual couple and their adopted boys on their reality television series.
What do you think?
We should probably start off just by saying this is probably not an episode to listen to on the speaker with the whole family around.
Contrary to the image that they are trying to portray, this type of family, family in quotation marks, and this type of lifestyle is anything but family appropriate.
We're going to do our best, but we have to be honest about what's happening.
That's just not going to be something your five year old, your eight year old, your 10 year old should be in the vicinity of hearing.
So there's a content warning for parents.
We're really kind of, it's very interesting.
Celebrities can often get very insulated.
Chip and Joanna Gaines are worth about $25 million.
And you can almost tell in the way they talk.
You can pull this tweet up, Nate.
Chip came out and he was kind of defending himself that these are just people that have not spent much time around honest, salt of the earth, blue collar Christians.
After this controversy erupted, Chip Gaines came out and said, Look, talk, ask questions, listen, maybe even learn.
Too much to ask of modern American Christian culture, as in talking, asking questions, and learning.
Can't ask that of American Christians today.
Judge first, understand later, slash never.
He said it's a sad Sunday.
He's posting this.
This was this past Sunday when non believers have never been confronted with hate or vitriol until they're introduced to a modern American Christian.
He put the broken heart emoji on there.
These are people that just they're shocked.
Isn't that so crazy?
They've supposedly spent their lives in church.
Waco, Texas is not an atheist republic.
Let's put it that way.
This is not San Francisco.
This is Baptist land.
This is this is there's lots of churches.
There's arguably more churches in Waco than any other city in the country.
There are a lot of churches.
Incredible.
Yeah.
Baylor, is it a Methodist university?
No, it's Baptist.
Baptist?
So you have Baylor right there, Baylor University.
It's a Baptist university, tons of churches.
You're in Texas, one of the most, it's not very, but one of the most conservative states in the Union.
And they are shocked that by normalizing this show, Back to the Frontier, I think it's only three families are getting featured.
And it's kind of like, hey, you're going to pretend that you're living on the frontier, like it's back in the 1800s.
And they only picked, I think, three families to do it.
So this is not, you know, hey, we've got a roster of 50.
This is, we're going to follow you for weeks.
And you pretty much exclusively.
And the people that they chose for that were a couple of popular influencers called the Two Dallas Dads.
They're from the Dallas area.
They're two dads.
And as you alluded to in the Cold Open, they have two boys.
And Chip and Joanna said, We'd love to have you on.
And then when people pushed back and said, We don't want this normalized, they came out and said, Hey, where's the listening?
Where's the learning?
You're just being hateful, judgmental, bigoted Christians.
Yeah, it's the same thing that the left has been telling us for years, all throughout BLM.
You know, they would say, Sit down, shut up.
And listen and believe.
Sit down, shut up, listen and believe.
And now you have Chip Gaines saying the very same thing, but not even when it comes to issues like race, but when it comes to something that's arguably one of the most explicit issues in the Bible, right?
That a man shall not lie with another man, for it is an abomination.
And he's saying, no, no, no, even with this black and white principle from the scripture.
And I love how, you know, in the tweet, he says, too much to ask of modern American Christian culture.
I would say the opposite.
I would say you got your best shot with modern, emphasis on modern American Christian culture.
And praise God, even modern American Christians are in mass coming out and saying no.
But what is Chip thinking?
Any Christian culture that isn't modern would run Chip and Joanna out of town.
I mean, they'd be arrested for public indecency and promoting it.
So he's making it sound like there's something about modern American Christian culture.
And I'm thinking, like, those two qualifiers, modern and American, like, run this show in Uganda.
Run this show in Uganda with the legislation that they passed a couple, about a year and a half ago.
So he's making it sound like there's something especially bigoted, especially insensitive or harsh about modern and American Christian culture.
Whereas I would say that's actually your best bet Christian culture today instead of Christianity yesterday.
So modern Christianity and Christianity here in America, where we have apostatized for the most part.
We've backslidden when it comes to virtues that the Bible.
Puts forth.
So, your best bet is modern American Christian culture.
That's your best bet of this play, this gay couple with two boys that they've adopted being tolerable or being accepted.
And the fact that it's not accepted by modern American, meaning subpar compromised Christian culture, means that it's certainly not Christian if you're thinking Christianity around the world at large and Christianity historically, not modern, but historic Christianity.
So, yeah, if it doesn't pass the smell test, With the types of Christians we have here in America today, then there's no way that you can vouch for this or justify it or defend it if you're thinking of Christianity in general.
Right.
It's like if you're not aligned with the American Christian church, who are you aligned with?
Right.
You have to ask that question because it's like, and the demonstrated lack of humility here, too, is I think something that's incredibly grave actually for Chip, which is you have this entire spectrum of the American Christian church.
I mean, like, Truly liberal people, I would certainly consider liberal in the church, but Orthodox, right, and Trinitarian, and so on and so forth, coming out and condemning them for this activity, bringing this family into the public view, as well as people, you know, who we're incredibly close with in line with theologically.
And it's like, and your posture actually isn't one of submission, as if, hey, I'm your brother, we're on the same team, let me hear you out.
It's actually one that's like completely, you know, Condescension, frankly.
I mean, it just reads like, okay, this guy clearly knows what the church should do.
You're right.
That's the irony of Chip's tweet the irony is he's saying, well, you guys are being bigoted and closed minded and you're not listening.
You're not willing to learn.
But he's doing the exact same thing, except it's not whether, but which.
Which group are you going to learn and listen to?
And what Chip is essentially saying is that I will not listen and I will not learn from brothers in Christ who I will listen and learn from are sodomites.
So, at a certain point, you just have to say, oh, you're not one of us.
As far as I'm concerned, farewell, Chip and Joanna Gaines.
This is not a brother and sister in Christ.
They've made it clear where their allegiance lies.
And it lies ultimately with the human trafficking industry, homosexuality, and sodomy, and the perversion of our country, the endangerment of children, ripping them away from their mothers in order to entertain the fantasy of two grown perverted men.
That is the allegiance of Chip and Joanna.
And they had a moment to say, whoa, man, you know, with all the vitriol, all the backlash that they received rightfully from their Christian base, their own base, they had a moment to actually listen and learn using Chip's own language.
They could have said, whoa, sorry, guys, I think we missed this one.
We weren't trying to support it, you know, but we were just, you know, this is the world we run in.
This is the world we run in.
And I think we just got a little bit too comfortable, but we read you loud and clear and we're going to go ahead and revise this decision.
But they didn't, they doubled down and turned the barrels.
On their own base.
And there's going to be a financial liability incurred from this.
And praise God.
It always amazes me when these things happen.
This happened with Amy Grant.
She lent out her land, I think it was for her niece, who was a lesbian, to get married, quote unquote, on.
So this has happened many different times before.
But it's always incredible to me how little of a defense they have.
So you think about even right here, we're going to spend an hour and a half.
We're going to talk about the scripture.
We're going to talk about the statistics.
We're going to talk about the normalization, the history, even of how the American Psychiatric Association got the diagnosis removed.
For the manual of mental illnesses.
So we'll sit down here and spend hours and the same thing in debate.
But when they come out with that, I mean, I have yet to see someone sit down and really thoroughly deal with any of the arguments.
I remember even it was Dr. James White years ago, he did a debate on homosexuality and she got up.
And I remember the woman who was defending it, she literally was like, I've got to put aside the debater hat for a minute and just tell a story.
And she literally tried to tell this story about two lesbian librarians and how much they loved each other.
That's all the arguments they have appeal to emotion, appeal to Matthew 7, verse 1, judge not, literally the first two words of the verse.
Not even going on to complete it.
Like, you guys have to realize you have the arguments.
We were alluding to it on Monday, even Ted Cruz.
Well, why do we have to support the modern state of Israel?
He's like, well, here's the source I got it from my Sunday school teacher.
These people don't have the arguments.
They don't have the breath.
They don't have the history to pull on.
They're celebrities that are insulated.
They live in a little bubble because they're millionaires.
And like you said, Joel, the fruit of being a Christian, very much so lacking.
And every time they try to defend it, we see even more so no reliance upon scripture, no reliance upon understanding, interpreting, and applying.
Just really defensive.
I kind of like these people and how they make me feel.
The Myth of the Perfect Family00:05:38
Yep.
Yep.
That's what we see.
Do us a favor if you're following us right now, we live stream simultaneously on X and YouTube.
If you're on YouTube, go ahead and subscribe to the channel and click the bell so that you'll be notified every time we broadcast.
We do it three times a week.
Our live stream is on Monday, Wednesdays, and Fridays at 3 p.m. Central Time.
Again, we broadcast live Monday, Wednesday, Friday simultaneously on both YouTube and X.
And so if you're following us on YouTube, make sure to follow us on X as well.
It's not just my spicy tweets in the middle of the night, you know, when I'm feeling a little bit bold, but you also get all of our video content the moment that we're streaming.
Our handle on X is at RightResponseM, M as in Ministries, at RightResponseM.
Okay, so do us a favor with this video.
If you're watching on Twitter on X, go ahead and retweet and share the video.
And if you're over on YouTube, you could do the same, but at least give it a thumbs up and like it.
Okay, so let's talk real quick about, you know, the The psychology and the medical studies, it was removed from what's the name of the book that it was removed from?
So, in psychology, you have what's called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
That's called the DSM.
There's been five versions up to now, so we have the fifth version of it.
And in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality.
It was classified under a sociopathic personality disturbance or sexual deviation.
So, in your first two versions, the first two versions of the manual of mental illnesses, this is in the 1960s and the early 1970s.
Homosexuality was classified as a sociopathic personality disorder.
So, if an individual said, I have attraction to men, I engage in this type of sex, literally the diagnosis was, you are sociopathic.
This is deviant.
This is all totally outside of the natural order and not necessarily forced institutionalization.
But there most certainly were sodomy laws, like in Texas here on the books.
So, there's certainly prosecution for doing it publicly.
You think of the Stonewall riots.
But it was in 1973 that the Board of Trustees voted to simply put it into a term where it was called a sexual orientation disturbance.
So instead of being a disorder, I'm disordered.
You can think of other criminal attractions we would have now, like the animals.
Who knows how long that'll last?
It was moved from something being disordered and broken to simply, it's only disordered and broken if you're disturbed by it.
So in 73, the heading was changed and it's a small change.
So it's still in the manual.
It's still saying, like, hey, this isn't something ideal, right?
Depression is never like, I don't suffer from depression.
I love it.
But you get to decide if it's a disorder, right?
But it's only a disorder if you're disturbed by it.
Right.
If you're schizophrenic, but you know, your imaginary best friend happens to be your alternate.
Personality and you enjoy it, then, you know, well, it's not a disorder.
So they made that concession.
But like you're saying, it wasn't a full concession.
It was, you know, significant enough.
But for the first two editions of the DSM, this is the, you know, homosexuality is listed as a psychological mental disorder.
And I'm just going to get you to fact check me on this.
But I can only imagine, I assume that it was removed because of just ample scientific studies that were presented.
And then ultimately, it was the people collectively through a democratic, You know, mechanism that said we want this removed, right?
Like, I guess my question is was this the culture as a whole in America changed and, you know, 51% of the majority, simple majority of the people themselves came out and said, well, we disagree with this.
Or were there any particular people behind the scenes that actually single handedly removed this from the DSM?
And if so, who are those people?
Yeah.
So, really honestly, no, it was not 60% of the public.
In the 60s and 70s, the American public did not want homosexual marriage, they did not want it normalized.
1995, Bill Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act.
So the gay rights movement grows into the 90s, and Clinton gets out and he signs legislation, defense of marriage.
Marriage is defined as one man and one woman.
But it's two groups, the Gay Liberation Front, GLF, and the Gay Activists Alliance, GAA.
They had protests and they pressured the panel that basically voted on what disorders would be included.
One of those activists was a man named Frank Kameny, he was actually fired for being gay, which is good.
That's how it should be in a Christian society.
He was a Jewish man, and he had this very famous quote that said, We're the experts on our own lives.
And so they pushed this narrative.
We're the experts on our own lives.
They tried to take research and say, Listen, you're categorizing this as a disorder, but all of the research, the science says that we're no more psychologically different than the rest of the makeup.
And so a very concentrated type of protest, very concentrated pressure on a very concentrated and small group of people.
So, not groundswell support to all of the members of Congress, but a very narrow, Focused, intentional, loud support led by, again, this man, others, a small group of panel, and they caved and said, well, we'll just call it a disturbance if it feels like that.
And then it's the DSM, I think it's four that it's removed then at 1987.
So the DSM three removes it altogether.
So right there, space of 20 years, concentrated protest, concentrated effort, threats, being loud, and people kind of saying, hey, this is my journey, this is my decision, we're the expert on our own lives.
And in 20 years, you have, hey, you know what?
Homosexuality may not be normal, but it's not a mental disease like it was defined as 20 years ago.
How Protest Changed the DSM00:16:04
Yeah.
Right?
Yeah, I was just going to say quickly.
I mean, this issue, I think in particular, is sort of prototypical of what the left, the slippery slope that the sort of the left is engaged in.
Because, like, as you talk about sort of the progression towards the legalization of, you know, sodomy and same sex marriage, I mean, it's like at every turn, what you were hearing was in this and no further.
Right.
This and no further.
Hey, it's not an illness.
That's all we want.
We just don't want it to be recognized as an illness.
Hey, you know, now we just want a union.
We want the tax benefits of union.
I just want to be able to visit my dying spouse in the hospital.
That was the big narrative, I think.
Yeah, power of attorney.
We want these legal sort of recognitions practically.
And then it's like, you have Obergefell, right?
And by then, it's like, no, it's the same.
There is no difference.
Yeah.
I'm seeing in the chat, we got some, just the chat's filled with a bunch of gays.
But Wes, some of the guys are picking up on the fact that you said, That you should be able to fire someone for being gay.
You want to flesh that out?
Yeah, Jason Matthew, he asked a question.
He said, I'm genuinely asking, why fire someone for being gay?
There's something about this sin.
So, all sins are equal in that a single sin of any category be it a white lie, be it homosexuality, be it murder a single sin is enough to send you to hell forever because that sin is committed not just against man, you lied to someone else, but you lied ultimately and sinned against God, who is a perfect infinite being.
Who is perfectly just.
So a just God is going to punish you for sin.
So all sin is categorically equal across the board in that sense, in that a single sin of any category is damning.
And it's all equal in the eternal sense.
Exactly.
But not all sins are equally destructive.
All equally, exactly.
Eternally, all of them enough to send you to hell.
But temporally, here in this life, not all sins are equally as destructive.
Right.
I want to teach my kids as a father do not tell a white lie.
Nope.
And also do not murder.
Also, in addition to that, I want to specify and distinguish for my kids.
I want them to know both are sins.
But if my kids grow up and reach teenage years thinking that the consequences are the same for telling a white lie or killing the neighbor, then I've failed as a father.
The notion that in the temporal sense, and when it comes to temporal effects and consequences, that all sins are equal in that sense, that's simply not true.
And even Jesus himself, when he's pronouncing woes, he says, To one will be given a light beating, and to another a severe beating.
So, Jesus talks about varying degrees of God's just punishment in hell.
There are varying degrees of punishment, and there are varying degrees of punishment because there are varying degrees of sin.
And so, we have to recognize that the notion that all sin is equal, period, full stop, is actually a misnomer.
All sin is equal in its ability to separate you from communion with the triune God forever if.
Not repented of and atoned for by the death of Jesus Christ and having faith in him and what he did for you on the cross.
So all sin is equal in that instance, in that sense, but not all sin is equal in its temporal effects and its temporal consequences.
There are varying degrees of consequences for our sin, and there are varying degrees of judgment in the life to come.
You'll go to hell apart from salvation, which is in Christ alone, but even in hell, there will be more severe and lighter forms of.
Of judgment.
Yep.
So, for example, like my parents are still sinners, but I would happily have them watch my children.
Right.
You can say, well, your parents are sinners and a gay man is a sinner too.
Well, here's one reason why you shouldn't employ them they're gross.
You've said it before, and I'll say it again, and this is not for little ears.
What's the defining aspect of homosexuality among men?
Butt sex.
Yep.
Literally.
There are statistics and studies out there.
Something like over 50% of gay men engage in fecal playing within the gay community.
It's called bug chasing, where men that don't have HIV will chase to find other men that have HIV and ask them to give it to them.
I knew a guy in the military who got HIV because he was a gay, and he literally posted online about how other gay men would come up to him and ask him.
To give him HIV.
And they do it because they say it's an incredible high.
It's an incredible euphoric, perverse experience.
So you have, I run a machine shop, right?
This is a gay man.
I'm just asking him to come in and take widget one, put it over, and connect it to widget two.
I mean, what does being gay have anything to do with that?
Well, he's a disgusting person.
And what he indulges in privately, Paul specifies in Romans one.
This is the one sin he really mentions.
He says, when people reject God, And reject his natural order.
He specifies men leaving their natural use of the woman burned in lust towards other men.
And then he takes women and he says, in the same way, they left the man and they burned in lust for one another.
One of the final stages of rejecting God and rejecting the world that he's made, the sin that Paul highlights and talks about at length in the first chapter of his grand exposition of the gospel, is burning in lust for one another.
And he categorizes that.
And he says, they receive in themselves the due recompense.
That's right.
They destroy their bodies.
Gay men without HIV.
Their life expectancy is 30 years less than a heterosexual man.
They have dozens, hundreds, if not some of them, thousands of sexual partners across their lifetime.
They engage in recreational drug use, alcohol abuse, sadomasochism.
These are disgusting people that I would not want in my business, that I would not want to be friends with in my personal life.
That's just how it is.
And you don't have to be ashamed to say that.
Nope.
Disgust is a perfectly, wonderfully Christian response.
And for the record, it's not either or.
It can be both and.
You can have genuine compassion for someone who is a sinner.
That is in need of the grace of God.
You're praying for them, you're evangelizing them.
You can have a genuine spiritual compassion for the sinner who is at odds with God that you want to see ultimately reconciled the same way that we were reconciled to God by the grace of Jesus Christ and his finished work on the cross.
You can have compassion and also simultaneously be disgusted.
There should be a revulsion.
That is the natural response.
Any heterosexual man, even if he's not a Christian, They've done studies on this that heterosexual men, if they see two men displaying public affection or kissing in public, they see two men kissing, they find it equally, if not more, revolting than a picture of maggots.
And that's not just a Christian response.
That is the stereotypical general male response, believer or not, heterosexual male response to homosexual public displays of affection.
And that is a natural response.
That's not actually sinful.
That is the way that we should think about homosexual activity.
Oh, that's great.
God, please save them.
Lord, have mercy.
Help them to repent of that sin.
Hey, can I share the gospel with you?
And also, oh, that's gross.
Hey, Alan said, oh, you just sounded really compassionate reeling off those statistics.
It is a compassion and mercy to warn people.
You will live 30 years less on average if you are gay.
And I say that with the severity and not the soft tone.
I say that to say if you're even thinking about it.
Or you're half in, half out, run.
Not just because it will destroy your soul, it will destroy your body too.
You could come to Christ later in life, you don't get those years back, and you don't get the damage back.
Coming to Christ does not cure you of HIV.
The resurrection will, but in your body, it does not fix it.
Right?
That's right.
All right, let's go to our first commercial break and we will come right back.
So, welcome back.
We've made the point before.
We did a couple episodes during Pride Month.
It was this year and especially last year.
You can look up that episode, Shocking Facts About Pride Month.
We focused a lot on just the individuals themselves, not getting into the idea of family and adoption.
But I think we would all agree, even what's the most pernicious about this is not just the platforming of two men as if that's a normal coupling and it makes up a marriage.
That in and of itself is terrible and it's normalizing.
But what goes even farther than this is the fact that these two dads have a set of boys that they've adopted.
Joel, I'm going to read your tweet here.
You tweeted this out and I think it was really well said.
You said, to be clear, Chip and Joanna Gaines are not normalizing different kinds of families.
That's the rhetoric you would hear.
That's what they said.
We're just normalizing different kinds.
I want to show an equal representation of different kinds of families.
So I put that in quotation marks.
Exactly.
So they're not normalizing just different kinds of families.
What they're actually normalizing is the industry of human trafficking, where baby boys are knowingly sold to perverted men who have the highest likelihood of sexually abusing them.
Yep.
Banger.
I was so real for that.
So real for that.
So real for that.
Well, I can even just say this before you even get into gay men adopting, one of the biggest predictors by far, not just like, well, there's maybe a 10% higher risk, the biggest predictor by far of abuse of a child, be that physical or sexual, is a non biological parent in the home.
So, this is even if it's a mother, for some reason the dad is not in the picture, maybe he passed away, and there's a stepfather, that increases the likelihood in some studies.
I think it's over 100%.
It's not alcohol abuse, it's not a dysfunctional marriage, it's not socioeconomic status, it's not race.
The biggest predictor for a sexual abuse of children is a non biological parent in the home.
Your children, there's just God created it that way that they look like us, they're like us, we share the home with them together.
That we're bound to them a certain way that it makes any type of mistreatment, misuse, it makes it almost unthinkable.
So, even before we get into gay men, which is again the most perverted end state of rejecting nature, before you even get into that, just even a parent in the home, in a heterosexual couple, even increases the risk.
When you get to homosexuals, there are, of course, no definitive studies on this where you go in and say, like, oh, yeah, it turns out 60% more likely to sexually abuse.
But I want to call attention to a story that this is a couple years old.
But this is honestly, if you were going to say, like, well, there's the groomers, and some try to do this, like Spencer Claven, son of Andrew Claven on the Daily Wire, he tries to say, like, hey, there's groomers, but us normal gays, Spencer is gay, us normal gays, we separate ourselves.
We're not like that.
It's the L and the G and the B.
And just to be clear, Andrew Claven has publicly, several times, and still to this day, defends his son and believes that his son is Christian and that it's compatible.
Andrew Claven would basically frame it by saying, Yeah, well, it's not ideal and it's not normative.
And, you know, he says, like, for myself, you know, the natural, you know, instinct and desire is that I would have grandchildren.
I'm not going to have grandchildren because my son is a homosexual and can't procreate.
But he would still say that, I've heard him say this publicly, where he says, I'm actually really proud of my son, the courage that it took.
And I actually think that's more true.
He's being more true to his relationship with Jesus.
So he doesn't just say, my son, you know, is, it's not just Andrew Clavin has a gay son and he's saying, man, that's a shame.
But he's actually saying, I have a gay son.
Who is a faithful Christian man and the homosexual lifestyle and that deliberate continual choice that my son is making is compatible with Christianity.
Not the norm, not ideal, but it is permissible and it is compatible.
And Andrew Clavin, of course, is a professing Christian.
And people just need to be aware that, yeah, like, I mean, when you think of the Daily Wire, you have Ben Shapiro.
He's not a Christian, he's a Jew.
And then you have Spencer Clavin, who is, I mean, he's carving out excuses for one of the clearest sins.
Andrew Clavin, sorry.
Yeah, Andrew Clavin at the Daily Wire carving out an excuse for one of the clearest sins in the case of his son.
This is, yeah, like, you just, when you look to, Big con, you know, big conservative ink, it really is in many ways a con.
That's precisely what it is with conservatives like these who need liberals.
And just to be clear, having a son, heaven forbid, that chose to sin in this way, that'd be so hard for a father.
But Jesus himself says, you just preached on it, Joel.
Like that is the cost of following Jesus.
My son says, please accept me in this life.
Please come to my wedding.
Please spend the holidays with me.
Just approve of what I choose to do.
That sometimes is the cost of following Jesus, is saying, I can't.
I serve a higher master.
I won't.
Right.
So, getting to this story again, Spencer Clave and others, they would try to say, like, well, there's the normal gays and then there's the groomers and the pride parade and all of that.
One of the most quintessential, like, no, these are the good gays, would be a couple, used in quotation marks, from Atlanta, Georgia.
And about two years ago, they were thrown in jail.
Wealthy gay couple, I'm reading a headline here on the screen, wealthy gay couple who raped their adopted boys given 100 years in prison.
Zachary and William Zulak.
Will spend the rest of their lives behind bars after pleading guilty to multiple charges.
And I'm not gonna go into detail everything that they did, but they prostituted them.
Two gay men, rich men here in the Atlanta area, not here, but in the United States, this is not overseas, this is not in Pakistan, here in Georgia, they were wealthy.
So these were not men and it's like, oh my goodness, how do I rank rent this month?
I live in San Francisco.
No, wealthy gay men who had that picture perfect.
You can see in the screen if you saw it a moment ago.
They're all wearing t shirts that says, Love is love.
Well, I mean, surely they're the normal ones and they take care of their kids, right?
And they're just a loving family that looks a little different.
No, they were prostituting and filming the sexual abuse of their children.
Well, what is love is love?
And what is Pride Month?
It's that.
Yeah.
And just again, to be clear, what Wes is saying is they did not just merely abuse the children sexually themselves, but they pimped out their adopted boys, the boys that they harvested and bought with cash.
From their mothers that they stripped them away from, and then they pimped them out, sold them to homosexual sodomite man after man after man after man.
And they're in jail, presumably because they could not get a flight quick enough to Israel, where most pedophiles actually go and live out their days in freedom.
Right?
Israel has a non extradition policy, so they won't extradite people in their country.
Hey, they're charged with this.
Like, well, yeah, Israel, no, seriously, Israel statistically.
Is home and houses and defends more pedophiles than any country that I know of.
So when you look at Chip and Joanna Gaines, who again made their living for the most part on Christians, Christians who appreciated their aesthetic, Christians who appreciated their business.
If you go to Waco, Texas, they have it's called Magnolia Farms, and it's got a little church there and a baseball diamond, and it sells hot dogs, and it's kind of portrayed as the picturesque kind of Americana scene there.
This is what good, wholesome, American.
The American spirit feels like spending time with family, spending time with one another, going to church.
And, you know, as it turns out, and hey, just a little bit of this on the side.
The people that do this, well, we disagree with that, but we'll happily normalize it just right up until that point.
Like, that's how you get to this.
How do you get to this?
Removing it as a mental disorder, removing it altogether, allowing marriage, and then allowing adoption.
Like, there's even countries in Europe, China itself has banned adoption of children by gay couples.
Reclaiming Shame in Modern Culture00:10:13
Funny enough with this story, not funny enough, but it was a Christian adoption agency that gave these two kids to these men.
So, at every step of the story, well, who's normalizing this?
And who's allowing it to happen?
And who's kind of lulling Christians to sleep?
Well, you know, they're just a different kind of family.
Well, it's people like Chip and Joanna.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It was a Christian adoption agency that gave these two boys to two men who prostituted them out and are now spending their life in prison, which is not just.
Justice would be for them to be hung.
Okay.
Yeah.
I was just going to say, I mean, I wanted to bring up the topic of shame, which ought to be attached to sin in society.
And, you know, hearing, you know, Wes talk about these things and you talk about these things, I mean, it's tough.
It's tough to hear.
It frankly is pretty jarring, but it needs to be heard because this is actually, it is this perversion precisely to which the shame sort of emerges from, right?
Like when you know that these acts and this lifestyle is associated with these kinds of heinous acts, there is naturally a revulsion and a sense of shame that washes over you for people who are doing these sorts of things.
And that's frankly, I was just reflecting on it.
Like, I think this is one of the unique areas, not unique, but one of the more prominent areas where shame has gone out of the window.
And that's truly, like, I think from a Christian perspective, what we're trying to reattach to homosexuals and sodomy.
Because frankly, it's like those arguments of, like, oh, we're just like you.
You know, we just want what you want.
We want to, you know, join in the bond of love.
I think Gavin Newsom once said many decades ago, like, that's not true.
Right.
No, it's, there was a book I read years ago that was a good little book, simple but profound.
But it was called The Grace of Shame.
And it was just talking about how shame actually is a grace.
You see the Apostle Paul, I forget which letter it is in the New Testament, but where he says, have nothing more to do with them.
Somebody who's, A repeat offender when it comes to sin and is unrepentant, right?
So you've gone to him, you've corrected him, you've tried to win your brother over following the steps of church discipline.
He's just digging his heels in, doubling down on his sin with no remorse, no repentance.
And it reaches a point where, as far as the church is concerned, so this is separate from what the state should do in terms of legislation and carrying out sentences for crimes, but those things which are sins in the realm of the church.
The Apostle Paul says, have nothing more to do with him so that he might be ashamed.
And there's supposed to be, there really is a grace of shame.
And the grace portion of shame is that God uses shame for sin in all of our lives, my life included, to drive us to repentance.
Christianity does not create, I've heard people say this, well, Christianity is a shame free zone or a guilt free zone.
No, Christianity intensifies shame and intensifies guilt.
But the heart of the gospel is not that it makes shame disappear.
But that Christianity intensifies our shame that we rightfully feel for real sin, but provides a source where shame can be covered and dealt with.
So, as a Christian, because my body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and he convicts me of sin, I actually feel more, not less, but more shame and more guilt for my sin.
And what the gospel does is it doesn't create this shame free zone, but it creates a focal point where I can run, where my shame ultimately can be atoned for.
And covered, and that's the cross of Jesus Christ.
And so, I've said it before, but I'll say it again in a godly society and in a healthy, prosperous, good society, there's only two places for the homosexual to run, and that's either to the closet or to the cross.
He can repent and be welcomed and esteemed and loved and accepted in society at large, or he has to go to the closet.
And here's the reality that we just have to recognize it's not whether, but which.
This idea of just having a neutral public square was always a myth.
It was always a myth.
It never happened.
All we ultimately did was we traded one set of dogma, one orthodoxy, one set of virtues for another.
And the reality is, someone will always be, societally speaking, someone will always be in the closet.
And that's precisely what Chip and Joanna Gaines are actually trying to do.
What you see Chip doing is he's stopped shaming people as he shames you, as he shames Christians.
You dirty bigot, you close minded Neanderthal, you're not willing to learn, you're stupid, you're not willing to listen, you're insensitive, you're not compassionate.
What is he doing?
He's shaming people.
So it's not whether or not someone will be shamed, it's simply a matter of the question of who will be shamed.
And here's the deal it's either going to be perverse sinners or God fearing Christians.
Society cannot accept them both.
We will naturally, no matter what form of government we have, no matter what we say on paper, naturally, what will play out in the culture at large is that these two groups that are philosophically and substantively and diametrically opposed to one another will not both be equally tolerated and accepted.
One will be shamed and the other will be heralded and esteemed.
And what we've seen in our culture over the past four or five decades is we've actually seen.
Not your alleged Christians, not your merely professing Christians, but Bible believing actual Christians shamed.
They have been run into the closet.
The kind of content that we're espousing today is the kind of content.
You know this.
You know that if you were to have any kind of conversation like this, not just in the workplace, but even with certain friends and certain family members, you know that the consequence would be that you would be looked at as though you were sinister, as though you were.
As though you were the Joker from Batman, as though you should be locked behind bars.
You would be immediately shamed.
So it's not whether, but which.
It's not whether we'll have a certain sector of our society that is shamed.
It's simply which sector of society will be shamed.
And right now, lately, in modernity in the West, what we've opted for is shaming Christians.
So it's either Christians are going to be in the closet and gay men.
Without even wearing underwear, with their private parts hanging out in front of children in New York pride parades.
It'll be gay guys.
That's the whole idea of pride, by the way.
You guys got to get that.
It's not enough to just, oh, it's two men in the privacy of their home.
It was never about that.
That was just a line.
That was a facade.
That was just sneaky rhetoric to get towards the ultimate aim.
The aim was full blown public, not just acceptance, but praise, esteem, public pride, right?
So think of that.
What's the opposite of shame?
A feeling, a sense of pride, a sense of pride.
So what you're going to have is you're going to have one group, there's a sense of pride, right?
And the other group, there's a sense of shame.
And To have pride in sodomites is necessarily by default, by way of consequence, it is to shame those who are against homosexuality.
And so, what we've done over the past few decades is we've simply reversed it.
It's not that we've become a tolerant society where everyone is accepted.
No way.
We just traded which group is accepted and which group is demonized.
So, Christians now go in the closet so that sodomites can come out and diddle kids.
Yeah.
That's what we are.
Shame is such a.
Like, there's you mentioned the grace of shame, and I just think about even for like our children.
There was a time when wedlock was almost unthinkable in this country, and that wasn't because we had huge education programs, it's like on billboards and in schools, and like, don't do it, don't do it, don't do it.
The cultural expectation was that that is shameful to have sex without the commitment of marriage and to produce children is a shameful thing.
It's shameful for the woman to join a man in that, it's shameful for the man to seduce and take a woman in that.
That shame then prevented.
What would be probably millions of births out of wedlock, the brokenness of the family, the abuses that occurred.
And it's not like, well, if we just had, again, like billboards and education, if people only knew.
That's not actually the best way for decreasing rates of homosexuality, decreasing rates of births out of wedlock.
The best way is a culture that says that is shameful.
And then you have the grace of just, you actually don't have to do a lot about it.
There was no 1900 sodomy squad of people going through and spying on private citizens, questionnaires in the town market.
What did you do in your bedroom this week?
You didn't have any of that.
It was just expected you don't do these things.
So, our goal is not some type of police and surveillance state where, like, the thought, if the thought even enters someone's mind, they're under arrest for thought crime.
No, the thought is a normal, decent, upstanding public square where someone even suggests the idea and they go, Oh, that's terrible.
That's disgusting.
And then their kids grow up with the like, their kids don't even grow up with even thinking that that's an option.
Their default mode what are my options?
Get married to a wonderful woman and have children.
That's it.
That's the option.
When Emotions Override Facts00:05:09
That is a grace.
That's a wonderful thing compared to what we're doing now.
The propaganda that you're having to fight against.
A. Allen in the chat, he's a lid.
So he's being sarcastic, but I think it's fantastic.
So I'm going to read it.
He said, Less education, more shame.
What a great policy.
So true, King.
I agree.
That really is.
I mean, he put it succinctly, it's concise, it's profound.
Less education and simply more shame.
It's not just, hey, here's all the statistics and all the facts, right?
Ben Shapiro has famously said, Facts don't care about your feelings.
But the reality is that people's feelings often don't care about your facts.
So it's not just simply saying, Well, here's the facts and let me educate you.
And if you were just properly informed, then you would naturally come to the correct conclusions and develop the correct convictions.
No, there are plenty of people who have seen the facts.
They simply don't care because they care about their feelings more than their facts.
So, in the same way, facts don't care about feelings, well, people's feelings often don't care about facts.
And what you're doing when it comes to shame, and it is a biblical grace, it's actually a tool.
In our disposal as Christians, the Bible talks about this, wielding the grace of shame in order to incentivize good behavior and deter people from societally destructive behavior.
And the reality is, we want to do both.
So we actually do want to present facts and educate, but then we also, you do that in the kind of this education sphere, but then in the cultural sphere, we also want there to be the.
Emotional appealing to the pathos, right?
So it's and the passions, like that it's actually both.
And when it even comes to you know, preaching, right?
I've been preaching for um about 10 years at this point, and good sermons, like when you look at some of the best preachers of all time, you look at the Puritans, right?
You look at Charles Spurgeon, the prince of preachers, you look at uh John Gill, or you know, like all these different guys, John Knox.
Um, a good preacher would have light and heat, is what the Puritans would say light and heat.
Light, the exposition, opening, the illuminating of the word of God.
So it's the exegeting.
This is what the text means.
Here are the facts, right?
But then the heat would be bringing it to bear, right?
The passions and the pathos of the preacher compelling the people.
You think of Jonathan Edwards, one of the most famous sermons ever preached Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.
And, you know, witnesses said that there were claw marks, scratch marks in the back of the pews where somebody sitting the row behind was like so.
Uncomfortable, because he's using illustrations, right?
He's not just using facts.
He's using descriptive languages and analogies and illustrations.
He talks about a spider hanging just by one thread over an open flame.
This is all that's just a breath, and the breath in your lungs that God Himself is sustaining that could stop at any moment.
That's all that's separating you from ultimately the just wrath, white hot wrath of a thrice holy God.
And so cling to Christ, run to Christ.
And so there's The facts of scripture, but then there's also this emotional, powerful, profound appeal.
Both are important.
So, yeah, let's educate people, but also let's deter people culturally in society at large through shame, shaming people for bad behavior.
And the reality is, we already do this, right?
When it comes to drunk driving, how many ads, right?
How much effort has been put into commercials where a guy gets drunk and in the commercial, you know, he doesn't just kill himself, but he kills a whole family to where Anybody who sees, you know, some guy swerving, he's drunk, you feel like this vitriolic anger.
You're not just like, oh, he's breaking the law, you know, like beep, boop, beep, beep, boop.
I am Spock, you know, a robot, and I'm going to like, no, you actually feel emotional about it.
You're like, how dare this idiot endanger the lives of this soccer mom with her van filled with kids on the way home?
And he's risking the lives of children by being drunk behind the.
You feel an emotional response because you've been trained.
You've been trained to actually despise it.
And so, if you know, you pull up next to the guy, you roll down your window, you're honking on the horn, and you call the cops also, but you're honking on the horn.
And if he rolls down his window, you're going to shout through the window, How dare you?
You should be ashamed, right?
So, we all are familiar with this kind of interaction in culture at large.
So, then the only question is is homosexual behavior actually a detriment to society like other things like drunk driving is?
And the answer is yes.
It absolutely is.
It degrades society.
It's not just private between you and your partner in your bedroom.
No, it actually pulls down, it drags all of society down to the lowest common denominator, to the basis appetites of perverted men.
Why God Says No to Sin00:04:44
And therefore, it's something that we should know.
We should be educated on the statistics and the scripture for why it is morally wrong.
But we should also even feel, in an emotional sense, this is a shame.
This is how dare you, should be the kind of response.
So, yes, let's educate people, but also, So true.
Great point.
Let's also shame.
Yeah, and I'll just say quickly on the matter of education, to cite R.J. Rushdooney and the Institutes of Biblical Law, he talks about both the positive and negative elements of the Old Testament law, the case law that is.
And he talks about both the law as a teacher in its punitive sense, but also the law of a teacher as a teacher in its shame oriented sense, preventative sense.
Preventative.
Yep, it prevents, but then also punishes.
So shame in that way, shame is educating people.
In the basest, simplest way possible, to be revolted, to be incensed, upset, righteously indignant about something without having to think through conceptually, on a rational basis, why that thing might be wrong.
Actually, it's wrong because God said it's wrong.
And that's all you need to know.
I remember in the military, this was right around when Don't Act, Don't Tell was repealed, and we had a gay sergeant.
So we had some type of ethics class, and he said, Hey, can anyone on a non religious basis make an argument against homosexuality?
At the time, I didn't know I was opposed to it because I was a Christian, but I remember not necessarily kind of knowing the facts.
But now I realize too, oh, the facts are also there as well.
So when God commanded against this and against that, he also wove into nature, hey, and also it will destroy you if you do it.
And that's what we're warning people about.
Right.
And there always are facts.
So even if you can't see them, right, just like a child should trust their parent, if their parent's like, hey, get out of the street, you can't, I told you to stay in the front yard, you can't play in the street.
And you're yelling, not even because you're mad, but you're trying to be.
Urgent and immediately get your child out of the street.
And the child, you know, who's four years old or whatever it is, which a four year old should not be playing in the front yard unintended, but just humor the illustration for a moment here.
You walk outside, your child's in the middle of the street, and you yell and say, Get out of the street.
Well, the child doesn't understand probably at that moment the reasons for why, why they can't play in the street.
And, you know, if it's the child doesn't have a good relationship with their father, their mother, the parent that's urging them, insisting that they get out of the street, they might be tempted to think, you know, mom or dad is just trying to.
Steal my joy.
They're just trying to, you know, mitigate my fun.
They just don't want me to be happy, right?
The street is, we all know that the street is the most joyful place for children to frolic and play.
And mom and dad just hate me and want to steal my joy.
But we all know that's not actually the reason.
And when the child matures and gets older, they realize, oh, mom and dad didn't want me in the street because cars hit kids in the street.
Well, so it is with the law of God.
God is our heavenly father.
And what I want to articulate real quick before we go to our second commercial break is simply this God is not.
Capricious.
God is not capricious.
He's not arbitrary.
He's not mean spirited.
So that which he deems as being morally right is also that which leads towards life and health and happiness.
The right thing is the good thing.
Right?
So you'll never find a case in all of Scripture where something is right but not good, or something is good but not right.
Right meaning morally right, good meaning temporally and eternally, most importantly, beneficial, lending towards prosperity, lending towards.
I hate this word because it's overused by a bunch of, you know, lib Christian ministries, but lending towards flourishing, right?
So, the good thing is the right thing, and the right thing is the good thing.
And if you know from the word of God that something is deemed as being right or, you know, on the other side of the aisle, being wrong, like homosexuality, and you can't see why God has called it wrong, you can't see why this thing which God has deemed as being morally wrong is also bad, that it's not beneficial, that it's degrading, that it's a liability, that it's harmful and destructive for you and for others.
If you can't see why, The why is important.
But in the meantime, if you believe that God is a father and that he's a good heavenly father, a perfect father, then you should be able to have a good faith disposition towards your heavenly father and recognize God would not say that something was bad or wrong, morally wrong, if it wasn't also bad.
That God is not capricious.
He's a good father.
Hating Sin Without Hating Sinner00:14:03
He's not trying to steal your fun.
He's not, think of Gandalf and Bilbo, I'm not trying to rob you.
I'm trying.
To help you, let's go to our last commercial break and we'll be right back.
I have a white pill for you guys.
We are winning this fight.
I would say the high watermark 2021, 2022, we've mentioned it many times, but there was broad cultural support for gay marriage, for LGBTQ rights.
Almost every statistic we have, maybe support's holding steady among independents and Democrats, but it is cratering among the religious.
Even the mainlines are seeing a pretty big decline in the amount of individuals, practitioners that approve of it.
We're certainly seeing in the Republican Party.
We're seeing in the youth.
You spend five minutes on Instagram Reels and you will realize that Gen Z is based.
And so, to provide encouragement, even this backlash with Chip and Joanna Gaines, other creators are going to say, Oh, I saw what happened to them.
They got the Bud Light treatment.
Even if I personally kind of on the fence, you know, kind of don't like it, but this is also kind of the crowd I run in.
That was just a warning shot that if you're supporters, the people that support you, buy your stuff, watch your shows, That's 50% that are salt of the earth, blue collar Christians.
They're going to come out with pitchforks when you try to normalize this disgusting lifestyle on other people.
And so, just to say practically for the listener, was it press on, pray on?
Yeah.
Shout on, pray on.
We're gaining ground.
Shout on, pray on.
We're gaining ground.
And it is true on this issue and others, but on this issue especially, we're gaining ground.
And you know what?
It turns out, like many things with this kind of like total defeat of the left, which it, I mean, there's still a ton more work to be done.
But turns out one of the most profound arguments against gays.
Is gays, right?
You just let them kind of do their thing.
It's like, okay, fine, you know, all right, you've just been screeching and wailing about we want our rights, we want our freedom, you know, like, and so we'll give it to you.
And immediately they're like, let's dress up as drag queens and go to school libraries and try to get people's kids to sit in our laps.
Oh, that's why we don't like gays.
That's right, you're all a bunch of pedos.
That's right.
There was 2020, the mask off moment, San Francisco gay men's choir.
Literally sang a song.
It was the whole choir.
We'll convert your children.
We're coming for your children.
And they literally, one of the lines was saying, like, you know, like, oh, you're bigots and you're extremists and you use all this hyperbolic stuff that's not actually true.
But one of the lines of the song, he says, like, funny in this instance, right?
Funny this time, you're right.
We'll convert your children.
And people are like, oh, it's a joke.
Nope, it wasn't.
Nope.
They literally, they probably honestly, they could have won.
But here's the deal they had to wait 10 more years.
To molest kids.
They couldn't do it.
They were winning everywhere.
So, what would it have taken?
It would have required sodomite men to hold off from molesting children for 10 years.
And they couldn't do it.
As we found out, they can't do it.
Praise God.
They couldn't do it.
So great.
You're done.
Well, thanks for joining us.
We're going to get to some super chats and land the plane here.
We've got our first one Baptist 702, faithful supporter, says, I used to identify as bisexual.
Well, first of all, they gave $10.
Thank you, Baptist 702.
But this message is even greater.
I used to live and identify as bisexual before turning back to Christ.
Praise God.
The lies and deception of the world, the flesh, and the devil are difficult to turn from, but the truth in Christ is far greater.
Amen.
Amen.
Anyone just to even say, like, certainly some of the temporal effects will not go away, but it does not matter what homosexual you are.
The homosexual who turns from sin and turns to Christ, that's Paul in 1 Corinthians.
Such were some of you.
And he lists homosexuals.
You were homosexual.
You slept with over a thousand men, but you were washed by the blood of Jesus.
No one, while still alive in this earth, is too far gone.
Amen.
Amen.
GM Raptor.
Is that an M?
I can't see.
Yeah, I think so.
GM Raptor.
Super chat, $2.
Thanks, Raptor.
We appreciate it.
He says, thoughts on Megan Basham's take on the situation.
So, Megan Basham is getting dragged, as the kids would say, on the interwebs.
So, not hot.
She came out defending Andrew Clavin, as Andrew Clavin was defending his son, Spencer Clavin, who is a homosexual.
And she kind of, like Megan Basham has been clear.
I want to give her credit.
She's been clear that she believes homosexuality.
Is objectively sinful.
So she is a Bible believing Christian.
She's an evangelical, very much kind of in the MacArthur camp, probably theologically in a lot of ways.
She's always been a strong appreciator for John MacArthur, who is now in glory with the Lord Jesus Christ and reunited with his friend Sproul.
I saw a meme.
It was really funny.
It was a picture, AI generated picture of MacArthur on one side and Sproul on another, sitting and laughing and talking together in heaven.
And Sproul said, What took you so long?
Because he died in 2017.
So, MacArthur outlived him by eight years.
And so, Sproul was like, What took you so long?
MacArthur answered back and said, I never liked cigarettes.
Which Sproul, his lucky stripe cigarette, Sproul was a tobacco appreciator.
So, yeah.
So, Meg Basham, she's very much in that camp, a big respecter of John MacArthur.
And my point is just to say that Meg Basham is a conservative Christian.
And I wouldn't say otherwise.
And I've had some interactions with her, and she's a wonderful woman.
In many regards, so I don't mean to disrespect her or give her a hard time, but I do think that she's wrong on this one.
She kind of did what I think a lot of times women are more vulnerable to, which is part of the reason why I don't particularly like women as lead voices in the public sphere.
I don't think that they're suited and called towards that role in scripture because I think they'll call it compassion, but they lean too hard.
Sometimes in that direction.
So Meg Basham was not saying, well, homosexuality is not a sin.
That's not fair at all.
She never said that.
She wouldn't say that.
But she was kind of doing the old adage of, well, hate the sin, love the sinner, right?
And so she was saying, like, well, we're not told to hate the sinner.
And then some people were pushing back and saying, well, actually, there are multiple biblical texts that actually don't just say that we hate sin, but that we actually hate sinners.
Do I not loathe those who loathe you?
But people were quoting primarily the Psalms and Old Testament texts.
And so then she clapped back.
And said, Well, that's the Old Testament, but we're not commanded to do that in the New Testament.
Like, oh, like, and to give her credit again, she's publicly been outspoken against, you know, ministers who have drifted leftwards, such as Andy Stanley with his famous sentiment of, you know, we're unhitching from the Old Testament.
So I know that she disagrees with that, but I think inadvertently, she kind of did that a little bit.
Not to the degree of saying, well, homosexuality was a sin under the old covenant, but it's not anymore.
She never said that.
That would not be fair.
But this, you know, she was trying to say, well, but we should be super, super, super loving towards the queer.
We just don't like queerness.
And guys were saying, no, it's okay to publicly.
And again, it's not either or.
I can actually have compassion and in compassion for the homosexual, I can publicly through social media in the public square exercise and push shame so that they might be incentivized to repent because that's what's best for them.
And I love them and have compassion on them and want what's best for them.
And so, first, I think the first misnomer was her interpreting any kind of public pushing, shaming.
Any kind of public form of mockery towards a particular group of people who are, you know, not just engaging in the sin, but boasting about a particular sin, for her to say that that's not compassion.
Well, actually, for some people, I don't, you know, God alone sees the heart, right?
So that's where we don't want to judge inward motives.
God alone sees the heart.
But to say that it's not even possible to exercise shame in the public square towards a particular person who is boasting about a particular sin, and to say that you can't do that.
That it's impossible to do that without having compassion as well for that person is quite a claim and difficult to prove.
But guys pushed back and kind of made that point.
And she's like, well, you know, but that's an Old Testament thing.
You know, in the New Testament, we're not explicitly commanded to hate sinners or to have really any negative feelings towards sinners, but just towards sin, right?
So we hate the ethereal, you know, impersonal entity of perversion.
But we love perverts.
And I just think that that's not really a good biblical hermeneutic and difficult to square.
So back to the question.
That's my take.
GM Raptor is.
You said it's GN.
GN.
Oh, okay.
I must have a stigmatism or something.
No, it looked like an M.
Well, that's why I was squinting and gave it a second look.
GRN.
Yeah, GRN.
Oh, my God.
I'm still seeing the M.
Yeah, GRN Raptor.
We're just going to call him Raptor.
So, it's a good question.
It's a fair question.
That would be my response is that on this particular instance, I would say that was a Meg Basham L.
And I disagree.
But at the same time, I think she's done a lot of good.
And so, you didn't find me yesterday when a lot of people were piling on.
I did my best to just kind of stay out of it.
So, I am grateful for a lot of her work.
I'm grateful.
I think she genuinely loves the Lord, all those kinds of things.
She's certainly a Christian woman.
A sister in Christ.
But yeah, I do think that that was the wrong instinct.
And, you know, I'm not going to draw it as a direct correlation, but I will at least say I'm not surprised that this wrong conclusion came from a Christian woman who has a very public facing platform.
And I do think that ordinarily, as God's normative design, that the public square is not ordinarily normative, conducive.
For women, I think that it is a place for argumentation.
It's a place for debate.
It's a place for ruling and decision making and leading and guiding.
The public square, social media today, is the virtual public square.
And when you think of, you know, even the Proverbs where it says that, you know, the godly woman, the wise woman, she praises her husband.
But it's her husband who sits in the city gates.
In that culture, it was the city gates where that's where all the women would sit.
Right?
No, that's where the men would sit and they would deliberate and they would discuss and they would plan and they would strategize and they ultimately would conclude and decide decisions that were authoritative and binding for the village, for the city.
They would sit in the city gates.
And I think that, you know, X and, you know, social media in a general sense is our modern city gates.
And I don't think that the city gates are, again, ordinarily normative to be a place.
For women to be sitting there amongst the men with their voice, you know, exercising their voice just as loudly as the men.
I do think that ultimately that's a mistake.
So I think Meg Basham is the best of them.
I think she's literally one of the best of them.
I'm grateful for her.
I don't doubt her salvation.
Of course, she's a sister in Christ.
But yeah, if I was king for a day, women would not be publicly for the entire world to see arguing with men online.
Yeah, and I just real quick want to say something about this.
You know, we're called to be judicious, I think, when it comes to how we treat, you know, topics of, you know, confronting sin, so on and so forth.
And I think women more often than men tend to confuse sort of public and private engagement and how those differ and how you speak about something.
Like, obviously, there is a context in which someone approaches, you know, me or you and says, hey, look, I have lived in this kind of sin for 10 to 15 years.
And I'm grieved by it.
And obviously, our response isn't love and compassion.
Precisely, I think what Megan's trying to sort of create or she's trying to pressure people toward is saying, hey, we should be compassionate.
But it's like there is a difference in these two different contexts.
You talk about the city gate, the city gate is not that particular context where it's highly individualized and there's elements of humility on behalf of one person to another.
We are talking about ideas, we're talking about what will win the world.
And in those contexts, it takes pointedness and sometimes uncomfortable conversations and confrontation.
And that kind of confrontation and pointedness, I think, is intrinsically correlated and tied to the masculine ethos.
It's not because it's like, well, that sounds sexist.
Yes, I've said this so many times.
I can't believe I'm offended that I have to keep telling you guys this.
Yes, of course I'm a sexist.
Now, I'll make the distinction I'm not a misogynist.
I don't hate women.
I am a sexist.
I believe there's such a thing as women and that women exist and that they're different from men.
So I'm absolutely a sexist.
I make no apology for that.
Beauty vs Strength in Masculinity00:06:12
It's one of my crowning achievements.
I'm very proud of that fact.
I'm a proud sexist, but I'm not a misogynist.
I love women, and it's precisely because I love women that I want them protected and I don't want them competing with men.
Now, in the name of sexism, right, that there's actually two sexes, they are distinct, they actually exist, and they have different roles.
Well, some of the defining characteristics of the woman, as we see in scripture, 1 Peter 3, is it, you know, men pursue strength, right?
Not first Peter 3, but but ample scriptures that talk about that.
The Proverbs, uh, the glory of the young man is his strength, and for an older man, as he's sanctified, that physical strength gives way to his spiritual strength and wisdom.
Right?
His gray head, as he's his physical strength, is fading in his old age, um, and his hair turns to gray, it's a silver crown around his head.
So, the spiritual strength gives way to spiritual strength in the form of uh, of wisdom.
Well, so too for a woman, if we were to uh, to sum it up in a single word, it would be beauty.
So, men's strength.
When they're young, physical strength, it gives way to spiritual strength, wisdom.
Women, it's beauty.
When they're young, it's a physical beauty that they should be modest with, but they also should maintain and steward that physical beauty that God has given them as a gift.
And that gives way with sanctification and age to a spiritual beauty.
And we know that just as strength, physical strength fades, so too physical beauty fades.
You think of the text of Scripture that says beauty is fleeting.
Right, charm is deceptive and beauty, physical outward beauty is fleeting.
But a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
And so, now, first Peter 3 talks about the beauty which is precious in the sight of God, which is not an outward beauty, which is perishable, it fades, but it's an inward and therefore eternal, imperishable beauty.
And then, two different words only two that are used as the defining characteristics to describe that inward and imperishable beauty which God finds precious in his sight.
And what are the two words?
Competitive.
And aggressive.
No, quiet and gentle.
A quiet and gentle spirit.
So, just that, even just the basic fundamental idea of putting women, I've heard people say, at first, people would say that X, formerly Twitter, that it's kind of like the public square where the philosophers and debaters of this age get together and duke it out.
And then I've heard other guys say more recently, and I think this is.
Is really accurate.
It's not really the public square, it's the Coliseum.
And it really is.
Even the design, right?
That you're limited with characters and all this, like it's for quick quips that are sharp, strong.
It's not for long form content, right?
We do that on primarily, you know, in video form, you know, or you use Substack and write an article or you do a video on YouTube.
X is for like two sentences that essentially say, uh uh, you're wrong, shut up.
You know, like that's kind of, That's kind of literally how fundamentally the platform is built.
And it's, you know, from a marketing standpoint, it's genius, you know, because it's just like boom, And everybody is kind of like the car wreck, you know, you're driving by and it's like you're horrified, but you can't look away, you know.
So it attracts all these people on the sidelines.
They're like, oh, snap, you know, Donald Trump is yelling at MAGA and MAGA just yelled back, you know.
And like, and so it's actually a great business model.
But the point is, it really is indicative, likened to the Coliseum.
We don't put women in Coliseums.
We don't.
And we don't put them in virtual Coliseum simulators.
We don't.
That's not the place.
What is conducive and indicative of a woman is beauty, not strength.
And beauty that is to be esteemed even more than the physical beauty is spiritual beauty, inward, internal beauty, which is imperishable.
And that is defined in a quintessential way by two primary characteristics quiet and gentle.
Quiet and gentle.
And so, yes.
We want to see.
This is why my wife is not on social media.
She has been in the past.
And it was different when it was like, you know, she's 22 years old, she's single, and she's on social media so that she can share, you know, pictures of her graduation from college with her grandma.
Well, now she's married to Joel Webb.
Her social media experience would be a little bit different these days by virtue of her association with me as her husband.
And so she just stays off because I don't want her out there doing battle and subject to the vitriol that we see where people would be mocking her and saying this and saying that.
No, my wife is, her life is bliss.
She is living her best life now.
She's at home, gets to be home.
Full time, her husband provides for her and protects her, and she gets to live with her five little babies at home.
Um, you know, they're building forts, you know, in the living room.
I come home, you know, and they're just having a grand old time.
She's like, she doesn't miss social media at all.
I've asked her even a few times, Would you want to make like an anonymous account, not to really even engage or post, but just to see what's going on?
She's like, That sounds terrible.
I was like, You're right, baby.
What was I thinking?
That is terrible.
Um, and and so, yeah, so there's just men and women are different in our design.
Corresponding out of that flowing out of design is a difference in role function, and with women, that function is beauty, not strength.
Strength is for battle, beauty is not for war, it's not conducive with war.
And the beauty that God finds most pleasing and precious in His sight is an imperishable internal beauty, which is defined as being quiet and gentle.
And so, yes, I do not believe that the public square, much less a particular public digital public square designed to be more functioned more like a coliseum, is the proper environment.
To throw our wives and daughters into.
That's crazy.
Yep.
Sexist.
Proud sexist.
One more question.
All right.
Tucker Carlson's 2026 Announcement00:02:59
What is it?
Go.
I've got to read it.
Oh, here we go.
Question.
Sorry, this has been addressed.
This is from T Mart 2323.
But just wondering what the status of Michael is right now.
Big fan of him, and he is sorely missed.
Hope he is well, and there is no issue.
Blessings.
So it was two weeks ago.
Friday was the episode we talked about the judges on the Supreme Court.
Smackdown, Smack Brown.
Of Katanji Brown Jackson related to immigration.
And Michael announced on the show, you can go back to the very end of it.
What's the title, real quick, of that episode?
Supreme Court Nukes.
Rogue Judges.
Be sure to spell Rogue right.
Rogue Judges.
If you want to find our episode, be sure to spell Rogue incorrectly.
Right.
Us incorrectly.
But yeah, so it was that episode, and I think it was the final segment, third segment.
Michael gave a whole explanation.
Yep.
June 27th.
So he's doing great.
He's departing to work on some creative projects.
We love Michael.
Still, I just saw him this week.
Yep.
Yep.
Hung out with him this week.
Still part of the church.
Loves our church.
We're friends.
And it's just trying to give his emphasis to some other things that he feels called to do.
Yep.
Yep.
So we have, and then for anyone who hasn't met, this is Antonio.
He's not every single episode, but a couple times a week, been filling the chair.
And so, yeah, that's how we're doing it going forward.
Yeah.
For the rest of this year, we've got some big plans in the works for next year.
So we have some huge announcements.
By far, we've done some big announcements over the last four years or so since we started.
But this will be bigger than all of them combined and multiplied by.
I think huge with a Y.
I think 10.
Yeah, huge.
These are huge.
But yeah, huge things coming in 2026.
And we'll be announcing it the very first week of January in the year of our Lord 2026.
So stay tuned for that.
But just kind of as a makeshift, you know, interim plan for the next six months, finishing out 2025, what we've decided to do is have Antonio part time.
So he'll be popping in one, two times a week with our three episodes.
And then the ones where he's not on, we'll try in some instances to get a guest, like we had Scott Turner, Scott Horton hop into the studio on Monday.
Yeah.
That was like two days ago.
It feels like a year ago.
Two days ago, we've had Scott Horton hop on the show, and he was recently, just a week and a half ago, on Tucker Carlson, right?
So, just a small, you guys probably haven't heard of it, but just a mom and pop podcast, Tucker Carlson Network.
So, he was on the Tucker Carlson show in person, live in the studio, and he happens to be local, and we were able to connect with him and get him on the show.
And so, Antonio will be there about half the time, and then we'll get a guest when Antonio is not, either, you know, pipe them on remotely or if there's someone local.
Have them in the studio, and there'll be a couple episodes that just Wes and I will do.
And that'll be, I think, a plenty good plan to finish out this year.
And then we've got plans that we already have had in the works for a long time, building out for 2026.
All right, is that it?
That's it.
Feel good?
Anything you want to add?
No, no, that's everything.
All right, thanks for tuning in, and Lord willing, we will see you this Friday.