Joel Webbon confronts Rod Dreher's "Benedict Option" as cowardly disengagement, arguing power is an amoral tool for righteous change. He defends his "will to power" quote against Nietzschean accusations and exposes Dreher's hypocrisy regarding political lobbying. Webbon further debates Nick Fuentes on the Reformation's messy but necessary truth-seeking versus Catholic corruption, critiques Tucker Carlson's judgmental category errors, and advises on navigating family dynamics with gay relatives without compromising children's values. Ultimately, the episode asserts that faithful Christians must actively wield authority rather than retreat into isolationism. [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
Taking Bold Steps00:05:12
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.
Rod Dreher abandoned his family, abandoned his country, moved to Hungary.
He went Roman Catholic, then he went Eastern Orthodox.
Well, he's come out with a new article against Christian nationalism, which he's done several times at this point.
But this particular article, he addresses me.
Now, I just recognized about 40 minutes before we started this live broadcast that I also had the distinct pleasure of being retweeted by David French.
So, Rod Dreher, David French, once again.
Brothers in arms coming against any Christian who loves the Lord Jesus Christ and would like to see improvement here in these United States of America.
What are they so mad about?
Well, they're mad that I had the audacity to say in a trailer for a new documentary on Christian nationalism that will be airing soon that Christians need the will to power.
We must have the will to power, that it's not enough for our Christian faith to be.
Personal and private, it must also be powerful, potent, and public.
And that at the end of the day, the Lord can save, as we see in 1 Samuel, by many or by few.
But in those cases, when history is altered and changed by the few who have the will to power, it is changed because that remnant is not willing to give up.
They're significant, they're strategic, and they're willing to actually step into the political arena.
They're willing to cross the river.
They're willing to take the steps and actions that other people are not willing to take.
Power ultimately is a tool.
It's amoral, right?
To say, well, power is a vice.
Well, that's not true.
Well, power is a virtue.
That's actually also not true.
Power is neither a vice nor a virtue.
It is a tool that can be used, like any tool, to do good or to do evil.
A hammer can build a home.
So, someone can live, a family can be grown, or a hammer can be used as a weapon in order to inflict harm.
So, too, it is with power.
Power isn't going away.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
If Christians will not wield power righteously, then the wicked will wield power in sinister ways.
This is obvious.
This is a no duh scenario.
And anyone who is ultimately countering this basic principle, you must come to see.
As an enemy.
No enemies on the right.
I subscribe.
Rod Dreher is not on the right.
Rod Dreher wants you to sell everything you have, leave your family, leave your country, and go be a monk in another nation.
He wrote the Benedict option.
The whole strategy is about abandoning influence, abandoning power.
It's basically the steward of Gondor yelling when they're under attack abandon your post, give up, we're all going to lose.
David French and Rod Dreher.
Are not on your team.
They do not care about your wives.
They do not care about your children.
They do not care about your country.
And they ultimately do not care about the crown rights of King Jesus being pressed forward.
They are fools, absolute fools.
And we will expose them today.
Tune in now.
So, we have some quotes from the latest bullcrap piece from Rod Dreher.
And we'll start with those.
And then we could even go a little bit into the clip that's been circulating around that was shared by David French and a host of the usual suspects and others.
So, let's start, I think, with the quotes from Rod Dreher.
And then we'll show the clip that has everybody clutching their pearls.
And then we'll break down with a little bit more thoroughness why everybody is, of course, wrong.
Yeah, Roger, he's been on a tear lately.
He got to the White House.
We'll talk about what he said there.
He's been to the White House and he's been busy, of course, counter signaling faithful pastors, faithful men.
And there's a trailer for a new movie that's coming out in January called What is Christian Nationalism?
Maybe more a documentary than a movie.
We'll play that trailer.
But today he decided to take to Substack and go ahead and just cook, get that typewriter out, and start spitting out some nonsense.
And so he said this, and I'm just going to kind of give the parts, Joel, where you're in there.
He mentions Stephen Wolfe.
The Corruption of Politics00:14:56
He calls him a kinist, slanders him.
He talks about Andrew Isker.
He talks about Tucker and Nick Fuentes.
You can go to his Substack, whatever it is.
You can read the whole thing or don't.
That's definitely a great option as well.
Don't.
But here's the parts where he mentioned yours truly and our topic as it relates today.
So he said, In this documentary, What is Christian Nationalism?
One of the men featured in the documentary is Joel Webbin, a hardcore anti Semitic pastor in Texas.
Joel, I have it on good authority.
You're anti Semitic.
It's over.
We got to pack it up.
It depends on whose definition we're using.
If we're saying anti Semitism, according to the ADL, then guilty as charged and quite proud.
Of that fact, but if we're saying Joel actually hates every single Jewish person on the basis of their ethnicity, regardless of anything they've ever done, then no, um, absolutely no.
But what he's probably referring to, and I think he actually quoted it elsewhere in his article, is where I said, If you're not being called a Nazi today in the year of our Lord 2025, if you're not being called an anti Semite today in the year of our Lord 2025, then you are absolutely passive, you are not warring against the powers of darkness.
Hard enough.
If you can somehow find a way as a Christian to escape the gaze and the backlash of the left today, then you're a coward.
That's the only way.
Remember, Jesus said, The student is not above his teacher, nor the slave above his master.
If the world hated me, then they will hate you.
And yet, Christians, modern evangelical Christians especially, have humored themselves for decades on end in thinking, That somehow they could do something that Christ Himself could not do, namely be perfectly obedient to the will of the Father, representing Him in everything, and yet also have the admiration of the crowds.
Jesus was perfectly obedient to God.
And, spoiler alert, for those of you who don't know the end of the story, He was nailed to a cross.
Someone didn't like Him.
Jesus was faithful, and His faithfulness beget enemies.
You and I cannot, it is sheer arrogance to think that we could somehow accomplish something that our commander in chief was not able to accomplish himself.
That we think we could be just as evangelistic, just as faithful, just as obedient, just as much faithful, consistent impact for the glory of God and the kingdom of heaven, but we could also somehow escape the hatred, the enmity of those who are not.
Obedient to God.
That is arrogance.
You're essentially, that's what evangelicals, Christians in America have begun to think.
They think we are better than Jesus.
That's really what it boils down to.
You think you're better than Jesus.
Rod Dreher thinks he's better than Jesus.
David French thinks he's better than Jesus.
Russell Moore thinks he's better than Jesus.
You are not better than Jesus.
Jesus had enemies and he promised that if you looked like Jesus, you would have enemies too.
If you don't have enemies today, it's because you look nothing like Jesus.
And just a quick aside because we read the article, so our listeners don't have to.
Just to expose the willful ignorance here on behalf of Dreher.
So, at one point in the article, a little bit later from the quote that we just had up, he's talking about this French project, this French Catholic project, where they're trying to set up a community similar to Ridge Runner in the countryside of France.
And the courts have recently struck this down and said this is not allowed.
And Dreux is actually condemning that action on behalf of the French courts.
And he says, The secularists can't see the difference between the monosphere, that's what this project is called.
And whatever it is, the militant, politically engaged Christian nationalists that are in the US and what they're up to.
So basically saying, hey, the enemies, those on the left, they don't see the difference.
They don't see the quote unquote difference between the peaceful Christian community and the, what Dreher is calling the middle class.
Joel Webbins of the world.
Yeah, exactly.
But that's actually the heart of your point the recognition that they won't see the difference.
Whether you're sitting peacefully in your cabin in the woods and praying and raising your family in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
They'll still call you a Nazi.
Correct.
And that's the point you're making.
But they won't call you a Nazi if you're neither of those things.
You're neither bold and courageous and significant in pushing for the crown rights of King Jesus, nor are you actually even quiet and raising your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
But you've actually abandoned cowardice and your children and moved to the other side of the world.
Then and only then, you might actually receive the good graces of God's enemies.
And your name, of course, would be Roderick.
Well, it's ironic.
The cover of his book, The Benedict Option, taken from a single line.
Not from Aaron McIntyre, but Alasdair McIntyre about St. Benedict.
The cover's book is the Mont Saint Michel out somewhere in Europe.
And it's a monastery.
And his idea was with the book listen, what we need to do is we need to disengage, we need to go into our exile, build our own resilient communities.
And here he is watching, even as they try to do that.
Look, we want to go into the countryside.
We want to raise cows.
We want to be our own community.
The government saying, no, that won't work.
Well, my guy, you wrote a whole book about how that was our option, the Benedict option.
Go into the countryside, go do that.
How's that working out for you?
Is that going well?
No, it doesn't seem to be, does it?
Even historically, it's literally a joke on its face.
The Benedict monks were able to live the peaceful lives that they did because there were Christian soldiers, a militia that was holding back the hordes of hell to allow them the luxury of that peace.
So his whole premise is retarded.
It's absolutely retarded.
Someone has to seize power, not weather.
But which power is not a vice, it's not a virtue, it's a tool.
It will be wielded.
It will either be wielded righteously or it will be wielded wickedly.
Someone is going to wield power.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
Christians should rise to the task, not because they're power hungry, but because their hunger and thirst, as Jesus says in Matthew 5, is for righteousness.
And they want to exalt righteousness, wield righteousness, execute righteousness, which requires power.
Just like money, money is the root of all kinds of evil.
No, greed is.
The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.
Money itself is neither virtuous nor is it a vice, it's a tool.
What Solomon, he had a lot of money and he used it righteously.
It was a blessing to the kingdom.
Later on, his heart turned from the Lord, but it wasn't actually, according to the Bible, money that turned his heart, but women in his case.
Foreign women who served and worshiped foreign gods.
All right.
We should be able to make it through this quote.
We got it.
We got it.
We're just so chill.
One of the men featured in the documentary, this is Rod Raras Substack, is Joel Webbin, a hardcore anti Semitic pastor in Texas.
In the trailer, he utters a chilling line.
But the will to power is the only true prerequisite for change.
We'll show that in a minute.
Webbin then praises a unified, deliberate, strategic minority that has the will to power.
Continuing on, he goes on to say if Webbin were simply making a historical observation, for example, that Lenin's Bolsheviks in the 1917 revolution in Russia seized power in a divided Russia, though a small cult, because they had strategy in the will to power, that would be one thing.
But he is clearly prescribing this as a strategy.
For Christian nationalists, it is a repulsive, his words, repulsive corruption of the gospel.
And Doug Wilson is right to call it out.
He's referencing the Antioch Declaration, where Doug distanced himself from some Christian nationalists about a year ago today.
It is a corruption of the gospel to seek to have the will for a political movement.
Let's go ahead and play the trailer so people can see it in context.
Hold up.
Go back to the, you have it on two slides.
Go back to the first slide.
I just want to point something out.
Okay, a chilling line.
Okay, first and foremost, that's a gay line.
To use the line, are we in 10th grade?
If you're saying a chilling line as a grown man, my goodness, I don't know.
I didn't even know where to begin.
But he says, but the power, he's quoting me, but the will to power is the only true prerequisite for change.
End quote.
Correct.
Correct.
Now, notice in that line from the trailer that I said, the trailer for this new documentary on what is Christian nationalism.
I said it's the only prerequisite for change.
I did not specify whether or not that change was positive or negative, whether it's righteous or evil.
What I'm saying is that ultimately, when change occurs, be it for the better or for the worse, you can be sure that one thing has happened prior to that change.
Someone, somewhere, gained power.
Power monetarily through money, power politically through position, or power even just through influence.
But someone acquired some, they accrued somehow.
Some degree of power, influence, wealth, politics, something along those lines.
Change does not occur by impotence.
Change does not occur by impotence.
Anyone who produces change has somehow, they've done something significant because they somehow acquired significance.
That's an obvious observation.
So, what I'm saying is that Christians should want positive change.
And to change positively or negatively, you have to have gravitas, weight, influence, power, potence, potency.
To make change positively, you must change something at all.
And to change anything at all, power is a prerequisite.
I don't see anyone debunking that claim because they can't.
If you want to start getting up early, you have to have the will to do it.
The power of self discipline power over your laziness.
Power over your body.
And that's a good change.
You have to have the will to get your lazy butt out of bed, whether it's to eat better, whether it's to exercise, whether it's to get up.
This is just, like you're saying, a prerequisite catalyst for some type of movement.
Like it's true generally in life, but particularly when it comes to politics and the state, right?
If, well, for one, your enemies are certainly exercising will to power.
They're certainly trying, to your point, to gain influence, whether it be through finances or politics, to influence things in one direction, change for the worse.
But if you think about it in the sense, like you could make an analogy of the home, right?
If you want to change the behavior in your home that your children are exercising, what you need to exercise some form of power over your children.
And much in the same way, the state, Has to do that among the body politic.
And that's, I mean, it's such a self evident thing.
When you think of the three different primary spheres in human society, the state has power, right?
Political power.
And in order to exercise that power, it's given a tool, right?
Or a sign of that power and a tool for executing that power, namely the sword.
So to the state is given a sword, power.
To the family is given a rod, which is a form of power.
To the church is given the keys, the keys of the kingdom for binding and for loosing, which is power.
In all three of those spheres, there is power.
The church is powerful.
And if it's not, then it's not a faithful church.
A powerless church is a faithless church.
All three of these should be powerful.
And here's the thing the church is not the exclusive Christian sphere in human society.
The church must be Christian, but ideally, as the church is faithful, The church, which is made up of Christians, those Christians will be in the church, but will also find themselves in the other two spheres as well.
You will have Christians in the church who also fill roles in the civil magistrate, the state.
You have Christians in the church who also are building families, so the home.
So you have Christian homes, a Christian state, and of course, a Christian church, all wielding their appropriate measures of power that God has assigned to them with the proper tools.
Christians in the home with the rod, Christians in the state.
Exercising the sword, Christians in the church using the keys.
And in this way, society improves and God is glorified.
To object to this very, very basic principle is, I don't think it's merely ignorance.
I'm just going to say it.
I really think that it's malice.
I think the objections that we're seeing from the usual suspects like Rod Rear, like David French, is not because they're so dumb.
I actually don't think they're that dumb.
I think that they're objecting because they know that if people, if Christians listen to people like me and they begin to implement the things that we're saying, we might actually have righteous Christian nations, which is the exact opposite of what someone like David French and Rod Greer want.
They're not on the team.
And I don't mean just they're not on America First team or they're not on Christian Nationalist team.
No, I mean, I don't think they're on Team Jesus.
I'm going to say it.
I legitimately don't think they're on the Christian team.
I don't know how to argue that they are.
Okay, let's play the trailer.
Let's give some context.
You, the listener, can decide what you think.
There are millions of people who are lost for eternity because we said, yeah, we just don't want to have a Christian culture anymore.
We want secularism instead.
Americans understood their nation to be a Christian nation.
And that is despite the fact that there's no mention, explicit mention of Christ in the Constitution of the Preamble.
And yeah, it was just commonly understood.
Freedom of religion is, in all intents and purposes, a really bad idea.
I don't want freedom of religion because I don't think Jesus wants freedom of religion.
A Christian Nation Defined00:04:07
Wow.
This hasn't at all been what I expected.
We can't sing God Bless America and at the same time expect that God won't curse America for the permission of allowing other people to worship gods on our soil in the United States.
It's the great evil of our day.
And so to stop murdering little babies will.
Have an ineffable impact, I think.
Conservatives, Christians, we have historically been really good at talking and we have been less good at acting.
We've been less good at building political coalition, at supporting Christian candidates and putting them forward.
But the will to power is the only true prerequisite for change.
All throughout history, change has occurred in biblical times, in church history, gospel age times over the last 2,000 years.
We have case after case after case.
Of radical political and cultural change for entire swaths of people, entire nations, that occurred with a remnant, a small but unified, deliberate, strategic minority that had the will to power.
So true.
So true.
So simple.
Based.
Yeah.
So true.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, here's let's get a little bit into the irony, which is a euphemism for the word that I really want to use, which is hypocrisy.
The hypocrisy of Rod Dreher.
Because the man is perfectly comfortable and he's perfectly knowledgeable with the concept of power.
Wes, could you share a little story about Rod Dreher using power?
I had the unfortunate experience last week of reading another Substack.
From Rod.
So, this article we're talking about with Joel, it came out today on the 17th, November 17th.
Last week, like I said, Rod was at the White House.
The PM of Hungary, Viktor Orban, had a visit, and Rod Dreher, some way or another, it's not great, he got a chance to go as well, and they visited with Vice President JD Vance.
And so, he wrote publicly, public common knowledge, he said, I got to have a few minutes with the vice president before the PM and his other allies arrived.
And he said he did this.
And this is interesting because this is the guy who says, hey, the will to power, this is not a good thing.
We don't want a small, unified minority.
He said this I was able to have a few minutes with the vice president before the prime minister and his team arrived.
I shared with him my views about the threat that Nick Fuentes and Groyperism pose to the country, to the GOP, and to him personally.
He listened to what I had to say about it.
This is interesting.
He has three minutes with the second in command to the most powerful man in the world, the president of the United States.
And he spent that time attempting to get that man to devote his attention to what he's viewed as a threat.
To him, probably to Rodriguez's project, and to America and the Republican Party.
To devote his attention and to penalize, to punish, to diminish, to use, whether it be formal or informal, his influence, or even to kind of spur on behind the scenes certain legislation to do something, be it formally or informally, as the second most powerful man in the country, namely JD Vance, using his power.
Rodriguez sought to get JD Vance.
To wield his power to suppress one of a young man who Rod Dreher perceives to be an enemy.
Less than a week ago.
This is not three years ago.
I dug through the archives and I found one example.
A week ago, he was in the White House lobbying, banging down the door.
Please take this threat seriously.
Please take this seriously.
They are a threat to your reputation.
They're a threat to the GOP.
What he's really saying is he would use political power.
Please crush them.
Please crush them.
Please use your power and crush them.
Political Power Threats00:04:08
That's what he's doing.
And that's what weak men always do.
I would never, oh, power, power.
Oh, that's so icky.
And then they themselves will turn around and use the very tool that they pretended not to use.
It's kind of like they cry out as they strike you.
You're like hitting someone.
Oh, stop hitting me.
Oh, stop hitting me.
Wait, you're the one doing the hitting.
You're the one decrying the effort being taken.
You're decrying these measures, but you yourself are perfectly willing to use them.
That is the state of nature.
When an old lion in the pride dies, the young lions don't show him mercy.
He doesn't get to go to a nursing home.
He doesn't get to go off in the safari.
They tear him limb from limb.
The base case of nature is that the strong will rule over the weak.
That is how nature is.
You talked about a vacuum earlier.
That is the default state of things.
Now, in Christianity, what God actually does, especially Christ, he says, I am stronger than you, but I'm willing to call you my friends.
But he doesn't sit there and simply abhor power.
He doesn't say, We could have used a sword, but you know what?
I'm going to go ahead and come back with an olive branch.
He comes back, he vanquishes his enemies, he uses power, and then graciously condescends as a friend to the rest.
Go ahead.
And I was just going to say, in that way, it's like really just game theory.
It's like his version of seizing power, using power, is to say that power is bad.
Right?
Why?
Because the people trying to gain the power take it from him.
Right.
So it really is just a grand irony, that example.
But yeah, that's what we're up against.
Yep.
That's what we're up against.
All right.
Let's do this.
We're going to go to our first commercial break here in just a moment.
But for those of you who are new to our channel, I wanted to let you know that we have three segments in our live broadcast, which happens three times a week.
So we broadcast live simultaneously on both YouTube and on Twitter, YouTube and X at 3 p.m. Central Time on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
And each of these live broadcasts have three segments.
So we're coming up on the end of our first segment.
We're going to go to a commercial break.
We'll come back.
We'll do our second segment where we flesh out these thoughts a little bit more.
And then our third and final segment, what we do every single time is we address the super chats from you, right?
And we always have, at this point, so many super chats, which is great.
It's a grace from God.
We're very grateful for your generosity and your support.
But we have so many super chats that if you send us a question or a comment and it's not a super chat, we typically don't have time to get to it because.
We want to honor those who are choosing to be generous and support this ministry and putting a super chat behind their comment or question.
So, if you have a comment or a question and you want it to be read live on the air, our promise, kind of the unspoken deal, is that if it's a super chat, be it large or be it small, it will be read live on the air and we'll do our best to address whatever you say.
So, go ahead and get those synced up and ready to go.
Also, please make sure to subscribe and click the bell if you're watching us on YouTube.
And also, make sure that you're following us.
Over on X.
The handle is at RightResponseM, as in Ministries, at RightResponseM.
Make sure that you follow, but also click the bell on X as well so that you'll be notified every time we come out with more content.
Let's go to our first commercial break and then we'll be right back.
America is a country that was founded for the purpose of allowing Christians to do their duty before God, not to have their consciences ruled by the doctrines and commandments of men.
Reese Fund exists in order to see the Ten Commandments properly applied, not just as a plaque on the wall, but to actually be used in business as though.
Their commandments from God that we're supposed to obey.
Our goal is to find businesses and to buy them and to build them up.
We want to find manufacturing businesses and use them to make sure that we can maintain our capacity to do things here.
Reef Fund, Christian Capital, boldly deployed.
When we think about what powers our modern world fighter jets, clean energy, even the phone that's in your hand we rarely stop to ask the question, What powers our power?
See, it all comes down to a handful of critical minerals.
Criticism and Impotence00:14:27
And most of these minerals come from overseas.
Now that is a problem.
Saga Metals is working to fix this problem.
Their mission build a secure, independent future for North America by developing domestic sources of titanium, lithium, and uranium, the materials that our economy and defense depend on.
Their flagship project in Labrador, Canada spans 160 square kilometers with a 15,000 meter drill program.
Underway driving a potentially world class titanium resource.
Saga has also partnered with global mining leader Rio Tinto, which can invest up to $44 million in Saga's lithium project, a major vote of confidence.
Now Saga Metals trades publicly under SAGMF in the US and SAGA in Canada.
With the race to secure supply chains heating up, A company with assets like these won't stay under the radar for very long.
So, learn more at SagaMetals.com.
Again, that's SagaMetals.com.
Hey, friends.
Grey Toad Tallow is a family business making skin care the way that it should be simple and clean.
The company began as a personal mission to find healthier, more affordable solutions to common skin problems without the chemicals that are found in most products today.
Now, that search led to crafting balms from grass fed, Grass finished animals that were naturally rich in vitamins and healthy fats, which is exactly what your skin craves.
These balms fight dryness, they calm eczema and psoriasis, along with other stubborn skin issues, without containing all the nasty toxins.
Gray Toad Tallow offers everyday soaps, balms, and beard balm for men.
To experience some of their products, grab a balm sample pack.
Each batch is made.
With care in their home and ship directly to their customers.
For skin care, the way that God designed, natural, clean, and effective, visit graytoedtallow.com.
Use code WRITE15 for 15% off your order today.
Again, that's graytoedtallow.com.
And if you want 15% off, then add the promo code WRITE15 today.
Well, that's not the only clip from that documentary, What is Christian Nationalism?, where you are going viral.
I forget, there's probably what, five, 10 guys in there, and it's like, here's what Joel said.
Here's what Joel said out of it.
So there's another clip of it that is right now circling around.
You're the weirdest guy I've ever heard of.
But you have heard of me.
And it's cool because, not cool, but they're both related to the same topic.
So we're going to go ahead and play this clip here, and then we'll connect the two concepts.
They're getting at the same thing, the same flaw with so many modern Christians.
So let's go ahead and roll this short clip.
What do you see as the greatest threat to Christian nationalism as it's trying to make its roots?
Christians.
How so?
Christians are gay, fake and gay, to be more precise.
Christianity is a feminized religion.
So true.
So, if you didn't make that out, the question that was posed to me was what do you think is the greatest hindrance to Christian nationalism actually playing out?
To which my answer was.
Christians, Christians, at least Christians in name, right?
Professing Christians, whether or not all of them are regenerate, I don't know.
Let God be the judge.
I have a sneaking suspicion that a fair amount of them would be Christians in name only.
But nonetheless, in terms of their public profession, many of the most obstinate opponents of Christian nationalism, they bear the name of Christ, at least in terms of a profession.
And then I go a little bit further and say that these Christians are gay, or to be more precise, fake.
And gay.
Well, what did I mean by that?
Wes, I mean, that's just strictly, you know, exaggeration and hyperbole.
Like, you're just trying to get a rise out of people.
How could you call Christians fake and gay?
Can you think of any fake and gay Christians?
Hmm.
Roger.
Roger.
That's the irony in all of this.
It's like, well, you know, he said this thing about willing to power, and that's a chilling line, which, again, no grown man should ever say chilling line, okay?
Which again just affirms my statement of fake and gay.
But he says that's a chilling line.
But then, you know, later on, he says, and look at this other part of the trailer where he calls Christians fake and gay.
And that's how you know that he's not serious, that he's just a joke and blah, Well, you know what?
People might have taken away that conclusion for themselves, right?
If you just left it alone, it's actually possible that some people would watch the trailer and thought on their own terms, you know what?
I think he's a little bit over the top.
You know what?
He actually might have had a decent point about power and the will to power, but then he says this Christians are fake and gay thing.
And now I know that he's LARPing.
Now I know that he's not serious.
Until Rodreer wrote an article about it and presented himself as precisely fake and gay, and all of a sudden made Joel Webman sound quite reasonable.
And did not just put it all on Rodreer, there were a couple others who were involved in this as well.
Neil Chienvi took that portion and shared it and said, Look at this, isn't it ridiculous?
You know, I don't know if it's a real documentary or if it's just satire.
Neil Chienvi has been going to a woke church with one of the leading woke pastors.
Who was president of the SBC behind the scenes pulling strings to hire woke professors to turn the seminaries in the SBC woke?
Meanwhile, he, as a member of that church defending his woke pastor who was ruining the SBC, was writing books against critical race theory.
What do you call that when you're calling out wokeness in a book that you authored while supporting one of the lead woke engineers in the largest Protestant denomination in the United States of America?
Well, you would call that.
Hypocritical, right?
You would call it fake, right?
So, like these, I wish that I wasn't right.
I wish it was hyperbole, but it's not to say that the main inhibition, the main hindrance to Christian nationalism is those who profess to be Christians themselves, who in actuality are fake, aka hypocritical, ironic, deceitful, duplicitous, and gay, aka soft, effeminate.
That is an accurate description.
And to say it the way that I said it is to ensure that for those whom the label fits, that it will hit them square between the eyes and that they won't miss the label that I'm giving them.
You tossed the missile right in the center of dogs, and a bunch of them yelped out.
Oh, you guys seem to be case in point.
It's crazy to think what have David French, Roger, Neil Schenby, their brand of conservatism, What victories have they won?
Literally, when you think about it, so like, okay, they do confirm victories.
So they've formed the victories of the left.
So they've formed churches, right?
And movements and equipped saints with books and materials.
And if, hmm, wait, no, that doesn't seem to be the case at all.
They've preserved nothing.
They've led no political movements.
They most certainly don't have the hearts of young men.
So they're over there, literally completely ineffective, doing nothing.
Just to put in perspective, when we're talking about David French, you're talking about a man who.
I believe it was Ray Ortland, who's a pastor with Russell Moore being on staff at that same local church, who tweeted out in the 2024 presidential election, he tweeted out, never Trump, this time Kamala, always Jesus.
I'll say it once more.
Ray Ortland, a pastor, he tweeted out in the 2024 election, never Trump, this time Kamala, always Jesus.
David French immediately in the comments said, this is the way.
This is the way.
That's fake and gay.
Well, at least she won with his endorsement.
Oh, wait, she didn't.
It's amazing how these people bet on the wrong horse every single time.
But here's my thing it's not that.
It's not just that, like, man, they're so dumb that a broken clock is at least right twice a day, and that's two times more than Russell Moore and David French.
It's not just like they're dumb or they're ignorant or, man, they just always miss it.
Here's my point you cannot have a, you can't be batting a thousand percent in misses without intent.
Right.
It's intentional.
So it's not just like, wow, they just randomly end up being on the opposite side.
They're just, they're so ignorant that they randomly get it precisely wrong on every major issue of every time period.
No, nobody's that dumb.
That's malice.
They're actually on the other team.
They're actually at war with Christians.
They actually want to ensure that America stays liberal, it stays progressive, it stays wicked.
That is the goal, right?
The purpose of a system is what it does.
Well, also, the purpose of a man is what he does.
And what David French does, what Rodrier does, what, you know, all these guys do is inhibit, hinder, distract, and put weights on any Christian man, woman, or child who wants to make a positive difference.
That's what they do.
Yeah, it's in a lot of ways, it's like, you know, they, The guys like David French and Dreyer, they talk a lot about post liberalism, but what they stand for is literally just post liberalism liberalism.
It's a repackaged version of it.
And I don't think you can divorce it from this sort of pietistic third wayism, going back to the point about why are they always wrong.
Well, I think these, they just dispositionally, temperamentally, they always want to be.
It's like, I want to be the anchor.
I want to be the people who, I'm always in the middle trying to.
Pull two sides together.
No one understands.
They're just talking past each other.
And I have the true revelation, which is this impotence.
And that's really what it is.
It's articulated as impotence.
Everyone's missing it.
Everyone on the left and the right who actually want to change something and do something constructive, they're all missing the point.
The secret kids is to do nothing.
Right.
The secret kids is to dox a Christian school teacher and make sure he doesn't have a job.
Oh, that's what Rodriere did back in 2023.
Yeah, exactly.
We promised in the title we'd get a little bit to the Nietzsche criticism because that's what Rodriar kind of tied it to.
The will to power comes from a famous phrase of the noted atheist Friedrich Nietzsche.
Now, there's two components to this.
So, first of all, you can say this in some ways, Nietzsche's critique then at the time was mostly of German Lutheran pietism.
And he had very strong critiques of Christianity.
Of course, that went too far.
He was not a Christian, he was not a follower of Christ.
But there are some ways, Nietzsche himself was very physically weak.
And so he recognized his own weakness, and you could tell he wanted to be the great man.
There's this famous photo of this woman he was infatuated with, but he didn't have the courage to propose to her.
And another man that was the one that actually ended up marrying her.
And they're both in the front pulling a cart, and she's pretending to whip them.
Nietzsche was kind of a simp.
He was weak, but he recognized he was undeniably brilliant.
He recognized that he wanted to be strong.
And so he thought of the will to power and some of his critique of Christianity and recognizing the need to have.
Strength and discipline and will, he had some criticisms of Christianity that I think were true in the time of Lutheran pietism.
On the second portion, though, so it's okay, partially correct.
There is some valid criticism of Christians that would roll over as their country is invaded, of men that would, I don't know, not use a gun to defend their family if it came down to it.
Certainly that hasn't happened in our day.
We've never had pastors advocating for that.
A weight we have.
So that criticism, valid as it may be.
Then when you go farther, well, the new man, he says, I think it's in Thus spake Zarathustra, he must baptize himself.
Well, no, we're not going to go that far.
But I do think even in Paul, you do see some of, hey, you need to have striving.
1 Corinthians 6, 9, 24 through 27.
Again and again, Paul compares a Christian life to a race, to a war, put on the full armor of God.
So, insofar as his criticism of Christianity is correct, we can say, yeah, don't be a weak, effeminate man.
The effeminate will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
And insofar as it's Christian, will to power, if that just simply means strive, aim, fight, win, well, that's perfectly biblical.
So just saying, here's three words, will to power, and that comes from Nietzsche.
And Nietzsche said this about Jesus, and therefore your movement is debunked.
That is not at all a valid argument.
It's just scare quotes, just like hardcore anti Semitic.
Biblical Striving for Power00:04:54
Right.
I bet Nietzsche drank water too.
Oh, my.
And this is actually just zooming out a little bit.
This is something a lot of People don't really understand about philosophy in the way that it's sort of compositional.
You can have philosophers in history, whether they're Enlightenment philosophers or whatever, that you disagree with on some points.
But the reality is that philosophy is building, it's trying to explore and find unanswered questions, so on and so forth.
So you have Nietzsche who lays the groundwork for Christian existentialism because he's raising questions.
It's like, well, what's the answer?
Here, I'm going to pose a question.
I think I have a solution.
And I might be wrong on it, but that's the endeavor.
And so, even when it goes to Nietzsche and you talk about the will to power, like there are some elements of the way he articulated the will to power that we would disagree with as Christians.
We would say not all relationships are inherently power seeking, right?
There are relationships with my wife, there are relationships with my children that aren't inherently about power.
And that's where we would disagree with Nietzsche.
But to say that nothing is about power, and particularly politics and affairs of the state, it's ludicrous.
Yeah, absolutely.
Let's do this.
We've got some super chats that are already lining up.
Let's go to our last commercial break for the day.
We'll come back.
We'll deal with the super chats.
Make sure we have plenty of time.
And maybe even today, keep the stream a little bit shorter.
We'll see.
No promises.
But again, do us a favor send in a super chat now if you have a comment or a question that you want to be read live on the air.
And make sure you subscribe on YouTube and click the bell and follow us on X.
The handle again, at right response M, M as in ministries, at right response M. Follow us on X and click the bell there as well.
Here's our last message from our sponsors for today.
When it comes to your financial future, are you planning forward or backwards from your desired results?
What type of financial culture do you want to create for your family and for your children's children?
We are not called to be wise as doves.
Therefore, simpleton planning simply won't cut it.
Joe Garrison helps families develop and implement a long-term culture of excellent financial management.
He starts with your goals, your tithing plan, your retirement, and the legacy that you want to build for your generations.
And then he works backwards to build a real actionable plan to get your family on track.
Now, many of my personal friends have benefited from the financial wisdom of Joe Garrison that he shared for their specific situations.
Do you want to work with someone who strives for alpha with your investing, hates taxes, and brokers insurance?
Start planning smart.
Call Joe Garrison at 615 767 2555.
Again, that's 615 767 2555.
Or you can find him by going to backwardsplanningfinancial.nm.com.
Again, that's backwardsplanningfinancial.n, as in Nancy, m, as in Ministries.com.
The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, declares the Lord of Hosts.
Yet your retirement dollars keep shrinking daily as Washington prints money out of thin air.
Genesis Gold Group aligns financial guidance with godly principles when others serve only profit.
Their faith centered approach to gold IRAs stands apart in an industry that has forgotten what true stewardship actually means.
Why gamble your family's future on Wall Street's paper promises?
Your 401k and IRA deserve better protection.
Genesis Gold Group transforms your vulnerable retirement accounts into physical gold, something real.
Something tangible, something that God created with inherent value.
Their faith driven experts walk you through every step, helping you shield your life's work from the financial storms up ahead.
No high pressure tactics, no hidden fees, just guidance rooted in timeless principles of sound stewardship.
So the decision is simple watch your retirement evaporate through inflation or secure it in God's precious metal.
Take action now.
Go and visit.
Right Response Bible Gold.com.
You can visit today for your free book, The Bible and Gold, and join the thousands of believers who sleep soundly, knowing their future is anchored in something unshakable.
Truth Beyond the Elite00:15:00
Again, that's Right Response Bible Gold.com.
Safeguarding your legacy with God's timeless treasure.
All right, here we go.
Super chats.
The first one comes to us from this dude, Rocks.
He gave us $5.
We appreciate that.
Thank you.
He said, James White also subtweeted Joel today in reply to Nick Fuentes saying, It would be better if not everyone could read scripture.
The Reformation was bad.
I did see that clip.
Well, I saw it circulating.
I didn't actually stop and watch it.
But apparently, in one of Nick's super chats at the end of his show, somehow the topic was broached of, you know, some Protestant was basically saying, Well, you know, you may be Catholic and you don't like Protestants, but Protestants are the reason that we have the Bible.
Fact check true.
At least, you know, the Bible as we know it today that could actually be in your home in a language that you can read and understand.
I think of William Tyndale, I think of Martin Luther, right?
He translated the Bible from the Vulgate, which was the Latin version of the Bible.
The Bible was exclusively at that time in the Latin version.
And not only was it in Latin, which the people could not understand when it was spoken or read, but even in the Latin, there were certain portions that were changed from the original manuscripts, like, you know, Repentance being changed to do penance in certain places in the various texts.
So, Martin Luther went back to the original manuscripts and he was able to translate the Bible into the vulgar, not Vulgate, but the vulgar vernacular, meaning the common tongue, in his case being the German.
And so, apparently, from what I saw online, Nick was responding to that and saying, Well, maybe that would have been for the best.
He said something to the effect of, You wouldn't have, I watched the clip, it was about 40 seconds, you wouldn't have transgender pastors, for instance.
Correct.
Yep.
So, I get what he's getting at.
Do we agree?
No.
Right.
We don't agree with that.
We're Protestant.
He's Catholic.
We're going to have some disagreements.
But in terms of what he's saying, he's saying, yeah, there has been incalculable damage that has been done, inflicted by everybody exalting themselves, right?
Protestants don't really like the idea of a pope, and rightfully so.
I don't like it either.
The vicar of Christ on earth, not a big fan.
But effectively, what many of us do with Sola Scriptura, now I don't think this is how Sola Scriptura should be interpreted or applied, but many of us exalt ourselves to, All of a sudden, instead of one pope, you have millions of popes.
Everybody is their own little pope because you say, well, you know, the only infallible interpreter of scripture is scripture itself, or scripture is not the only authority, but it's the highest authority and it's the only infallible authority.
Well, I agree with both of those statements.
But then the question is not about the scripture and its infallibility and its authority.
The question is who becomes the final arbiter for determining what, in fact, the scripture is saying.
And when you break it down at the functional level, for many Protestants, I don't think it has to be this way.
And I don't think it's universal.
But for many Protestants, effectively, what that boils down to is that although they would not say it out loud, they wouldn't verbally affirm this.
Effectively, each individual Protestant, many of them, they become the final arbiter of the Bible's meaning.
And the reality is that you go from a select few who are supposed to be thoroughly trained and equipped for interpreting scripture, understanding scripture, hermeneutics, all these different kinds of things, to A bunch of individuals, many of them who are immature or who are particularly unintelligent, and now they're posing as a final arbiter on the meaning and interpretation of God's word.
And you get female lady pastors, you get rainbow flags outside of church buildings, you get all kinds of garbage.
That's true.
The only thing that I would say is that, you know, where I would disagree with Nick is Nick's objection in a nutshell that he had on that one clip is pretty much the objection that the Council of Trent had with Luther.
They said, if you do this, the this being, you know, translating the Vulgate, the Latin scripture into the vulgar common tongue, if you do this, you will open up a floodgate of iniquity, right?
You're going to open up the door for 3,000 different denominations, you know, and all these different, you know, theological arguments and all these different, you know, varieties of Christian sects and denominations and blah, And Luther didn't actually, his retort was not, uh, uh, You know, or that won't happen, or you're being hyperbolic.
That's not how he responded.
His response was, so be it.
In other words, I think Luther, he knew that they were right.
He knew that by translating the Bible in such a way that the average Christian has a Bible that is accessible, that they can read and to varying degrees understand, Luther knew that there would be a liability attached to this.
He knew that it would not be an exclusive good.
But he also believed that it would be good and that the good would outweigh the harm.
And so his response was so be it.
And the analogy or illustration that I've used is something like this Better to have one needle, or let's say even a few needles, in a haystack, right?
A bunch of disordered, messy hay in a pile, but there's a few needles.
And let's say the needles in this illustration represent truths.
So there are needles of truth in a haystack of falsehoods.
Better to have a messy pile of hay with some needles of truth within it.
That can be found, difficult to find, albeit, but can be found, than a nice, orderly sheath of hay with no needle at all.
There's no needle to be found.
And I think you have to recognize not just the problems of Catholicism, and there are problems that persist even in our day, but the exceptional and particular problems that existed at the day of Luther.
And many Catholics, notable Catholics that love the Catholic Church themselves, even are willing to admit.
Yeah, in the 1500s, it was pretty rough.
I mean, you have Tetzel, a known Roman Catholic priest, going around saying, Every time a coin in the coffer clings, a soul from purgatory springs.
And you have peasants, the poorest of the poor, in tiny little villages that can barely afford to eat, giving the last of their money in order for their great aunt, who died three years earlier, who they're convinced is in purgatory suffering, not just like a waiting room.
That's positive or even neutral, but that they're actually in agony and suffering.
And these were the kinds of emotional rhetoric that was used by Tetzel and Catholic priests at that time saying, Can you hear their screams?
Can you hear them, their murmurings?
They're in agony crying out to you, Do you really need to feed your children tonight?
Or can't you let me out of this torment?
That's just one piece of what was going on in the Catholic Church at the time.
And so Luther's looking at that and saying, Okay, the Catholic Church, it's ordered.
It's all nice and trim and neat, right?
There's hierarchy, there's a system, there's all these things, but they're corrupt.
They're absolutely corrupt.
And so I would rather have the battle royale where at least truth is possible.
At least it's possible.
There will be messiness, there will be confusion, but at least, like a messy haystack, needles of truth can actually be found than the nice, orderly sheath of hay where there's no needle at all.
So, all that being said, back to the question as it pertains to Nick.
Nick is responding, really, to be fair, he's responding as a Catholic would.
He is responding, I think, consistently with his particular religion, his particular expression of Christianity.
And I think, to put it more particularly, he's responding as Catholics did in the Council of Trent.
If you do this, translate the Bible so that everyone has one, you will open up a floodgate of iniquity.
And I think Nick is simply observing 500 years later.
That if the verdict was still out, well, I think we can say that by this point, half a millennia later, it has in fact come back in.
And the reality is, I think there's truth on both sides in the sense that the Council of Trent was right.
That by what Luther did and Tyndale and others after him, translating the scripture to the common tongue where people could have a Bible on their shelf, read and understand, that they did in fact open a floodgate of iniquity.
But they didn't only, and this is where we would disagree, Respectfully disagree with Nick Fuentes and, of course, with the Council of Trent and with many other Catholics for that matter.
We would say it did open up messiness.
It did open up a floodgate of iniquity, but it also opened up the opportunity for truth to be ascertained by the average man who loved the Lord behind the plow and not just the elite few behind the pulpit.
And we think that is with all the messiness and disorder and confusion that has come, including rainbow flags and lady pastors, it is worth it for those churches, be they many or be they few, those churches which stand upon the word of God.
That exegete the scripture, Lord's day after Lord's day after Lord's day, the right preaching of the word and the right administration of the sacraments, that is an incalculable positive net good.
And it's worth it.
And so that would be my response.
So, no, I didn't see the clip, but I saw that it was going around.
Wesley, it seems, he watched the clip.
And I think that would be our response.
We would say, Nick's right.
It has caused problems.
And Nick is really just quoting the Catholic consensus at the time that it would cause problems, it did cause problems.
But it also caused good.
And I believe that that good outweighs the bad, which is one of many reasons why I am a Protestant.
And so, of course, with me being a Protestant and Nick being a Catholic, shocker, we disagree on this point.
Yeah, I think that's a much stronger way to argue, like acknowledge the merit the point has.
Yes.
But it also seems to be you got to recognize every institution has been decentralized and leveled in that time.
The monarchies of Europe no longer have the strength that they did.
You were not going to if the Reformation hadn't happened or Luther had died early on.
You would not have kept the Bible locked away in a vault.
And here, still 500 years later, nobody would be able to access it on their phones.
Technology, one way or another, was going to open up the Bible to the masses.
There was no stopping that as if the Reformation, well, if they had stopped it, this would have never happened.
No, it would have in some other way.
And so now we need to live in a world where people all have access to it, but recognize hey, here's the authorities, our creeds, our confessions, and you don't get to deviate from them.
You don't get to, as a 28 year old woman.
Well, actually, I think what the Bible says.
I read the Bible and I think it exists.
No one cares.
No one cares what you think.
You're absolutely right.
We needed the Bible and it was inevitable, right?
It's like Thanos.
The Bible being in our homes and accessible, and we're able to read it in our language, it was inevitable because the point that you just raised in terms of technological innovation is absolutely undeniable.
Here's the deal it wasn't just Luther.
It's not like there was just theological reformation happening in the 1500s and that's why the Bible was translated.
It was theological reformation in the province of God, teamed up at the very same time with.
And it was both of these things, not either or, but both of these things.
And only because both were happening simultaneously, that the Bible was in fact translated into the common tongue.
And the reality is that was going to happen one way or another.
So, what do we do from here?
Well, I think what we do from here is we try to keep the baby, but get rid of the bathwater and some of the bathwater of Protestants to point the finger at ourselves.
How can we repent?
How can we grow?
One of the bathwaters of Protestant, the dirty bathwater that needs to be thrown out, the baby, I think, is the scripture.
Let's keep that.
Let's continue where the average person can read the Bible.
I think that's a net positive good.
And you're not going to convince me otherwise.
But the bathwater, I would say, is Protestants didn't just throw out the idea that only the elite few, the clergy, would have access to the word of God.
They also threw out, right?
If you want to throw out that principle that only the clergy could have the Bible, I want to throw out that principle too.
Protestants threw out, though, a lot more than just that.
They threw out the clergy themselves.
They threw out hierarchy.
They threw out human authority.
They threw out order.
They threw out systems.
They threw it all out.
So, they didn't just throw out the idea that only the elite clergy could have access to the scripture, right?
I'll throw out that bath of water any day of the week.
But they also threw out the idea of there being authoritative clergy at all.
And in many Protestant churches, right?
We just have to admit, call a spade a spade.
In many Protestant churches, the average attitude of the person who sits on the pew is there's no difference between, you know, Brother Bob and me.
In fact, especially in Baptist Protestant churches, they won't even call the minister pastor.
Or minister, they'll call him brother, and you know why that sounds spiritual, but it's more than just using spiritual language.
It's true that every Christian, whether he be clergy or layman, is my brother or sister in Christ, but that's not why they do it.
They say brother in order to imply you're no different than me, and more importantly, you're no higher than me.
There is no higher than me, you are a peer, right?
So, whereas the Catholic would say father, right?
Well, the Baptist would say brother, and what the Baptist means by that.
Is there is no sovereign here.
There is no authority here.
There is no.
And I would say that that has been a net negative.
So Protestants have their problems.
Do we disagree with Catholics?
Absolutely.
Of course.
Shocker.
I disagree with Nick Fuentes and the fact that he's a Catholic and I'm a Protestant.
Wow.
Shocker.
But what I'm willing to do that many Protestants sadly are not is I'm also willing to sit here and think about it from as though, you know, I was in the other person's shoes and say, is there any credibility to this?
Instead of just Nick said we shouldn't have the Bible, oh my god, oh my goodness, that's crazy.
Peril in Political Insights00:15:33
Um, wait, but what does he mean by that?
What is under that?
Is there any truth?
Is there any substance?
I see what he's getting at.
Would I say it that way?
Would I come to the same conclusion?
No, but there actually is a peril here.
There's actually a problem here, and I don't think it's interpreting the Bible, but I think there's something else along the way.
That really did get knocked loose, that really has caused some problems, and I'm willing to admit it.
All right, we should go to the next one.
Antonio, you wanna take it?
Yeah, just another super chat from this dude's Dude Rocks.
He sent $5 just to add to it.
I think specifically what James White said was what an absolute savant, obviously being facetious here.
His insights into politics today must be so solid and based, given this deep insight into the past.
Yes.
Is James White being sarcastic there?
That seems out of character.
So this is because months ago, I said very explicitly, I said, I believe Nick Fuentes is a political savant.
That in the realm of politics, I believe that he's a savant.
I stand by it.
So he's being sarcastic and saying his insights into politics today must be so solid.
Correct.
His insights into politics today, many of them, I can't say every single one of them, I wouldn't say that about anyone, but many of his core insights into the political arena today, I believe are absolutely solid.
Correct.
So, of course, James White means this as sarcasm and mockery, which just let's be clear here and being consistent.
James White is perfectly fine with mocking.
He's perfectly fine with publicly mocking a minister of the gospel on social media.
That's what he's doing towards me.
And so, because he's an older man, I'm going to do my best not to mock him.
Rebuke an older man gently is what the scripture says.
And I would say, Pastor James White or Dr. James White, whichever title you prefer, I simply believe that you're wrong.
I know you think I'm silly.
I know you think I'm stupid.
I am grateful for much of your work and your contribution to the body of Christ.
I still have some measure of respect towards you because of your office and your position and the things that the Lord has used you in over the years.
And I'm grateful for those things.
But I think that you're wrong.
I think that Nicholas J. Fuentes in the political arena has many good insights.
And as an older man, Who I think respectfully, in many ways, you are out of touch, it would do you good not to necessarily get your theology from Nick.
I'm not saying that, but for you to listen to some of his political insights, and even if you disagree, to at least seriously give them consideration.
So, yes, I said Nick is a political savant.
Stand by the statement, and the fact that you want to just sarcastically mock me is your prerogative, but I don't think it's befitting of a minister to do so.
That's my response.
Okay, next.
JD Peabody, just dropping another five, another coin in the coffer.
Thank you very much for your continued contributions.
Luke, $0.21.33.
Wow, thank you, Luke.
Very kind, very generous, Luke.
Thank you so much.
He said this I encourage all Midwesterners to check out or join Save Heritage Indiana.
They are solid Christian men involved in practical political action to stop all immigration.
Your content has been of great assistance to me.
As a newlywed in my early 20s, Christ is king.
So I'm sure there he meant all illegal immigration.
It's like the Ron Swanson thing hey, bring me all the eggs and bacon you have.
Okay.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Before you go, I'm concerned that what you heard me say was bring me a lot of eggs and bacon.
But what I said was bring me all the eggs and bacon that you have.
That was in all caps.
For those of you who aren't watching but listening, the word all he put in all caps.
He's not just talking about illegal immigration, he is talking about All immigration.
And the reality is that immigration has been out of control for what, 60 years at this point?
So to say, yeah, we need a full moratorium on immigration until we can figure out what's going on is a perfectly legitimate position.
It does not necessitate hatred towards any other people.
It simply says, we are allowed to have a country.
By God, we'll have our home again.
And you can say that while honoring the Lord, loving your family, and not hating anyone else.
Amen.
Well said.
Okay, next.
Next one, Julian Stevenson sent $2 and says, or is asking, what are your thoughts on Majorie Taylor Greene's CNN interview?
Marjorie Taylor Greene.
So the only clip that I saw that was, again, in relation because it was going viral.
So I didn't watch the whole CNN interview.
I'm not really particularly interested.
I do think that she's done a lot of good, and I appreciate that.
But you guys know our position when it comes to this.
We do believe that I don't want to be disparaged.
Marjorie Taylor Greene.
I don't want to be unnecessarily mean spirited, but I do believe that the role of women is not in the political public arena.
I just don't believe that that's the way God's designed them or called them.
And I think the fact that we have some women who are generally doing a decent job and standing for some decent virtues and values, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, because I think she is doing that, I think that that's God's indictment on men in many ways, as saying, Yeah, we should be standing for this.
But instead, when it comes to men, many of the men that we have in politics is Lindsey Graham or Randy Fine, you know, or these kinds of individuals.
So, in terms of her general message of America first and don't replace all the heritage Americans with H 1B visas and let's sever ties with Israel, they're not our greatest ally, 100% agree.
I think that that's great.
In terms of the interview, I didn't watch the whole thing.
The only clip that I saw that was going viral was, you know, that she was asked at a certain point, Well, you spoke at this.
At this political convention, this rally or whatever with Nicholas J. Fuentes back in 2022.
And he's very, very, very bad.
And we would like to take this time to offer you the opportunity to publicly disavow him.
And she did not.
And not only her, but the same thing also happened over the weekend with Donald Trump.
He was questioned about Nicholas J. Fuentes, and he had an opportunity.
He knows what they were getting after.
What they wanted was for him to say, oh, I don't stand with Nicholas J. Fuentes.
He's very, very, very bad.
But even the president of the United States, Donald Trump, did not disavow when he had the opportunity, Nick Fuentes.
And I think part of it is not just particularly because, oh, Nick is wonderful in every single thing that he's ever said or ever done.
But I think what Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene are starting to recognize is that the public denouncement game is fake and gay, and that it actually gains you no support.
It does not benefit you in any way.
To dance monkey when you know the reporter, the journalist, or the pastor, or what whoever it is is demanding that you on a dime denounce so and so and decry such and such.
Um, it doesn't actually help.
In fact, you don't gain anyone who already hates you, they go on hating you.
Um, just the same, your denouncement will never be good enough, it'll never be satisfactory.
But what you do ultimately achieve is not gaining anyone but losing people.
And so, I think what Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene Both of them over the weekend, when they were asked about Nick Fuentes, neither one came out and said, He is my favorite person in the world.
But neither did they come out and denounce him.
And I think that that was a good political instinct.
They realized that that's an unforced error.
So it's not even about, think of it politically, think about it strategically.
It's not even about the actual substance of what it means to avow or disavow or do neither.
It's not about the virtue of it.
Because that virtue will be lost either way.
Nobody's changing teams over that.
The people who hate you go on hating you.
The people who love you go on loving you.
So then, what really is going on?
Well, what's really going on is that your opponents are seeking to trap you.
And this is what the Pharisees did to Jesus all the time.
Literally, the text will say they sought, they posed him a question seeking to trap him.
And what Jesus would often do is he would sidestep their questions.
He would answer a question with another question.
You say, if you want me to answer that, well, then you answer me this.
Oh, you can't answer that?
You won't answer that?
Then neither will I answer your question.
Right?
And so Jesus even used this kind of system of rhetoric, this strategy with his opponents when he knew that they weren't actually concerned for virtue.
They weren't actually concerned for this or that or the other.
They were just trying to publicly trap him.
And so I think that Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene did the right thing.
They did not.
They did not affirm.
They did not denounce.
They just said, no, not really going to answer that.
I'm going to give you a non answer because a non answer is precisely what journalists deserve.
So I saw that portion of the interview.
What journalists deserve?
That's a little generous.
What journalists deserve?
Some journalists, after a fair trial, is some legal penalties.
I'll just leave it at that.
But it's the least we could say that journalists deserve.
Okay, our next one, Antonio, you want to read it?
Yep, this dude rocks again in the chat.
$5 says the purity spiraling on X over Skillet's cover of O'Come O'Come Emmanuel, which is a small section with metal music elements, is so obnoxious.
Thoughts.
I have thoughts, but you guys go.
I'm going to go on record and say I liked it, but I'm a little bit of a metalhead.
It's at the very end of the song, and there's a version without it.
So if you don't like it, don't listen to it.
I recognize grunge is not very Western and high art, but I like it.
I like the song.
Here I stand.
What'd you think?
I only listened to a brief clip of it, I thought it was all right.
I'll take Wes's opinion though.
Coming down with the show.
My thought classic hymn, Christian Christmas hymn.
It ain't broke, don't fix it.
So that's my thought.
So, no, I was not a fan.
That said, I'm not getting on Twitter and disparaging one way or the other.
Big picture, Skillet is one of the few bands in Christian music that has been there for a long time and didn't become a gay furry.
You know, like they're one of the few Christians in Christian music that has maintained genuine Christian virtue, genuine Christian doctrine, been outspoken, even in the realm of politics, against wokeness, against that, against the other.
So I'm going to look at the big picture and see that and say, you know what?
Yeah, I, you know, I appreciate the big picture.
So I'm not going to come out and, you know, say something negative.
That said, personal preference.
Yeah, I don't really want Christmas hymns with metal.
John Cooper, a guy who wears eyeliner and earrings, has more gumption and more courage in politics than Rod Dreyer.
Yes, by a long shot.
Okay, our next one is Savid Akaton, which is David.
Dakota Davis.
Dakota Davis, backwards.
$2 super chat.
He said, GA, good afternoon.
What's y'all's favorite whiskey right now?
I don't know.
I mean, we've got a lot, but I'm not a connoisseur by any means.
I've recently tried Jefferson's, and it's pretty good.
There's a couple of Whistle Pigs that I think are good.
Basil Hayden's.
Occasionally, Basil Hayden's has like a rye, and I'm usually, I prefer a bourbon to a rye, but Basil Hayden's has a rye that's actually pretty good.
Walking Stick.
I've had Walking Stick recently.
It's a good, I think it's like a $30 bottle.
Good sipping.
And then Eagle Rare is always a classic.
That's a go to.
That's a good one.
Angels Envy is also a go to.
Okay.
This dude Rocks gave us another $2.
He said, GA, good afternoon.
Favorite beer and breweries?
P.S. Wes sounds sick.
Yeah.
I'm sick of these gay Christians.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I got a bit of a head cold.
Okay.
So I don't really drink beer anymore.
It's been a long time.
You hit a certain age and it's like, Drinking a loaf of bread, and I've got five kids and a wife, and a church to pastor.
And, you know, I've got too much to do to be able to just knock myself out, not with drunkenness, which would be a sin, but with just sheer calories, you know, just the most unnecessary, unforced calories you could possibly imagine.
So I'm not a big beer drinker.
When I was, though, I really liked, you know, everybody's IPA.
Have you had this IPA?
Oh, triple IPA.
Oh, Belgium IPA.
IPA with spice.
IPA.
Like, right from the cat litter box.
Yeah.
Yeah, man.
I lived in San Diego.
There was the Stone Brewery there, and they're good.
You know, Pizza Port was there.
They're good, kind of an unsung hero.
Lots of breweries in San Diego, all of them making West Coast IPAs, triple IPAs.
I had Pliny the Elder, which is only on tap.
They don't even bottle it.
It's like once a year, it would come to certain breweries.
And I've stood in line and had Pliny the Younger, which most people didn't even know Pliny the Younger exists.
It does exist, it is delicious.
I've had it, but been there, done that, bought the t shirt.
Kind of just over it.
So if I ever have a beer, it's usually going to be in the winter season, like where we are now.
It's going to be around a fire.
I'm going to be wearing Christmas sweaters and PJs, and I'm going to be with my wife and my kids.
And it's going to be some kind of stout.
It's going to be a stout or maybe a pecan porter, something like that.
Yeah.
Thoughts, you guys?
I've always been a light beer guy.
Wes said gay Christmas, and I was like, oh, this isn't looking good for me.
No, I, yeah, like I've always liked, Michelob, probably my go to.
Winter Stout by the Fire00:02:45
It's decent.
See, I won't hit on you with that because I know enough about beer when I used to be into it.
When I was, you know, if you're in your 20s and you're in San Diego, like surfing beer are just kind of like mandatory for whatever reason.
Here's the thing that, like, for people who actually know beer, at first you're like, oh, you know, you're just going to drink this, you know, this water, beer flavored water, you know, whatever.
Like, you should be drinking an IPA, a triple IPA, a 17th dimension hazy IPA.
Half of it is spices.
Here's the deal, dude.
You know, you like beer, you drink beer, then you're like, I'm going to go to the next level.
I'm going to start brewing my own beer.
And so then you have your garage all fitted out.
And I went there too, you know, did it.
Like, you know what's the easiest, the easiest beer to brew?
That, like, you could literally read three paragraphs, spend about $75 on Amazon, and first try, nail it an IPA.
It is the most unimpressive beer.
You know how IPA was invented?
IPA Indian hops, right?
They were trying to export beer on a ship very, very long distance without it going bad.
So they put so many hops in it so that it wouldn't go flat, it wouldn't go bad.
So, how do you make an IPA, man?
It's such an intricate beer.
It's such an amazing beer.
Water and a ton of hops, and a toddler could do it.
You want a beer that you will not be able to make after five years of practice.
Quality, quality.
In your garage, make me a Pilsner.
I know it sounds crazy, but make me a Michelob Ultra.
Make me a Budweiser or a Miller Lite.
The complexity of those kind of just, we think of them as just general, normal beers.
They're actually far more complex, far more difficult to make.
And although it is still unnecessary calories, at least it's not drinking a liquid loaf of bread when you're 39 years old, as I am.
And then you have to look your wife in the eyes and explain to her why you can't spend time with the kids because you have to take a nap.
So, like, yeah.
So, I just like you think IPAs are cool, then you're either a liberal or you're 25.
But if you're a man or you're our tech guy, if you're a right wing Christian nationalist patriarchal man, then you know that IPAs are gay and you're not afraid to say it.
All right.
Judgment Without Bias00:16:15
I got to answer.
Okay.
Definitely Pilsner or Golden.
Same deal with calories.
Yep.
Like, it's so funny, guys would be like, man, I don't know why I'm struggling to lose the weight.
My brother in Christ, you drink a meal worth of beer.
Oh, I just have three little beers.
Yeah, that's 500 calories.
So, generally, light beer, like a Pilsner or a Golden, great once or twice a week.
Yep.
All right.
This one is from David Robinson.
He gave us $50.
Thank you, David.
Very kind.
He said, Hey, Pastor Joel, love the podcast.
My mom went down a radical feminist pathway a few years ago.
She's recently decided to leave church entirely.
Should my siblings and I try to call her to account?
We desire to honor her and my stepmother.
Father, um, yep, you want to honor her, um, but honoring her doesn't mean that you cannot bring accountability in a respectful way, uh, when she is not just wrong on some secondary or tertiary issue, but in this case,
I mean, as you've just said in your comment, uh, she has abandoned the church altogether, she's abandoned the Christian church, uh, so she is either already there, um, or certainly well on her way to full blown apostasy.
So, we're talking about the difference in a very real sense, the difference.
Between heaven and hell.
And so, out of love for your mother and desiring for the preservation of her soul and for her not to go to hell, you absolutely must hold her accountable.
Now, holding women accountable is arguably the most difficult thing to do in the world.
And holding a particular woman accountable who has just embraced feminism, which is essentially, if we were to put feminism in a nutshell, it would be women not wanting to be held accountable.
So, to hold a woman who has embraced a worldview of women not being held accountable, to hold her accountable, Is going to be exceedingly difficult.
But can you do that?
Will she be receptive?
I make no promises.
I don't know.
That would have to be the Lord and his miraculous grace moving on her heart, softening her heart to be receptive to what you have to say.
Her response, the result of you confronting her, is not up to you.
That's not within your control.
You're not responsible for how she responds.
You're responsible for simply being obedient.
So, yes, you do have to confront her.
And yes, I do believe, biblically speaking, there is a way to confront her without.
Compromising the fifth commandment to honor her.
So I think you can honorably confront your mother.
Will she respond well?
I don't know.
But then you can rest assured that you have a clear conscience before the Lord, that you've honored Him, and that you have honored and loved your mother.
So, yes, I do think that you should confront her.
All right.
Wes, you want to take the next one?
All right.
Truddle, our guy, sent $5.
He has reports from the front line, and he said this just came from Reddit slash our true Christian mind, not the general front page.
So the true Christian subreddit.
Big time air quotes there.
Read it, true Christian.
And he said, It is my great pleasure, not displeasure, my great pleasure to inform you that you are angering the libs and the pietists.
Wonderful.
Must be a day that ends in Y.
It's a day that ends in Y.
Yeah.
Yeah, that checks out.
Antonio, you want to take the next one?
Yeah.
Cancel Lincoln, the betrayal of 1776.
Great name there.
Sent $20 and says, Tucker Carlson has recently been saying that as Christians, we are only to judge people as individuals without any regard of the racial or ethnic group they come from.
Is this a biblically sound principle?
God bless you, gentlemen.
What do you think?
I've got thoughts.
You can take it first.
Yeah.
I'm sorry.
I'm just trying to.
Okay.
So Tucker Carlson has been saying Christians should only judge people as individuals.
That's what he said when he interviewed Nick.
I think I would make the distinction.
You know, when you're meeting people, you know, person to person, interpersonally, I think there's a fair bit of.
I mean, for one, it's impossible to like go into an interaction with no preconceived notions, right?
We are people.
We leverage stereotypes as heuristics to know things about people.
It's presuppositions.
Exactly.
So I think it's inevitable that you do that for one.
But I would say I would make a distinction between sort of like ethnic categories at the political level, or you could talk about public policy and those sorts of things, and interpersonally when you're actually just meeting someone.
I think what Tucker, if I'm interpreting what he's saying charitably, he probably means that when I meet a new person, I try to learn, and this is kind of indicative of.
What he does as an interviewer, too.
It's just asking good faith questions.
It's trying to understand their perspective.
And I think there's an extent to which that's a fair approach to take when you're meeting people.
I do think he goes farther, though.
Maybe that's what you're about to say.
He does seem very reluctant to ever say, this people group, the Jews did X or are generally guilty of X.
So I do think he goes farther.
Maybe that's what you're about to say.
Yeah, exactly.
So I think that the error that he's making that you're pointing out is that he's doing what I think it's fair to do on the individual level.
He's then trying to take that to the level of all public policy and general statistics and those sorts of things.
And I just think it's just a category error.
We have to be able to think in categories, particularly when we're talking about public policy.
And so that's my take on it.
I don't know if you see it differently, but.
Yeah, I think part of it is just the word judge is just a charged word.
So it depends, like, what do you mean by judge?
Like, so if you're saying that God does not eternally judge people, On a group basis, but rather individually.
Has this individual person put faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and repented of their sins or not?
Then that would be true.
He who judges all the earth will, in his eternal and perfect judgment, he will judge righteously, and it will be on a personal basis.
So that, you know, if you have parents who are righteous, but you are wicked, you will be judged as a wicked man.
If you have parents that were wicked, but You were righteous and most importantly, made righteous through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Your parents' sin will not be ultimately held against you when it comes to eternal judgment.
So, if we're talking about the final judgment, God's final judgment, then yes, that's on an individual basis and not on the basis of groups.
But if we're talking about human judgment, if we're talking about prejudice, which is just pre judgment, everyone has prejudice, right?
That's another charged word.
We act as though prejudice is inherently sinful, but it's not.
Prejudice is just prejudgment.
And judgment also, likewise, is not inherently sinful.
We're constantly executing, utilizing judgment.
The question is are we making righteous judgments or wicked judgments?
Are our judgments right?
Are they accurate or are they wrong?
Are they inaccurate?
Well, prejudice is just prejudging.
And to prejudge is to make a generalized judgment, right?
So, right there, it's a generality, a general judgment, knowing that there are always exceptions to generalities.
So, it may be right, it may be wrong.
But I'm trying to make some kind of prejudgment about an individual, and I'm looking at the things that can be witnessable, the things that can be ascertained without knowing the person on an individual level, in order to make some kind of prejudgment so that I can act appropriately in this given circumstance.
I don't think that that's inherently wrong.
I don't.
Again, God's perfect judgment, his final judgment, heaven or hell, those kinds of things, that's individual, certainly, and not a group dynamic.
But I think the question becomes less about guilt and just more of a descriptive categories of can groups of people based on nationality or based on ethnicity or based on religious affiliation or based on political affiliation,
right?
Like often, how often do people say, well, liberals, dot, Well, why would you think that?
Well, you would think that because liberals have, as a group, certain particular besetting sins, right?
Each group has certain strengths and certain weaknesses.
Groups, be they ethnic groups, national groups, political groups, religious groups, have descriptors, right?
You can describe Christians in a certain way.
You can describe Muslims in a certain way.
You can describe Hindus in a certain way.
You can describe black people in a certain way.
You'll get a A lot of flack for it, you'll get in big trouble, but you can.
You can describe white people in a certain way.
So long as that way is a negative way, you'll actually be praised for that one.
You won't get in trouble at all.
But we know that these things are generally true.
So if we're making, if we're executing judgment without necessarily being judgmental, but we're making a judgment about a person based off of what group they belong to.
Right?
The things that we know before knowing them at a deep, profound, personal level.
We can just see the way that they're dressed, or we can see their skin color, their ethnicity, or we can see their nationality, or we can see they're wearing a MAGA hat.
We can see their political affiliation.
Then we can identify on the surface initially which groups they might belong to.
And ethnic categories are not the only categories.
We can see the ethnic group, we might be able to see some other groups, political, religious.
And so on and so forth.
And then we can make a pre judgment, hold it with open hands, knowing that there are exceptions.
We could be wrong and without being mean spirited or judgmental, but make a pre generalized judgment based off of identifying which groups this individual that we currently don't know at a personal level belongs to, based off of the general truths, both strengths and weaknesses, descriptors that are appropriately belonging to each of these groups.
And to do that, What I've just described, to do that is not inherently sinful.
That's not an inherently sinful thing to do.
You can say that it's sinful.
You can be offended.
You can clutch your pearls, but it's not inherently sinful.
And I think that's a portion of the interview that Tucker had with Nick that I wish that that got fleshed out a little bit more.
I think Nick wanted to flesh it out a little bit more, but I think Tucker kind of, you know, he kind of said his generic line and then moved on.
And we like Tucker.
So I'm not trying to pick on Tucker.
What he said is fairly common, it's kind of what you would expect.
And I don't believe that he was being duplicitous or deceitful.
I think that's probably what he genuinely believes.
I think he probably genuinely believes.
That any judgment of a person at a group level in regards to what group they belong to again, ethnic is not the only group, but ethnic or religious or political or sex.
He's a man.
I bet he's better at driving than this person who's a woman or whatever, you know, like those kinds of things.
Stereotypes is what we're talking about.
Stereotypes exist for a reason because there's some general, exceptions always, but some general truth behind that stereotype.
That made it exist in the first place.
And to make some kind of predetermination, prejudgment based off of which group this person belongs to and the stereotypes surrounding that group, both strengths and weaknesses, is not inherently sinful.
If you go further, though, and you take that and say, and therefore, I am 100% convinced that this person is a terrible person.
And even if I did get to know them, I could never be convinced otherwise.
I would never give them the time of day.
I would never give them an opportunity.
In fact, I don't see these as general truths.
I see them as infallible universal truths.
There are no exceptions.
Like those would be examples of where I think it goes from the presuppositions and general prejudices that we all possess subconsciously or consciously that are not inherently sinful or righteous to something that actually is.
Sinful.
And so, my point is, I think it's just, as you can probably tell from my answer, I just don't think it's quite as simple.
I think Tucker wanted to make it seem really easy.
There's this really simple thing.
You just don't judge based off of groups one way or the other ever.
That sounds good in our modern kind of context, right?
In our Western, you know, identity politics is bad, you know, context that resonates with people.
They like it.
People like to hear that, like, oh, yeah, I like that.
That sounds right.
But if you're honest and you dig a little deeper and you have some nuance, you explore it a little bit more, you realize that not only is it not right, it's also not true.
It's just not true.
Nobody actually, people like to say it, and maybe they're not even aware, but at the subconscious level, no one actually goes through life that way.
No one has gone through life without ever making a generalization.
No.
So, I just, again, I don't think Tucker's being dishonest.
I think he probably thinks he believes what he's saying and just hasn't explored it enough.
And for Nick to be able to give that thorough of pushback that I just gave without Tucker interrupting was probably unlikely.
And so we got the interview we got.
Okay.
All right.
Reformed farmer sent five Canadian dollars.
Thank you, sir.
And asked this.
Nate, I don't know if there's a second part to this comment that goes with it.
They asked, How addressed is this in the local church?
I attended a good Reformed church, but this is like a fish in water.
Christians don't realize it.
We're looking.
Okay.
We'll skip to the next one and see if there's anything.
So, there may be another portion of that comment attached, and our tech guy is going to go look for it.
And if he finds it, we'll come back to it.
But let us at least say this thank you for the super chat.
We appreciate it.
Reform Farmer.
Next.
Go ahead, Joe.
Okay.
This one is Jesse Caldwell.
Awesome.
He just reached out to me today, which is great.
He gave us $100.
Very kind, very generous.
Thank you so much.
He said, GA, good afternoon.
Long time listener, thank you for your faithfulness.
May the Lord raise up bold men to consistently apply power in the right direction over a lifetime of work.
The application of power must be consistent and rooted over multiple generations.
Lord bless you guys.
Amen.
Well said.
And thank you so much for the big super chat.
We appreciate it.
You want to take the next one, Antonio?
Yeah, Julian Stevenson just replied to clarify about the MTG super chat.
Is it Marjorie?
Yes, Marjorie Taylor Green.
Family Behavior Concerns00:09:46
He says, I was talking about the part where CNN accused her of using violent rhetoric and she gave in and apologized.
So I didn't see that part.
I didn't see it.
The best of women are women at best.
That's well said.
I mean, I doubt.
I don't know.
I don't really follow her.
I don't know her full repertoire of everything she's publicly said, nor do I really care to be privy to that knowledge.
But honestly, just the few little pieces that I've seen of her, I would be shocked.
If she really has used violent rhetoric, right?
So, if she really has used violent rhetoric in a wicked way, then that's worth apologizing for.
But it is never worth making an apology for something that you didn't actually do.
And if I had to bet, I would say the accusation of her using violent rhetoric is probably deceitful and that she probably didn't use that rhetoric.
And if I'm right in that assumption, then she certainly shouldn't walk it back.
She shouldn't apologize if it's not something that she did.
So it's kind of like a lose lose.
So in this scenario, all I can say of MTG is she actually did use violent rhetoric, in which case it was not prudent or wise.
Probably shouldn't really be in politics.
And therefore she had to walk something back.
That's a bad look.
She didn't use violent rhetoric and apologize anyways because she succumbed to the weapons and strategy of the left, in which case, not a good look.
Probably shouldn't be in politics.
So, what do you think if you were 50 50 and all of a sudden you're on CNN and you're about 50 50?
That one wasn't great and they press.
Do you think, out of principle, you should say, Hey, right here in the moment, I'm not going to.
All the cameras are on me.
The pressure is on.
I'm not just going to sit here and do it.
I could have been wrong, but I'll get back to you in a week.
I'm not just going to sit here and give in to the pressure.
Or to say, you know what, I was kind of feeling like I missed it in that one.
We're here now.
Let me say, yeah, that was a miss.
What would you do, I guess, in that sense?
What I would do is I would say, well, there's context to everything that everyone says, always.
And if you ever want to have a long form 60 minute style interview where we play the full context of what I said and you give me not just 30 seconds right here before you cut to a commercial break or something else, but you actually give me ample time to explain what I meant and why I said what I said, then I'd be happy to respond.
But if you're looking for me in 10 seconds or less to simply say, Oh, you got me and fall on my sword, then you're going to be sorely disappointed because that's not happening.
Profound.
That's what I would say.
Great.
All right.
There was no other comment, so maybe he's just asking about the topic in general Christians being allergic to power.
Okay.
So just, yeah, he's probably talking about today's title for the episode, Christians Being Allergic to Power.
Especially in Canada, too, where he comes from.
Yeah.
Christians Being Allergic to Power.
Why is this?
So if you read that into his comment, how is Christians being.
How addressed is this using power in the local church?
I attended a good reformed church, but this is like efficient.
Why Christians don't realize it.
So even in a good reformed church that has generally good theology, the concept of Christians wielding power righteously.
Is still foreign, even in his Reformed Church context.
And Christians don't even realize how far off the rails they are by just surrendering that ground.
I think that's true, absolutely, which is part of the reason why we try to address it.
And I think the reaction that we're seeing when it's addressed, that people are like, this is the most terrible thing that has ever been said by any Christian minister in the history of the world.
A Christian minister said that Christians should attain and wield power righteously.
Oh, no, oh, no, oh, no.
I think the reaction tells you what's really underneath it.
What's really underneath it is that not just that people find it icky, I think they're afraid.
They're actually afraid.
The reactions that you're seeing are not from guys who are really on the Christian team, but concerned.
The reactions you're seeing are fear mongers who are trying to stir up people to be afraid of that rhetoric because they know that if it catches on, it actually could be effective.
And they are devoted, wholly devoted to Christians losing.
They're actually on the other team.
They're double agents, they're imposters.
David French, it's not that he's, wow, gosh, that guy is a Christian who just gets it wrong all the time.
Or maybe he gets it wrong all the time because he's not a Christian.
Hello, fellow Christians.
Let me tell you how Jesus would be more pleased with you if you made sure to lose all the time.
Well, I mean, it could be an absolutely stupid Christian, but here's the thing a stupid Christian would still, like a broken clock, get it right twice a day.
French has never been right, not even twice, never.
And that tells me that he's probably not just an ignorant Christian, he's probably a false Christian.
And I think we need to begin to see him as such.
So, I think that's all of our stuff.
We had one more chat come in.
Okay, Antonio, you want to read this one?
Yeah, San Diego.
Oh, yeah.
Marco Alejo sent $10.
Thanks for that.
And says, Good afternoon, Jewel.
Still love your show after being in your church back in San Diego.
I have extended family that are gay that may bring their SO, significant other, to family gathering.
Concerned about the message it sends to my kids' thoughts.
Well, we, one, Marco, thanks for tuning in.
We really appreciate that.
I remember you.
And Marco is an impressive, godly young man.
So grateful for him.
We actually addressed this, is what Wes was probably about to say in a recent episode.
I'll give you the brief summary.
I just sent a link to Nate and he can put it in the chat.
So it'll be there and we'll give the summary.
Good.
So Wes just sent a link and we'll put it in the chat so you guys can look at it.
The quick summary is this I do think that there's a difference in someone who is in sin versus someone who is actively sinning, right?
In sin versus sinning.
So if you had.
A drunk uncle who curses like a sailor and he wants to come and join the family for Christmas.
You could say, Hey, I'm a father, I have young children, and I'm sorry, I love you, but I do not want you drunk and cursing in front of my children.
And if he chose to abide by that prerequisite and said, You know what?
I'm a drunk sailor, but on Christmas Day, when I show up at the house, I'm going to be sober and I'm going to leave the cursing at home.
Then I think you shouldn't say, Well, me and my family won't be there.
No, I think your kids can be around him because they're going to be around an uncle who is in sin.
But while they're in his presence, he's not going to be actively sinning.
Similar principle applied to the gay family member.
So, if that gay family member is going to show up with their significant other and have their arm around them and do gross things in front of your children, then yeah, I would not participate.
And I would make whoever's hosting choose.
Would you like our family to be present for Christmas, you know, for Thanksgiving or the holidays, whatever it is, or so and so?
Because if so and so is there, we won't be.
Yep.
I'm sorry.
However, if this gay, you know, extended family member is still gay, still a sodomite, still in sin, but is going to choose not to actively sin in front of your children, right?
He's not going to show up with his significant other and do homosexual things in front of the children.
Or do the voice.
Or do the voice.
Like, seriously, like act effeminately.
Right.
You're going to come there and you're going to sit up and talk like a man.
Yep.
Then that would kind of be like the drunk uncle who says, Well, for Christmas, I'm going to put away the bottle and wash my mouth out with soap and show up in my Sunday best.
Well, then, okay.
So I think that's the difference can you bring your children during the holidays around family members who are living in sin?
Yes, you actually can.
Can you bring your children, subject your children to family members living in sin who, in their presence, will actively sin in front of the children?
No, I don't think you can do that.
So then the question really becomes is there any way to ascertain how the holidays will go?
Will this individual family member behave one way or another?
And the only way to really ascertain that is unfortunately, although it's uncomfortable, is to have a conversation.
And so then I would say if you feel confident that to even broach the subject and to have that conversation ahead of time to see if they would be willing to behave in such a way, When your kids are with them during the holidays, if you feel like to even broach the subject, to even have the conversation to begin with is going to set them off and anger them and blah, blah, blah, then I would say there's your sign.
Having Difficult Conversations00:01:03
Right.
So, like, if you're like, well, the only way I could do it is if they promise not to do X, Y, and Z in front of the kids, but to get that promise, I'd have to talk to them, and to talk to them would anger them and they would go on a rage and blah, blah.
Then I would say, well, then you kind of already have your answer.
But if you feel like, no, I think I could talk to them, and I don't know exactly how they would answer, but to be fair, I could see it, there's a chance it could go either way.
Well, then I would have the conversation.
So that's it for today.
Thank you guys for the super chats and all the generosity, the love, the support.
We appreciate it greatly.
It is Monday, and we broadcast simultaneously live on both X and YouTube three times, not once, not twice, but thrice each week on Monday and Wednesday and Friday at 3 p.m. Central Time.
We do this on X and on YouTube.
Make sure to subscribe on both platforms so that you catch all of our content as it comes.
Lord willing, we will see you guys again on Wednesday at 3 p.m. Central Time.