Responding to the Republican Case for Public Satanism

People are telling me I'm muted, so sorry about that minute into the podcast and no one could hear me.

I'm glad I have a live chat up so I can see what you guys are saying. So I'll repeat what

I just said. First of all, welcome to the Conversations That Matter podcast. We'll see how much we have to talk about today.

There's a lot we could talk about, but I'm in a weird position right now. I'm sitting here in New York, which is known to be a very progressive state, of course.

And originally I was born actually in California, which is outside of L .A., a very progressive area.

A lot of my family's still there. And I'm in this weird spot right now where I'm kind of grateful to not be from Iowa.

It's kind of weird to actually do a family that goes back to Iowa. But it's just I think

Iowa, as far as I know, someone can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure that they were one of the few states in the midterms that the

Republicans really did well. It's a red state. Both of the representative bodies in the state capitol are

Republican controlled. It's got a Republican governor and and somehow it also has a satanic display in the in the state capitol there.

So we're going to talk a little bit about that today and just navigating that. Some of you are probably saying this should be a no brainer.

And I agree to a point. I think this should be a no brainer, but we are contending with an outlook that I think we've all kind of grown used to in a way we haven't had to face some of these challenges, not blatantly.

So at least who would have thought that Satanists would organize and try to get idols to Satan set up in public spaces and in government buildings?

I mean, that's. Not something I ever saw happening, even, you know, when

I was young and I'm not that old, but that wasn't something that was even on the horizon. And now, of course, this is what we have to contend with.

In fact, I think when it comes to depictions of Satan, we have to think about what's happening in the entertainment world, because that also affects the political world and our social reality.

You have shows and I haven't watched these shows. I just understand that the premise of these shows is and these are recent shows are very pro,

I guess, Satan in a way, like they at least portray Satan as someone who's misunderstood, who doesn't really want evil, is just a normal guy, very relatable.

And one of the shows is called The Good Omens, which is on Amazon. There's another one. And I thought I had it written down, but I guess

I don't that I think is called Lucifer, which was streaming. I mean, it's total blasphemy and wants to live in Hollywood and doesn't want to fulfill his duty ruling over hell, which we know

Satan doesn't do anyway. And so this is these are the kinds of depictions that are happening in the entertainment world where it wasn't one was the last time

Satan was like truly depicted as a bad character, a deceitful father of lies, accusing people of things like the way he's portrayed in the

Bible. But who would have thought you would live in a time where you had to explain that Satan is a bad guy, right?

That you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're a bad guy, that you're not going to be in an argument with someone who is trying to contend that actually no,

Satan is a good guy and the Bible got it wrong. I've been in those discussions. In fact, a few years ago,

I went to a, there was, it's called an awareness shop, but it's basically witchcraft and stuff.

And I'm not recommending anyone do this, but a friend of mine and I went in to witness to the people behind the counter.

I just remember the guy behind the counter was so nervous when he saw us. There was a spiritual thing going on there. But I remember this witch and she said she was a witch she came out and she talked to us her only argument seemed to be that she thought all the holidays that we

Celebrate were basically co -opted from them and that meant that they predated Christianity and they're the true religion, which

I just said us dumb Because Christianity goes back to the very beginning. I mean, it's it's uh, you have the coming of Christ, of course but that's seen as a

Continuation of something that was already ongoing. But Anyway, I remember though.

That was one of the things that she said that Satan has been very misunderstood that The Bible got it wrong that Satan is actually a good guy.

I mean was the Bible say Satan is Presents himself as an angel of light so We should have come to expect that to some extent

But I think we have a satanic influenced Increasingly satanic influenced world that we live in and we have to figure out

How do we approach these things? So this brings me to what happened in the Iowa State Capitol reach from a story here and then we'll get into this is the mindset that I want to critique which is

I Don't I don't really have a much of a name for it You could call it a liberal mindset because for those who've been paying attention to the series we did on liberalism

This explains why someone might think this way but There's a

Republican that's defending this satanic monument. Essentially this idol Not directly but indirectly as you know a part of religious freedom.

So we'll talk about that it's kind of like the peak boomer con mindset to be honest with you like that mindset that wants to value neutrality and all our institutions and And and thinks that the other side is also going to be valuing neutrality and they're not interested in that So let's read from this story as we go through this.

So this is from the Christian Post and It says say to the headline is satanic display in Iowa State Capitol stirs debate among GOP lawmakers outrage and disgust a

Satanic exhibit in the Iowa State Capitol has caused a stir among Republican state lawmakers who are debating the legality of allowing such displays on state property

He satanic exhibit in the Iowa State Capitol has caused a stir. I could just read that Let's see an organization describing itself as the satanic temple of Iowa Erected an altar depicting a silver rams head on a mannequin adorned with a red cape and surrounded by candles and flowers according to locals

KKCI Des Moines The statue has also holds a red wreath with an inverted pentagram and you can see it right here.

There's the pentagram There's and apparently well, we'll read this in a minute

But they apparently they wanted to have a real I guess Rams head and that was forbidden So they do have some standards in the

Iowa State Capitol, which is good to hear And here's the gentleman. I'm referring to Iowa State Representative John Dunwell a

Republican and Christian pastor who also serves as assistant majority leader told the Christian Post That while he disagrees personally with the display with what the display represents

He doesn't believe the government should be getting involved for me I would rather have an evil blasphemous display or no display at all

All right So some of these quotes are actually gonna read and I don't see the need to get into any of this

Much deeper they quote some other people Andrew Walker who is the associate professor of Christian ethics at the

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary echoed Sherman's Let's see. I haven't read Sherman's. What did Sherman say? Let's go up here a

Fellow state representative Brad Sherman also a Republican and a pastor. So they got more than one pastor who's in the

Iowa State Senate which is kind of cool Took a different view on the topic arguing a newsletter last week that there is potential legal recourse by which satanic

Displays could be prohibited on state -owned property the outrage and disgust for the satanic displays widespread but few people think there is

Much that can be legally done about it because of free speech and freedom of religion However, I disagree.

He said citing the preamble to the 1857 Iowa State Constitution Which established the state on the basis of a belief in a supreme being and dependence on him for a continuation of those blessings so so he sees a potential legal path and Andrew Walker from the

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary wrote an op -ed for World magazine Echoing this arguing that there are potential limits to Constitutional freedom and that there is neither a theological nor a political basis for allowing satanic displays on government property

So look at there. I agree with Andrew Walker. Don't don't always agree with Andrew Walker But in this case,

I think he's on to something now I want to get into the deeper what's going on on a deeper level here and That requires me to bring up Some of these tweets by Republican representative

John Dunwell, so let me see if I can Do that real quick here in the meantime, if you have any questions, make sure that you or just statements make sure you

Get them in and I will come back to them later and we will discuss them We'll see if I can pull this up for everyone.

I think I can so these are just a series of tweets that This particular representative

John Dunwell put out over the last few days and I find them very enlightening to say the least

This is the initial one he said as many of you may have become aware last week a display was erected at the

Iowa Capitol by the Satanic Temple of Iowa as I have responded to concerns from Iowans about the display

I want to share with you how the display came to be in my response So, how did it happen he says the

Capitol structure falls underneath the control of the Iowa Legislature the Department of Administration Services DAS is charged with the management

Currently access for displays at the Capitol are open to anyone through an application process though There are some guidelines.

They do not discriminate on the basis of religion or ideology Displays are permitted to be displayed for two weeks.

All displays are required to communicate They are an independent display and not to be associated with the state of Iowa The Satanic Temple petitioned for their display in August and were approved with some modification

They wanted to use an actual goat head and were prohibited from doing so So, like I said, they have some standards apparently there there are some regulations here, you know, you can worship

Satan You just don't use an actual don't harm an animal to do it. I guess I don't know the

Iowa Legislature can set the rules and standards for any display So let me read that again.

The Iowa Legislature can set the rules and standards for any display Let me read it one more time.

The Iowa Legislature can set the rules and standards for any display the

I Can't emphasize that sentence enough the current operating principle has been to either allow all displays or none

All right, so there's another keyword operating principle or key term That I want you to just remember as we go through this the legislature has the power to change if they deem necessary My observations and response as an

Iowan state representative and pastor Okay, so so he's saying the Iowa Legislature actually can change the rules and they can prohibit this

But here is his opinion My observation is a follower of Christ. I certainly find a display from the

Satanic Temple objectionable Well, at least good right good It stands in direct opposition to my faith and would be classified as evil not a new experience for me or my family the

Word of God continually warns About the dangers in our world in fairness many other religions or non -religious people have the same perspectives about Christianity My observation as an

Iowan and a state representative. I don't want the state evaluating and making determinations about religion

I am guided by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. My response is a follower of Christ Display is an inanimate object that has no real power in and of itself.

We have nothing to fear Okay I don't I don't even know where to start.

I mean you think of like Gideon, right? Like that's just an inanimate object. I mean doesn't really matter I mean how we learn nothing from the last few years with the debate over monuments and what they communicate

I mean this is happening at a time when Thomas Jefferson statues are coming down in state capitals and you have this being displayed

Oppose the message of the display it is not just another way to worship the same God There are differences that need to be pointed out the displays glorifies the evil we oppose

The primary response required is prayer the display itself is an invitation of the work.

We have yet to do Iowa needs Jesus the display provides a teaching example for our families of the difference between the person and work of Christ and that of Satan Love light.

Okay, so I guess there's a positive Point to having this displayed

My faith is never imposed upon others nor should it ever become a direct part of government

It is always a response to the personal work of Jesus Christ I don't want to mix kingdoms government is a poor arbiter of religion

Take full advantage of the opportunities to express our faith in an appropriate displays and programs at the Capitol And then he says my response is a state representative

Review the guidelines to ensure they represent our constitutional rights monitor the number of organizations requesting displays

I don't want the Capitol to be overwhelmed by displays in the future We may need to find ways to appropriately limit the number of displays and then continue to dialogue with other elected officials and islands on this issue so That is the initial response from Representative John Dunwell of the

Iowa State Legislature. I think I said Senate earlier legislature and This is

I mean, it's rich to me because you could probably Justify a lot of things based on this logic you justify pornography really?

I mean it creates a teaching opportunity of What intimacy and marriages versus intimacy outside of God's boundaries?

You could say that You know, we we can't do anything because you know free equal access freedom of speech

First Amendment that kind of stuff You could say it's just an inanimate object, right so there's really no power in it, but you know, of course

It's an inanimate object, but it has it does have actually power. In fact, there's a reason that Public displays of nudity and those kind of sexual nudity were forbidden in Old Testament times and have been in most

Western societies That's been recognized as something that it should be forbidden. Why well, it's just flesh and bone, right?

I mean sure There's no like we know as Christians that greater is he that is in us and he that is in the world

But it doesn't mean that there aren't demonic forces associated with these statues It doesn't mean that they don't have an effect on the people who view them doesn't mean that it

Doesn't negatively affect people. Of course, it does. Of course it does it sends a message all of these things do so That's level one.

That's level one of Our friend here John done. Well It gets more interesting though he gets some pushback for this and In response to the pushback he gets

He says if standing for the up for the kingdom of God and the ways of Christ get me an award

I gladly accept it. So here he's now saying that in defending the the display the

The neutrality that allows a display like this that he is standing for the kingdom of God.

Okay, that's interesting as I continue to hear from Christians on the issue of the satanic temple

Displays at the Iowa Capitol. I found myself shocked Shocked I tell you at what I believe is a misunderstanding of basic biblical concepts of the kingdom of Jesus So now we're gonna get a sermon from pastor and representative

John done well on what the kingdom of Jesus has to say about the Presentation of idols recognition of idols

To Satan in public places where he admitted they it doesn't have to actually be recognized

They can set the rules and they can object to this So he says this it is not a physical kingdom defined by the boundaries and nationality the kingdom of Christ It is not a recreation of the nation of Israel in the

United States of America It is a spiritual kingdom led by Jesus filled with those who have been transformed by his

Spirits presence in their lives the concepts in the Old Testament regarding the nation of Israel We are called to incorporate in this spiritual kingdom

For example, we tear down the places of idolatry in our hearts We are not called to physically tear down false places of worship now if you think about this

I mean this logic could lead to we never take any moral stance. I mean it really could

I mean, hey, it's just a spiritual kingdom. It just applies to us It doesn't actually mean anything on a grander scale than that.

It's not like we're gonna use the The third use of the law It's not going to be

Prohibiting things that ought to be prohibited in the general world. It's just applying to we ourselves

I Mean, I agree with the first few sentences here. I mean, I think he's on to something I think what

Jesus meant something when he said his kingdom is not of this world, but I don't think that meant That he didn't want

Christians being involved in any moral way in this temporal world I think there's that you have a temporal world and you have the eternal realm and you have the impending kingdom of God that is right now displayed in the church and in spiritual ways, but Will actually be physically manifested at some point and different eschatological flavors have different schemes of how that works out

It never meant that Because there's a spiritual kingdom in which

Christ reigns that those who are part of that kingdom should never Let let the moral convictions that come from Christ be displayed in the world.

In fact, just the opposite We're supposed to be salt and light in the world. So we're actually supposed to be

Spreading and and in spreading this message spreading the law of God is also going to have some

Temporal world physical manifestations He says the battle we fight is primarily spiritual and not physical

We don't wrestle against flesh and blood but against spiritual forces. Therefore our primary response needs to be physical and not spiritual or spiritual or not physical rather so Someone called this pietism, but it's just you know

The whole issue now is just going to be knocked up into this kind of spiritual world where we don't do anything practically to end

This display. I recognize I live in a pluralistic society. That does not share my perspective on Jesus He says being the only way

I am called to transform that world through the presentation of the gospel The passing of legislation can never accomplish what the presence of Christ in Lives can do the late latter is a real change.

The latter is the true kingdom change and no one's arguing with that that's the thing none of the criticism that he's gotten argues this and says that Well, you ought not be sharing the gospel or the gospel is not the true transforming work

It's it's just laws or something Like no one's saying that people are saying both and can't can't we like share the gospel and at the same time?

Can't we put an end to public indecency like this? Isn't that possible? He kind of admitted at the beginning.

It was possible The Iowa State Legislature prohibited it from being a display of an actual animal so they can prohibit some things

You know, I wonder why that's an okay prohibition by the way, well, you know, why is that okay? Why is that moral vision? Acceptable but not the moral vision that prohibits the idol altogether

We cannot afford to adopt the ways of earthly kingdoms or earthly tweeters We we are different.

We choose not to fight our battles in the same way We are called the humility love and service as an American. I reject the concept of Christian nationalism

Now you're gonna hear a lot more about this term in the next year But here we have it and this gets to the

Application where the rubber meets the road of so many of the things that we've been talking about over the last year. It really does

He's he's linking the objection that that he's getting to his support for a satanic temple being displayed in the

Iowa State Capitol to Christian nationalism and He's making saying that it conflicts with the

Constitution. He says as a Christian I reject the concept of Christian nationalism on biblical grounds and the

Bible so it conflicts with the Bible to the satanic temple displays is A horrible display at our Capitol.

It represents an evil that needs to be transformed by the presence of Christ It can be physically torn down by those who oppose it, but it will not lead to real heart change

Iowa needs Jesus. Okay. No one's arguing this. Of course. Of course you need more than just tearing down the idol

It won't be truly transformed by legislature's laws But the Holy Spirit no one's saying it that that look

God can use something like this God used things like this in the past God can still use things like this and public morality men of courage taking stands

Opposing evil all of that stuff can be used by God No one's arguing that that is going to usher someone into the kingdom of God in and of itself

You need the work of the Holy Spirit and you need an understanding of sin and the grace of Christ but Reinforcing the moral law of God is where this actually starts saying that there is a moral law you violated it and The civil government actually has a role in this to promote good and punish evil

When I see the an evil display of the satanic temple, I see an invitation to focus on bringing real kingdom change to Iowa So this is a way, you know, why are you even in the legislature?

That's what I wonder like what you could put any issue there plug in any issue, you know when I see

Prostitution on the street. I just see an invitation to bring the real kingdom change or you can put in any

I seen gang violence I see an invitation to focus on bringing the real kingdom change. We shouldn't use laws to fight these things so I'm gonna take a break.

We have more to go more to go through here with representative John Dunwell, but some people want to weigh in Jeff Reynolds, I'm gonna come to you in a moment since I see that you're in the chat

But before we get there for $2 Earl Starbucks says Dunwell is shadow boxing

Dabney quote quote relevant. I think it's probably the the Dabney quotes

That Earl Starbuck is referring to is probably the quote about how Conservatives in the

United States in America or I think it's American conservatism is the shadow that follows

Progressivism to perdition something like that. I'm kind of paraphrasing But yeah I mean that's definitely the case you see this on a lot of issues that the

Republican Party Tends to just kind of follow behind at a distance But they're not effectively giving any real opposition to what's happening

Let's see, there's some other questions In the chat here. I'm gonna see if I can go but at the beginning there's so many questions or comments and questions

And a lot of good ones, too By what standard someone asked? The elite elite for $5 says

Dunwell defends a satanic display while Polish MP Braun put out a menorah for being an attack on their

Catholic nation. I actually saw that video today I don't know any context and I don't know anything about Poland except they're

Catholic But apparently this was in a their capital I guess and their national capital and there was a menorah display

I don't know if this is the first time they've had a menorah display But there was a menorah display and he went in there and he put the whole thing out and And so I guess that does serve as somewhat of a contrast.

I'm not really equipped to comment on the Polish thing though not knowing a lot about their history, but if this came from a place of we're a

Christian country or a Catholic country in this case and This is not in accordance with who we are our identity where we draw our legal tradition from and all that kind of thing

You know, I can understand it to an extent So, let's uh, let's keep going here because I really want to focus on this kind of boomer con

Mindset and I'm not saying everyone who's a boomer and a conservative just so people know

I've done an episode on this and people still don't understand It doesn't mean that everyone who's a baby boomer and a conservative falls into this mindset this is just a post -world war two liberal mindset, and that's what

I want to critique because That's that's what we're running up against here, but before I get to that I'm gonna put

Jeff Reynolds on the stage here Hey Jeff, can you hear me? Yes, John. Can you hear me? I can how you doing?

I am great. Thanks. How are you good? I'm very honored that you're giving me any airtime.

That's awesome And thank you. By the way, I just want to take the moment. This is an unpaid

Endorsement, but your work is amazing. Please keep it up. Just you're on it and We all need help

Discerning what's going on even keeping up with developments like this. It's really really great.

Thank you for your work. Yeah Well, thank you Jeff. I appreciate it. You've been faithful supporter and just a very very good encourager and So what's on your mind?

Did you have an angle or a thought about this? Well, thanks for asking.

I I will admit that I am still trying to process it and digest it I just saw an interesting interview on on Newsmax with Rob Schmidt who interviewed a

Legislator and then another person who is I guess actively engaged and you know civil activities in Iowa About this and they had different points of view, but it was quite interesting to hear the

Ledger the one who's involved in the legislation involved in the government state government

Who clearly from what I from what he was saying that he convinced me that he was a legitimate, you know

Christian yet He was saying that he didn't think that there should be you know, this should be taken down or it should be prohibited

You know, yeah, it's very strange. It's a hard thing to get my arms around that but the way he

You know what he what he basically said was that you know, maybe this is a Romans 828 kind of Phenomenon, but he said that the amount of people who came there were so many more people who came to the state capitol to pray

Legitimate, you know real Christians who were because of this because of that thing being there Than he had ever seen before he said he really felt like there was momentum that built

Because of it. I'm not I'm not saying it's in any way a good thing right that was there but I Mean to me, it's just a it's it's not so it's a it's a very scary sign of the times that we are in and the advanced and stage status of our civilizational social spiritual decline in this country that really started in the 60s pretty pretty

Pretty fast and it's just been accelerating since then I you know So I just I can't really say that that this kind of thing surprises me as much as it

Disgusts me disturbs me and saddens me When you cross a barrier or a boundary that has yet to be crossed or hasn't been crossed many times

Generally the people who like what they had before the status quo which was more Christian will get upset about it

But then it was more normalized right and that's kind of the danger here. It's like yeah I'm sure that when in Iowa a red state when this boundary is crossed people are up in arms a little like This can't be happening here

Yeah, then when it's left up and then if it happens next year, then are you gonna get the same crowd?

Do people get used to it? Yeah, and and that's that's the danger of these things to some extent.

Yeah Yeah, amazing. So so was a John Dunwell was he on this particular program?

You were watching or it was another state legislature. You know, I wasn't I can't I couldn't tell you the guy's name, but okay he

Think he had a bowtie on he was he was you know, he was a very intelligent kind of guy looking maybe 60s

Type of thing. Yeah, but yeah, you know, I I mean look if I think if any hopefully if any of us in this chat in this event were

In a position, you know to have some say in the matter. We would oppose it with everything we had

I mean, I certainly would I would not I think we're in a different. I mean, I'm not

I don't understand You know politics and history the way you do, but I think I understand enough of it to be able to say that You know,

I believe we're in a different ballgame now I know that you say this on your podcast a lot that we're you know

We're in a different situation than we were it's like this is not peacetime anymore This is not, you know We can all get along Democrats and Republicans can generally work together because they all are on the same team ultimately that really isn't the case anymore and You know and and Christians are just not going to be tolerated anymore by the elites even if our

Constitution protects us. I mean that it really only protects us once you get to the Supreme Court and very few people get there

I mean, so, you know, the left can get away with a lot they can make a do a lot of damage But I see your point about about like, you know, they push in the envelope with something like this, right?

Then you know the Satan clubs in in schools, you know This is just like pushing the envelope further and further and further until there is no there is no restraint and that's a scary thing

Yeah So yes We would I think we should all we're all called at least I feel and you know

Not that I have any any any involvement with something like this locally right now, but I think we're all called to you know aggressively stand against this kind of thing because it's just an absolute abomination and Shouldn't be tolerated in any civilized society not even a pagan one

Yeah, the question is are any standards permissible anywhere at this point? Like you ever impose a standard or is that just a violation of your

Christian? Commitment to the spiritual kingdom of God and you're in the Constitution and neutrality in the public square

Because what they're doing now is they are taking advantage of all the things that we've tried to put in place to protect religion to protect

Christianity primarily By saying that we you know, like the Equal Access Act in the 80s to make sure that on a

Like a high school campus or even in a college campus that Religious groups cannot be discriminated against they have equal access

No matter what religion they are But of course the people who passed that were primarily thinking about Christianity and now you have these groups that want to then use that Against the very people who were trying to put it up as a shield and so so I think the discussion one of the discussions that has to happen is whether or not the

Neutrality is a good idea of just saying that anyone no matter what you believe and who you are has equal access to public spaces in this case and displaying their message

I don't think if it was and I you know, your kids are in the car probably not this late

Maybe turn on but if it was a big phallic symbol, right would that change it? Would that be different? You know, why not?

I don't think there's any reason that you would have to prohibit that if you're not willing to prohibit a statue to Satan, so it's just Like whatever argument they bring up to try to say.

Well, that's not acceptable You could bring up all their counter arguments against Christians who are concerned about this and it would be the same ones.

So Mm -hmm Anyway, yeah. No, it's good. Hey good good point and good to hear from you

Jeff Was there anything else that you you had in mind or? Well, no,

I mean I think You what you've made you've made the point a bunch of times

I'm sorry I don't have the video on but I I just couldn't only get you on my phone and my phone's No, I'm in a not in a good position place right now.

But otherwise I would have the video on but um You've made the point which

I think is a very important one about Public involvement in Governmental type things on the local level and I really

Agree with that. I mean, I think that's the only sort of the only leverage that most of us are going to have in these days

And you know, there are a lot of different ways you could do that and And I just would love to hear more about more maybe more encouragement or more even practical tips

Maybe maybe if you haven't already done it I mean I missed it you could bring somebody on who who's doing this kind of thing or you know

Mobilizing people to do these things do do stuff at the local level. Yeah Effectively to have impact, you know for for you know, what is what is good and what is yeah, there are

There are some places there is actually There in Huntington Beach, California if you can believe it there's some

Christians who got elected to the town council and they're doing all kinds of things to Things up and yeah, and I actually did reach out to one of them.

I just haven't heard back but I'm Yeah, I do want to cover those stories

I think a lot of what's happening though, and and there are places like that But a lot of what's happening is more of a defensive action

It's not as you have I forget which state it is I want to say Missouri, but I could be wrong There's a

Ten Commandments display that's tied up in court right now And and so these are defensive measures that Christians are mobilized toward But we do need more aggressive.

I think measures. I think there needs to be groups who are willing to go to these capitals and Public spaces and say, you know, we we want our display we want

Our message because it's the true message and not to shy away from that kind of thing But yeah,

I'll talk a little bit about you know, what I think they could do in Iowa here in a moment but yeah, no good good thought and good reminder to me to find those good positive stories that I know are out there and if Anyone out there in the chat has good stories of where people are pushing the needle in the right direction

Let me know I would be curious to talk to people who are doing that So anyway, thank you Jeff.

I know sure. Thank you. Appreciate it. God bless you so much you too so back to our friend here

We're gonna talk a little bit more about Representative John Dunwell and kind of what's going on in his mind.

He says it's really not that radical this statue of Satan of To Satan I should say

I don't you know, that's a good question. Actually. Is this actually depicting Satan? Or is this a statue to Satan?

I'm not even certain of that. I think it's supposed to be a representation of Satan, but He says it's not that radical.

I don't want the government dictating approving or regulating religious expression I would rather have an evil blasphemous display or no display at all

Then have the state dictate what they think is appropriate I write this as a Bible believing

Jesus is the only way pastor and elected leader who respects the Constitution I am shocked so many want to give up their freedom.

So they don't have to see a display they disagree with Again, apply that to pornography if you want.

I mean, it's the same logic Would you be used to justify it the same exact logic? There's just no standard. This is a blank check he says

Someone well, someone challenged him and he called and Representative John Dunwell said he was an apologist for Christ Kingdom Christ's ways and the

Constitution so that and he sees that as His defense of this neutrality this neutral public square where Satan displays can be put up that is

Because he's an apologist for Christ Kingdom amazing amazing Representative John Dunwell again, my disappointment abounds as an

American and as a follower of Christ I will not back down and you've got four exclamation points as a follower of Christ I will advocate for the building of Christ's kingdom through following his example of loving others washing the feet of others considering the interests of others as my own denying myself

And taking my cross daily spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ as a state representative. I will continue to advocate for freedom

I don't want the state determining was an appropriate religious expression. Now. I want you to look at something very carefully here in the first Six or five different activities here.

These are all religious things loving others washing the feet of others considering the interest, right? Personal things right that Jesus wanted us to do and he says as a state representatives.

I will continue to advocate for freedom so It's there's a separation going on here between his role as a state representative and his role as a

Christian As a state representative, I guess he could be any religion, right? He could be an atheist and as long as he advocates for freedom, whatever that is all caps with exclamation points freedom that is

That that's all it is and What are the limits of that freedom? We don't know that that's part of the problem here.

We just don't even know So, let's see last slide here.

Oh, I just wanted to show this. Okay, so Lest you think Representative John Dunwell is kind of out there.

Like he's just kind of nutty or something. He's This is just a picture of him ringing the bell for the

Salvation Army There was another one of him at a Christmas ceremony. I think he's Christian Missionary Alliance if I'm not mistaken,

I think that's what CM and a is the denomination that he's a he's a pastor in or was a pastor in but This is the the logic that we are contending with And this is

I think I mean, this is his objection to quote -unquote Christian nationalism as well that the

State is supposed to be promoting the general interests of everyone Neutrally speaking across the board equally and there can be no

There can be no favoring one religion over another you can't favor Christianity you have to make sure that everyone including the

Satanist in this case are given their equal status and This is something that if you go back in history, the founders would have been you know

I mean a lot of people want to go back to the founders and find out what did they think? This would have been this is a hard thing to figure out what they think now

I think we know what they think but if you're finding examples You're just not gonna see many because this wasn't anything people.

No one thought about this No one perceived that this time would come in America when anyone would want to do that it was just I Mean you had nine of the thirteen colonies were had official state religions

I was actually just reading the other day 16. This is really early 1609 Jamestown and the laws that govern

Jamestown and They prohibited Catholicism if you can believe it, they prohibited atheism.

They prohibited blasphemy There were laws against all these things and pretty much every colony initially in the

United States was similar to that. They had laws that prohibited at the very least blasphemy or atheism or anti religious anti -christian things and We've now come to a point over gradual changes over years to where Christians don't even think that they can oppose publicly a

Satan Satanist display with the power of the law and if you pursue that power, then you're a

Christian nationalist and that's bad and you're against Christ's kingdom and somehow You know, you're not not practicing true theology there.

So it's crazy to me. It's crazy to me We're gonna talk a little bit about the legal end of this real quick and I wanted to present to you just briefly

I thought this was such a great like crash course article here. So and I thought about putting it in my own words

I thought I couldn't can't do really Any better than this particular article? This is an article now.

It's not directly about the case is actually Was written a few days ago. It's not about the case that we're talking about but it it does relate to it it's from the

Constitution Center and It's the title is did a Supreme Court decision change the rules for holiday displays by Scott bomb boy

It says each December. There are several disputes about the use of religious displays and holiday displays in public locations

But did last year Supreme Court ruling about a high school football coach changed the ground rules for nativity scenes and other displays in Kennedy verse

Bremerton School District a coach Joseph Kennedy sued after his contract was not renewed after Kennedy conducted voluntary prayers on a public football field after games the court's decision in June 20 22 all

But abandoned a First Amendment test established by the late justice Sandra Day O 'Connor in the 1980s the

First Amendment's establishment clause states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof in Lynch first Donnelly 1984 the court addressed a basic question

Did the First Amendment prohibit Powtucket Rhode Island from including a nativity scene in its annual

Christmas display? If it also included other secular symbols such as a plastic reindeer a Santa Claus house and a

Christmas tree Chief Justice Warren burgers majority opinion allowed the the I think it's pronounced creche or creche

Which is a nativity scene essentially Allowed the creche to stay in the exhibit as the presence of secular symbols brought in the purpose of the display

But it was justice O 'Connor's introduction of a First Amendment's endorsement test in Lynch that had the longer constitutional legacy

So so here's this is the important part here justice O 'Connor's endorsement test in lemon verse

Kurtzman 1971 the court had established a three -part test to analyze Establishment clause challenges and what became known as the lemon test the court found that the government can only assist religion

If the primary purpose of such assistance was secular the assistance did not promote nor inhibit religion

And there was no excessive Entanglement between church and state.

Okay, so there's three things here the three -tiered test here The first thing is that the purpose must be secular, right?

The assistance does not promote the religion and there's no excessive entanglement between the church and states, right?

A little bit loose on that third one But that's the test that has been applied since the 70s now in the county of Allegheny verse

American civilly So if I can't that talk sorry civil liberties Union 1989

There was an attempt to add clarity to the lemon test. So let me read for you this This is kind of the updated what

I just read for you the lemon test This is how it's been applied since the late 80s Okay, the first part asked if a government action endorsed religion,

I Think that's a typo. It says region, but it's religion I think the second part asked if the government's action made someone feel that they were

Outsiders and the third part at like lemon forbade the entanglement of state and religious activities So so here's the question you ask when you're saying should we can we have a

Christmas tree? Can we have a nativity scene in our Christmas display or our holiday display?

This is this winter at the local town on public grounds. Well, you have to ask these questions Is this an endorsement of religion is this going to make someone feel like an outsider if they're a

Muslim and they see that manger Scene do they feel like an outsider like this is a Christian town and you're on the outside, right?

So these are just legal Doctrines legal precedents that were set that have been applied for a long time

Now I actually myself I've have personal experience with this just because I worked for a local municipality years ago

And I remember in the it was a small town where I grew up Sounds like the beginning of a country song small town where I grew up and we only had a

Christmas tree in a nativity scene throughout the 90s and then We got a menorah and I think the early 2000s and then

We had a Ramadan symbol. That was probably I don't know 2008 2010 somewhere in there and then of course we all kinds of other symbols started showing up I think there was a

Hindu symbol Everyone wanted their own symbol for the holiday display at the local town park and so I worked for this local municipality doing grounds and maintenance work is one of my first jobs and I was there when everything switched from the town employees would go and set these displays up to it had to be

People from those religions who would go set those displays up So I could not put up the nativity scene because that would be a misuse of town

Finances and we could be sued we'd open ourselves up to a lawsuit And so it had to be and I went and did it anyway as a member of my local church on my off time

Right, it was still on a public place So this was part of the attempt to wrestle through some of these issues that were really brand new and for a town

Like the one I grew up in which was primarily Catholic with some Protestant and then of course as people moved up from New York City after 9 -eleven

You had all these other groups come in. It was kind of overwhelming. It was just it was such a different Flavor than it had been before and so I remember seeing this

I remember there was actually a gentleman at my church a judge who had ruled on a similar case in a town near us and basically had

Implemented this doctrine and he went to the Gibbs law firm to get which is a Christian law firm to get advice and they basically told him that in order to have equal display like a

Neutral public square. I keep saying neutral public square But what I'm really trying to say is like equal access for all religions to public accommodations

So in order to sustain that then you could not have town employees involved in using taxpayer funded money to erect these things and So it's kind of you can tell why this was not going to be a holding position

Why this really made no sense and it was a reaction to the challenges that we were facing but it would not actually in the long run be able to satisfy anyone

Because you know, what kind of logic does it how does it even make sense to say? Well, you can't have any public funding going to erecting these

Statues and displays that are religious but they can still be on public land, right? It doesn't make sense and one of the things

I remember I talked to this judge and About it after the fact and this is when I was considering going to law school

And I just said well, you know, how come you know, the First Amendment applies to the federal government? Why don't we just you know, forget about the incorporation doctrine?

So let's just challenge incorporation and say the state's in the local town. They can do what they want I mean, that's kind of that's the initial original intent

Federal government can't come in and tell the states what to do this these Cases shouldn't even go to the

Supreme Court, which is always a fear, right? And of course that was so outside of his thinking it wasn't like it didn't even compute

It wasn't even a factor because the precedent has been laid down for so long that incorporation is the doctrine that we must abide by and the

First Amendment applies to the states it applies to the local municipalities and As you introduce these new groups from other places into traditional

Christian Protestant areas or Catholic areas You get these these situations now

This has nothing that it does have something to do with the satanic display.

But this But this is obviously a far cry from what we're seeing in Iowa right now What we're seeing in Iowa is just so blatant

You know, we're not talking about a menorah. We're talking about an actual statue honoring

Satan himself So let me just continue with this article and then we'll finish up here And I'll give you this is some encouragement for all of you

As Jeff was asking earlier about encouragement Since then since the 80s right when we just talked about this test that That has been kind of loosely applied in different places

O 'Connor's endorsement test the lemon test came into play in situations where religious and state actions potentially conflicted

But several newer court decisions had greatly diminished the lemon and endorsement tests in town of Greece first Galloway in 2014 justice

Anthony Kennedy is that stated that the establishment clause must be interpreted by reference to historical practices and understandings

Referring to his own concurring opinion in the county about Allegheny decision in 2019 a

Supreme Court decision American Legion vs American Humanist Association addressed the same question about the presence of a large cross on a public property that was once privately owned the court's majority did not use a lemon test and again looked at historical practices and Understandings to settle the

First Amendment question. So we're seeing a diminishment of this lemon test in Woodring vs.

Jackson County, Indiana in 2021 The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a nativity scene on public property that also included several objects

Was permitted because it fit with a long national tradition of using the nativity scene and broader holiday displays to depict the historical origins of Christmas a traditional event long recognized as a national holiday and Then of course last

June the court's majority left little doubt where it stood on previous religion tests quote This court long ago abandoned lemon and its endorsement test offshoot unquote wrote justice

Neil Gorsuch in a 72 majority opinion in Kennedy vs Remington School District Quote in place of lemon and the endorsement test

This court has instructed that the establishment clause must be interpreted by reference to historical practices and understanding

Justice O 'Connor's test from the 1980s was officially Abandoned and so this does apply to nativity scenes and this will come up in the

Case right now that looks like it's going to be Going before the

Supreme Court possibly it's in federal court over the Ten Commandments in Arkansas. I think I said, Missouri early was Arkansas So there is some positive movement here in a way the court the

Supreme Court is at least saying that there's a historical precedent that must be accounted for here, which means that If you really peel back the onion layers what they're saying is this has been a historically

Christian country Christian things have been done in the town square whether it's church bells or nativity scenes or in God we trust or invocations

These are all Christian displays or oaths of office I mean It's amazing how many things we do that actually stem back to a

Christian time and we still do them out of habit And the Supreme Court is saying we should put greater weight on that habit on those traditions because that's who we are

That's who we are as Americans, right? then we do on this lemon test which prioritizes whether or not someone is offended and And that's been the standard that we've been under and that's the standard that's producing.

It's a lot of people including I would argue The Congressmen from Iowa we've been talking about they have this lemon test kind of in their mind that They they think that they have to fight on the hill

They have to die in the hill of a religious neutrality of some kind or else We're gonna have some kind of totalitarianism and they think that's what the

Constitution says It doesn't it doesn't say that and if you want to go back to the original intent the

Constitution was The intent behind the First Amendment historically speaking was in reaction to a government that did have an official state religion that in many cases

Gave way to corruption. In fact, we were if you think about our neighbor in Canada there was a lot of fears during the

American Revolution period that They were an official Catholic state and that would be somehow imposed on the

United States and that we didn't want that and And so there was a rejection on a general level a national level of having these

State churches, that's the Establishment Clause really having an official state church But it does not mean that the government of the

United States did not endorse Christianity broadly speaking You could look at the Northwest Ordinance. You could look at the

American Bible Society and The activity that the American Bible Society had in In Congress, you could look at the invocations.

I mean they had a chaplain there. He was a Christian I I think for the first I don't know when the first Catholic chaplain would have been but it was

Protestant for a long time and and you had an understanding that these

Disputes would be handled on a local and a state level not a national level and now you have people

Like this representative Representative John Dunwell saying things really importing a misunderstanding a misapplication a

Development that was erroneous of the Constitution and legal precedent now on a federal level to the states now and saying well

If this is how it's interpreted by the federal court This is how this is our duty and and it's

I could somewhat respect if there's a misunderstanding and he just thinks well You know This is just the way it is and I'm doing my best to fight it

Right it like we could maybe respect that that my hands are bound. This is just the law and I'm gonna do everything to change things so that this is not the law anymore, but he's defending it

He's defending it as it's a good moral principle. There's a moral vision. He has as a Christian He thinks to defend satanic displays

That's the truly shocking thing to me. And that's the mindset though that we are I think uncovering and I think since 2020

This has been more so Somewhat exposed since we've had a lot of the sexual anarchy stuff and people have had to react to that We find out where a lot of these quote -unquote conservative commentators really are when the rubber meets the road

Do they think that because you know government might favor Christianity that it is there for an establishment of religion and a violation of the

First Amendment and I mean how far are we gonna take that? I'm reading a book right now on the religious, right?

I will be sharing with you more later about this particular book, but it's a popular book and the premise of the author is basically that Christians who are pro -life are trying to enact a theocracy

That's where this logic leads Any moral vision that comes from Christianity is now an establishment of a church

So with that said I'm gonna go to we have Sean Graham. Sean was in the last chat Sean I mean you just like coming on the show, don't you?

It's hard. It's hard to stay away from you, buddy. How you doing? Hey, man, I'm doing great I'm really intrigued by this conversation with you about this because I think

I think it's time that Christians Really own up to this subject. We've got to take

We have to take this subject and we have to be able to not only comprehend where we are as a nation

But be able to teach that To to the next generation In Memphis this week we had

I mean just today we've been that we've seen the announcement of the same thing happening at Chimney Rock Elementary a school right here that is

In the shadow of one of the biggest megachurches in the Southern Baptist Convention We've got

I mean there are five churches within walking distance of this school and they've opened up a Satan Club They're having their after -school

Satan program. And so we've got to have a ready answer. You know, that's a biblical decree

We've got to have an answer for what we're doing. And I think at this point in time

We also have to have a generation who understands that if the Constitution is yielding this fruit that produces

Satan clubs and Right It might be time to talk about the vine not being worthy of the fruit, right?

It's time for this conversation and we need men who understand these concepts to take this forward

John I mean, I mean we need people like you who could point out the history of where these concepts come from We really need people who are

In because I mean I have my role we all play our different roles But people who are as you said the

Satan Club in the school We need students and parents who are in that school and teachers to raise a stink about it and to say this is wrong

Full -stop period right? It's evil. We're not to be evil, you know His freedom of speech might be

Right, but if we're allowing evil who's to say that freedom of speech is even something we should respect

Why should I respect your freedom of speech you you want someone who supports? Let's see lying

Stealing Breaking God's laws when it can concerning marriage all of these you want to violate moral boundaries

But then of course you want to keep this one moral boundary that says that moral boundaries should be violated.

It makes no sense so so be consistent and That in order to be consistent you have to abandon all moral claims and stop making a claim that prohibits me from Putting an end to your evil, right?

so so that's the thing that people have to realize is both sides are actually promoting a moral vision and One side wants evil and one side wants good and the lines have become so much more clear in cases like this make it abundantly clear and the people who

Want to the liberals the post -world war two mindset that wants to say, you know

This is somehow, you know The blessing of Liberty like David French said about drag writing story hour that we should just allow all these things

You are giving the enemy everything they need to defeat you to defeat everything you believe in don't think that you are somehow pious and You're going to do a spiritual thing to defeat this whole thing if you're not even willing to use

I mean, this is a we're talking about a state rep here, you know Use your bully pulpit here use your and instead he's doing all these interviews and talking about how he's you know

I'm personally I don't like this but This is just part of being an American allowing

Satan displays, right? Everyone would have been shocked in the founding generation and really

I would say until probably about 19, you know, 70 1980s They would have been shocked at such a display.

I mean some people are still shocked in Iowa about this But um, I know you guys are covering this on your show.

I think you mentioned that last night Yeah, we definitely have you know, the Iowa thing opened up a can of worms and now that we've got you know

An actual in the Bible Belt Satan after -school program now to talk about we've got a lot of politicians and churches that are

They're up in arms rightfully so but we've got to have the right Well, we've got to have we got to have men that understand what day this is.

This is not 1975 this is not 1985 This is 2003 and in 2003 we're going to have to decide

Yes. Yes. There are some things that are evil 2023 right? Yeah. Sorry. Sorry 2023.

Yes for a minute. I was like Did I invent a time machine did it work? I wish so many times

I wish we go But you know, hey, I mean we got kids and all this kind of stuff now I'm happy with those but I'll be honest with you man

We've got people need to know the day. They need to know the time to have the right answer because at no time like before If you're gonna cut off the genitals of children if you're going to not know what a woman is and you're gonna make her

Get pummeled by men and competitive sports Where can you where can you draw a line on on after -school programs?

You don't you don't have a standard and I don't care if you don't like it might be time to tear down these schools and Say look

Any institution that you're taking that is becoming an idol for Satan? We're gonna have to remove that somehow or come up with a different value system and stand on it

Which is what I hope we do. I hope people see the you know, the ridiculousness of saying let's go burn down the schools because That's not what anybody really wants.

We want there to be a good public option for people to have education It's just not there right now

We want there to be a moral standard in our communities Is is this getting it?

I mean, you're gonna have KKK displays next in the front yard of the firehouse rather than You know, we had a cross thing is they would they be taken down based on the fact that it's a cross, right?

That's why it would be taken down But uh, no, you're spot -on. I mean who's taxpayer dollars are paying for these schools and paying for the

Tax, you know, it's actually refunded money going to the Iowa State Legislature does this reflect what the people think that they're paying for?

Is this the function of government? And of course, no, it's not And and they should be mad about it. They should be righteously indignant

There should be laws passed to clarify some of these things I even think I would be calling for church councils to get together and talk about these matters

Except for the fact that I'm afraid of who would show up Right now

This this particular pastors Church leadership elder body

I haven't nobody's looking out. I have they know no one has told him to that He's off the rails.

Have they I haven't seen that call. No clue Yeah I mean I looked him up on YouTube real quick and there was like something from 14 years ago where he's

Advertising some adoption agency or something, but there's no I didn't see sermons from him or anything

I don't know in what capacity he's a pastor or if he's even still a pastor I would assume that he's got responsibilities.

He says it says business owner, too So I'm thinking if you're business owner a pastor and a state rep, that's kind of a full plate so I don't know what he's doing what he's not but Yeah, I mean,

I don't I don't know enough about the Christian Missionary Alliance, which I think is the group Yeah, I said, yeah,

I think that's no, you know what they can do I attended an Alliance Church for a few weeks ones during the shutdown and I I just don't know though what they can do to Discipline or confront something like this.

So yeah, if you're in the CMA and you know, then you know, maybe maybe talk to talk to this guy

And yeah, I'd love to hear that too. I'd love to hear people talk about you know Is this a outlier in that denomination?

Is this an outlier in that community? Or is this Is there just no standard in the church that that scares me

John? I mean, I well there to me standards I mean, I I don't So I'll just try to be delicate as I say this

But some of the people that we've talked about within the last year who have opposed Christian nationalism very vehemently

I think they would have to fall into a trap like this too based on their logic, right? So this isn't unique to this particular representative this could be other pastors that we respect in many other matters, but there's just incongruence on this they just they're so locked into this commitment to a religious neutrality and equal access to every religion and you know every creed every race every gender every well, most people would say two genders who are in that camp, but every every

Whatever factor you have or external feature you have You deserve an equal shot, right?

That's kind of the America that they're I think They have a commitment to and unfortunately

There's a greater commitment to that at least in the political realm than there is to Christian ethics, which would surely

Prohibit something like this It's one thing if you don't have the power to do anything about it and you need to get the power to do something

About it, but you have people I mean he admitted we could change the rules, right? And there's no like, all right

Let's form a plan guys. How do we change the rule? So this doesn't happen again. There's nothing like that It's just that's the amazing thing to me.

That's it He plants is he plants that flag so quickly and he's just repeating it over and over again that that just really that bothers me is just Look, if he's if he were ignorant of the law,

I would be more forgiving of that But that he's obviously just obstinate and feels like he's right and this is where I'm gonna plant my flag

That scares me. It'd be a great test case too. Let's bring this to the court. Yeah I just got off the phone with the guy

And we said praise the Lord if this is what it takes, you know for Satan to you know

Finally feel like he can raise his flag and this is what gets Christian churches off their butt and engaged in the fight

Praise the Lord in the fight now because this is what we need. We need people to know they they got a fight Well good word

Sean. You said it well And we whatever you want to plug where can people find?

I mean, I was just on your show Yeah, so we've got you talking about this very subject coming up Friday on WC RV in Memphis you can listen

Online at bot radio .com. You can listen to the Memphis channel We're there at 3 o 'clock every Friday afternoon and we'll be talking about this very subject about the

Iowa test case and we appreciate you Coming on and speaking about it and talking about how it's affecting other areas of you know, just the whole

Christian conversation right now so Join us you can visit us online at tnchristian .com

anytime and you can see all the past episodes as well So always good to talk to you John and we will keep you guys

Informed of what's going on here locally with the churches and if there's going to be any protests or things like that We'll let you guys know so Joe speak out about it, too.

All right. Well, God bless Sean. Thank you. Hey, have a good one So yeah, we're gonna land the plane We've been going almost an hour and ten minutes, but I just want to say pray about this stuff everyone really pray about it

I'm praying for Iowa right now and just that the people there would Speak out against this.

This is more symbolic than anything else. It's what comes with this It's what's normalized because of things like this.

It's what that says about the people That allow this kind of thing to continue

We need to pray for our country. We need to pray for our states and all our localities and If Lord might be moving in your own mind to run for public office or seek a position of influence then

Don't shut that out. Yeah, there might be sacrifice, but there's also reward the Lord rewards those who obey him