TGC Wont Apologize Either...

The Gospel Coalition’s Non-Apology and the Kyle Rittenhouse Article

Welcome to the Conversations That Matter podcast, my name is John Harris. I hope everyone's having a nice Christmas season. I wanted to just give a little news roundup today. I actually kind of forgot about something that I should have included in the video yesterday, and I saw A .D. Robles was talking about it on his podcast, and that is the Gospel Coalition's article on where they mention, at least, Kyle Rittenhouse by a pastor, I think it's Copeland.

But it basically says that Kyle Rittenhouse is a mass shooter, just like Dylan Roof was a mass shooter, and that implies some things about Kyle Rittenhouse. Now, they've changed the language in the article a little bit, but the meaning isn't really that different.

So I'm going to show you the changes they made, and then what they're doing to cover it up, which that's the interesting thing to me. So the show yesterday I talked about how evangelical elites just won't apologize, can't apologize, it's just not in their nature.

They'll respond to pressure from the left different than the right. They could do fake apologies to the left, because they're not real apologies. They can apologize for their implicit bias or something like that, but it's something that was baked into them because of factors outside of their control.

So it's not a real apology, it's apologizing for the sins of the crowd. But with conservatives, they actually expect a real apology. Leftists just want you to be part of the revolution. Conservatives want a restoration of a relationship, and that's something that they won't do.

They won't go there. They won't actually admit that the conservative analysis is correct. If they have to fire someone, if they have to change something, they're just very apprehensive about that, and it's just rare.

I can't even think of a case where it's really happened, like a true apology. So I want to talk about that a little bit, because it really fits in with what we were talking about yesterday, and just do a little news roundup for you as well.

The Supreme Court Hears the Dobbs Abortion Case

Things that I've been seeing this morning. So this is one of the things Fox News reports, and there's a number of outlets talking about this, that the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in a case that could overturn landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.

I'll just read some of this to you. The scope of abortion in the United States is at stake Wednesday. At the Supreme Court, they're going to hear oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, potentially the most consequential challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade landmark ruling.

Here are some key details about the case and what you can expect. State of Mississippi will be arguing that the Supreme Court should allow it and other states to ban abortion after 15 weeks. All right.

So this isn't like even a full ban. This is just after 15 weeks. More specifically, it's asking the court to strike down a lower court's decision blocking its 15 week abortion ban from taking effect. That's passed in 2018.

Mississippi's law encountered a legal challenge from Jackson Women's Health Organization, an abortion clinic that claims it's unconstitutional. The court's nine justices will be present. And let's see.

OK, so this is this is pretty much the gist of it. And it gets into a little more detail here. But there's already some people at high levels who have weighed in, including John Roberts, who's basically saying we're not going to overturn Roe v. Wade, not not going to happen.

And I would probably tend to agree with him. I don't think it's going to happen. But we can still you know, I would still pray. Obviously, we should pray whether this court case was happening or not, that baby's lives would be saved and that there would be honestly, I usually pray more that states would take a stand and actually stare down the federal government.

I know that's really hard. It means getting federal funding pulled. It means all kinds of horrible things said about you in the media. It's just it's a circus. But that's probably the only way this is really going to happen in my mind.

Now, could it happen on the Supreme Court level? I suppose it could. And the question is, does Amy Coney Barrett, does Kavanaugh, do they the new Supreme Court justices Trump has appointed, do they have the guts to really fight this?

And if they have the guts, they could do something. And if they did do something, I'm not I'm saying it's not outside of the realm of possibilities. I'm skeptical, but it is possible. So let's pray for that.

Let's pray for that today as this unfolds. But don't don't get your hopes too high and get disappointed that I think what's happening right now is a lot of leftist outlets are really beating the drums heavy, saying this is a threat to women's health.

And they're really trying to to just get their base to really get energized. They're basically isn't energized right now. And this is one of the things they can use to strike fear into the heart of the feminists.

And so I think that's part of the reason, because when we hear that as people who believe in the pro-life cause and we don't want to see babies murdered, we get excited about that because the other side's freaking out.

So we start to think, well, if they're freaking out, you know, maybe this this could happen. And like I said, it is within the realm of possibilities. But it seems very doubtful that it will happen with this court.

So so anyway, we we press on and we we hope for the best, but we don't. But we're realistic that that's what I'm trying to say. We're realistic about these things. And and I think in our local communities and in our states, we that's where I would love to see some some real tough pushback.

And I'm not talking about 15 weeks. I'm talking about full on bans. But in the state I live in right now in New York, I don't see it happening, unfortunately. In some of these other states, Mississippi being a good example, you know, you really could have a movement like that and it could work.

And so we pray for repentance and revival because that's the foundation that would make for the end of this anyway. So let's talk about this article, Why I Hate August by K. Edward Copeland, August 29th, 2020.

Let's just find out where it talks about Rittenhouse. I did a whole review of this at the time. But all right. So there's a number of things that talk about Rittenhouse here. Kyle Rittenhouse, it says, killed people in the middle of the street on camera and in front of witnesses and then smoking rifle at his side, casually strolled past law enforcement.

He didn't run away. He didn't hide. He showed no fear. He assumed there was something about his person that would allow him to approach law enforcement with a visible semi-automatic weapon that had just taken lives and lived to tell about it.

More than a few witnesses pointed out that he had just shot several people, yet he was able to leave the scene and the state. So this is like it's outrage. I probably should have read it with a tone of like, Kyle Rittenhouse killed people in the middle of the street and then smoking rifle at his side.

I mean, it's just you can see the melodrama. You can see the disgust. He said when armed shooters, Kyle Rittenhouse, Dylann Roof, etc., are apprehended without incident. So this was the this was the issue here.

It used to say mass murderers here, I believe. And now it says armed shooters. That's their edit. So. And then later on in the article, those who claim my convictions about Christ will be the first and loudest to castigate me for these observations.

They'll be the most proficient at finding some excuse for Rittenhouse. So it still assumes Rittenhouse is guilty. This article still assumes it. It still is disgusted at Rittenhouse. It's it's saying that the process didn't work, that this is unjust.

And the only thing they did was they changed Kyle Rittenhouse from a mass murderer to an armed shooter. Big whoop. And and then they put an editor's note here updated on the 24th. Subsequent information has revealed that Jacob Blake was armed with a knife.

Also, an earlier version of this article referred to Kyle Rittenhouse as a mass shooter. I regret these editorial oversights. Colin Hansen, editor in chief, The Gospel Coalition. Well, here's the thing.

Edward Copeland, if you click on him, how many how many articles has Edward? He's written a lot of articles. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, seven articles, I guess. And maybe some of these are podcasts.

OK, two, three, four, four podcasts. OK, five. All right. But he's he's involved. He's involved with The Gospel Coalition. Now, so this is this is the tack they're taking is and I don't know what's happening behind the scenes.

I can guess I don't want to guess, though, on the on the show. I'll say what I do know. Obviously, he's tied in with The Gospel Coalition, Edward Copeland, and he wrote an article that was wrong, not just wrong because of a little phrase wrong because of paragraphs.

It was actually fundamentally wrong. If you go through the review, I did this whole article and I think to soften the blow possibly. But it's just interesting. They mentioned that, I guess, you know, that he should have included that Jacob Blake has a knife.

Now, did they even talk? Let's see. Did they even insert language to that effect? They did not. They did not edit anything when it comes to that, I guess. But maybe they did. Maybe. I don't know. Let's see.

Blake. Yeah. Blake is mentioned a few times here. Yeah, they're still. I don't know that they edited anything when it comes to Blake, but they would do want to note that he was armed with a knife, which is true, and he was apparently reaching for it when he was shot.

Now, the this is interesting because it's not an apology, just like I talked about in the program yesterday. This is not an apology. There's no repentance, but there is somewhat of an admission here that they got something wrong.

But it's it's the wrong kind of admission, right? They will admit something other than what they're being called on the carpet for. What they're being called on the carpet for is calling, putting Kyle Rittenhouse in the same category as Dylan Roof and assuming he's guilty.

That's what they're calling the Gospel Coalition on the carpet for. But they're going to apologize. And it's not even an apology. I should stop that language. They're going to admit something that's not what they're being called on the carpet for something else.

It'd be like if you reach in the cookie jar and took cookies and your mom finds you as a kid and then you say, you know, I'm sorry that, you know, I didn't unload the dishwasher like you asked. But or I admit I admit I should have unloaded the dishwasher or something like that.

It's just it's sort of unrelated. And that's what's going on here. They an earlier version of the article referred to Kyle Rittenhouse as a mass shooter. So that's the only thing that they're going to take out is that, well, he's not a mass shooter.

He's a shooter. He's not a mass shooter. Really little technicality in a way, just little, little minor detail that they're going to admit to try to, I guess, get the pressure off them. But it's just an editorial oversight.

Really? Like that was at the time this was written, the information had not even all come out. But it was even at that time, you should have known he wasn't a mass shooter. So why? How come the oversight was made in the first place?

Why? Like what? Why now? Right. We know why. But and in an editorial oversight, no, that was actually the article. It's fundamental to the article that Kyle Rittenhouse is this guilty murderer. So it wasn't like a little editorial thing, you know, we use the incorrect grammar over here.

That's kind of they're trying to like downplay it. And that's what's going on. So this is soft peddling the article and it's not an admission of guilt. Now, here's the thing. Now, let's see if this still holds true.

A .D. Robles called the Gospel Coalition on the carpet today for this. If you go to the Gospel Coalition website and type in the article, Why I Hate August, let's just do it. Why I hate August. Let's see if it actually comes up.

Nope, it doesn't come up. You have to have the direct link to find it. Now, that should be interesting. It should be the first article here doesn't come up at all. And the reason that it doesn't come up and let's actually let's find out one more thing.

If we type in K. Edward Copeland here. Before I make my point, let's type that in, shall we? K. Edward Copeland is why I hate August. Nope, doesn't come up. And he's done a bunch of things, actually way more than I thought.

OK, there's tons of references to him, I guess. I'm assuming if his name's in these articles. So the article does not come up if you type in his name. Now, down here, if I on the article itself, you have the direct link.

If you click on his name. It will come up, Why I Hate August is right there, but not if you type it in on the general search bar at TGC. Now, why would they do this? They're shadow banning and A .D. Robles pointed this out this morning, the shadow banning their own article.

This is the way that they're dealing with it. They're scrubbing it. They're trying to make it hard to find. They're trying to cover it up. They're trying to downplay it. They're trying to change the language ever so slightly, but not actually changing the meaning significantly.

That's what they're doing. And it is a non apology. It is it's actually the opposite. It is them sticking their heels in and saying, we're not going to get rid of this. We're sticking to our guns on this.

And so it just proves the point of yesterday's podcast that these guys don't apologize. They just don't. And this is something they just factually got wrong. This is such a clear cut thing, but they won't apologize for it.

Why is that? Why do they why? The more you get into the social justice religion, it seems like you lose your ability to actually apologize. You can repent for the sins of the crowd in your mind, the white privilege stuff, but you can't actually apologize for something you actually really did.

France, Dispossession, and the Politics of National Identity

Just interesting to me. OK, so last but not least, I want to show you this. This is something I saw this morning. I thought this was really interesting to me. And it's a I guess from France. There's a guy running for president, Eric Zimor, and this is an advertisement that a political ad that he put out there.

And I want you to watch this or listen to it. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to play this advertisement, we probably won't make it through the whole thing, but it's in French and I realize many of you are listening.

So you'll see the images if you're watching, but you're not you'd have to go to the original video to see the music and all of that. And it is powerful. The images and the music make it more powerful.

But he says, my dear compatriots, for years, the same feeling has gripped you, oppressed you, haunted you. And a strange, penetrating feeling of dispossession. You walk in the streets of your cities, you do not recognize them.

You look at your screens and you are spoken in a strange language and quite frankly, foreign. You look at your screens, advertising posters, TV series, football games, movie shows, songs. And textbooks of your children's that you take on the subway, the trains, you go to stations, airports, you wait for your daughter or your son to come out of school, you accompany your mother to the hospital emergency.

You stand in line at the post office or the employment office, you wait in a police station or in a court and you have the impression that you are no longer in the country, you know. Now, this is we're only 53 seconds in.

He's shown a lot of images of violence and kind of the dangers that are happening. And I've heard this from people in France that have said that even Paris, it's just not the same, that it's just you could say this for many American cities, that it's become unsafe.

And that's what he's talking about. It's become unsafe. There's issues with unemployment. There's and what do we attribute this to? And he says that the feeling you have is dispossession. And I think that resonates with people.

That is the feeling they have. And then he goes on. He calls a time of nostalgia. You remember the country you knew in your childhood and he has old footage. Remember the country your parents described to you.

Remember the country you find in movies or in books, the country of Joan of Arc, Louis the 14th, Bonaparte, Charles de Gaulle, the country of knights and ladies. Victor Hugo, he talks about all these heroes, Pascal Descartes, the country of literature.

He talks about literature and architecture and all the things that you think of when you think of France, Versailles. I mean, he's bringing in all sorts of Voltaire. I mean, he's bringing in revolutionary types.

He's bringing in nationalist types. It's just this is what, you know, these are French people. Music. And he's got all these different, you know, movies and just all sorts of shots of things that would inspire French people in the greatness of their country, their technology, their nuclear power plants, all kinds of things.

So he's hearkening back to I mean, this is make France great again. Right. And he talks about the nostalgia that they have and the idea that the country they cherish is disappearing. And he says, you haven't moved yet.

You feel like you're not longer at home. You haven't left your country, but it is as if your country had left you. You feel like a stranger in your own country. You are exiles from within. For a long time, you thought you were the only one to see.

Here, think and fear. You were afraid to say it, you were ashamed of your impressions for a long time, you did not dare to say what you saw. And then you told your wife, your husband, your children, your father, your mother, your friends, your co-workers, your neighbors.

And then you told strangers. And you understood that your feeling of dispossession was shared by all. Let me stop it right there. Can we relate to this? We're only three minutes in. Can we relate to this at all in the United States?

A fear of sharing. Hey, I feel kind of like this isn't the same America. I feel kind of unsafe. I feel like we shouldn't have. And I'm certainly abortion has been around now for years, but but I think there's still people who lived before that that even would include that as, you know, this isn't who we are.

But certainly the mass illegal migration, the unvetting or the lack of resolve to vet and to assimilate. There, the socialist policies, let's just call them that that have come down the pike even when it comes to things like health care.

And right now with the pandemic, I don't even want to call it that because it's really not that. But the reaction to this virus, I mean, it just doesn't. This is something's up. Something's wrong. So who are these people that are voting for this or are making these decisions in the election?

What happened last year? Burning down cities. I mean, you could you could see a lot of parallels here. And it does feel like dispossession. Am I even in my own country anymore? He taps into this, said France no longer is France.

And everyone realized that, of course, you have been looked down upon. I mean, this is the second part, the powerful, the elites, the self-righteous, the journalists, the politicians, the academics, the sociologists, the trade unionists, the religious authorities were telling you that it was all a decoy, that it was all wrong, that it was all bad.

You figured out over time that they were the ones who were a decoy. That they were the ones who had it all wrong. They were the ones who were harming you. The disappearance of our civilization is not the only issue that plagues us, but she towers them all.

Immigration is not the cause of all our problems, although it makes them all worse. The third worldization of our country and our people impoverishes it and much as it disrupts it, ruins it as much as it torments it.

And all the images, just for those who are listening, shows the burning of churches, the taking down of monuments, the people who are, you know, the homelessness. I mean, have you been to Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles lately?

Have you seen the homelessness at some of our major cities? It wasn't like that even five years ago, 10 years ago. I can tell you that from my own personal experience. It wasn't like that growing up. I'm originally from Southern California.

We go back and visit every year. It wasn't like that. And he's saying something's wrong. You may have a hard time making ends meet. That's why we have to reindustrialize France. That's why we must rebalance our trade balance.

This is the Trump agenda. Reduce our growing debt. Bring our companies that have moved back to France and put our unemployed back to work. That's why we need to protect our technological treasures and stop and selling them off to outsiders.

That's why we must allow our small businesses to live and grow and to be passed down from generation to generation. This is, by the way, I'm going to keep going with this, but this is the heart in my mind of what actual, true paleoconservatism, real conservatism is.

It is the preservation of true and valuable things from the past. But it's the belief in the existence of an are. And that's so fundamental. You have to have a possessive. You have to have this is our land, our country, a place in which there's boundaries.

And within those boundaries, there's certain rules that apply. There's certain not just rules. There's an inheritance. There's benefits. There's things that are passed down from one generation to another.

Society is not just a communion of the living. It's the dead and those yet to be born. It is something you pass down. And this is inevitable. This is just in the nature of a society. And that's what's being broken down right now.

You're you're you have people that don't believe in an are that if they believe in a possessive are, it's them and their elite friends, their globalist elite friends. It's not the country that they live in.

It's not the state they live in, the community they live in. It's global elites that they want to be hobnobbing with. And that's why they have no problem taking down cultural things. They have no problem destroying architecture, national heritage, landmarks, monuments, bringing in people with that speak different languages.

I mean, this but they don't realize that this all builds mistrust. You can do it slowly. You can do it gradually. You can do it over time. Some of these things you can we've always done that. We've always had immigration, but you can't do it at the rates in which it's happening today and expect to maintain the glue that holds society together and maintains that are that possessive are that makes you want to take to sacrifice for others, to trust others, to actually go to war and defend others because they're part of your group.

They're part of the people that you love, the tangible people around you that, you know, that's what we're that's what's being destroyed. It's that Norman Rockwell world that we know in the United States that we romanticize, but we can't seem to articulate politically.

And the neoconservatives don't do it. Today's conservative class, they don't do it. And for those I know many of you listen because you're not here for the politics. You're here because you want to hear about the social justice in the church.

Well, this is all part of it. Why are the social justice advocates in Christianity doing what they're doing? Why are they pouring cold water on anyone who would say what I'm saying right now or the obvious truths of what Eric Zamora is saying?

Why would they do that? What what's motivating them? The Bible, certainly, I mean, if you want to document, if you want a work of antiquity that would reinforce the idea that there is a possessive are at the base of a people that builds trust and that the community is not just about the present people living, but past generations and bequeathing things to future generations, then look no further than the Bible and the nation of Israel and the example we have in the nation of Israel.

So you cannot you know, this is totally within the boundaries of what would be considered a Christian understanding of just basic definitional reality. But that's what's being questioned and subverted.

So he says, that's why we must preserve our architecture, cultural and national heritage. And he is great. He says, that's why we must restore a Republican school. It's excellence. It's cult of merit and stop handing our children to the egalitarian experiments of if I can say that pedagogists.

There we go. And doctors strange love with theories of gender and Islam or leftism. That's why we must regain our sovereignty. For those who don't know, in France, they're not dealing with the same kinds of immigration issues as we are.

They are dealing with that issue, but it's more people coming from the Muslim world and it's changing France. We must regain our sovereignty abandoned by the technocrats and European judges who have stripped the French people of their ability to decide their fate.

In the name of Chimera, Chimera, Chimera, I guess. Oh, I've lost it. We're going to go back here of the EU that will never be a nation. OK, so he's basically saying the European Union is against them.

Yes, we have to give power back to the people, take it back from the minorities who never stopped tyrannizing the majority and from the judges who substitute their legal rule for the government. Of the people, by the people, for the people, for decades, our rulers on the right and on the left.

Have led us in this fatal path of decline and decadence, right or left, they lied to you. Hid from all the Syria. All right. So he talks about their downgrade. We're only we're a little over five minutes in.

I'm not going to continue this. It keeps going along these lines, but it's powerful. I would I would actually suggest you going and watching it. Eric Zimor, I'm running for president. I posted it on Gab and Facebook.

Here is my this is what I said about it. This is one of the major things missing from much of modern neoconservatism. Conservatism isn't so much about a list of abstract principles as it is a love for one's people.

It doesn't by the way, I should say that doesn't mean there aren't principles. There are. But it's that's not what it is. It can't be reduced to just that. A recognition that threats to their identity and safety exist and a willingness to fight for their preservation.

When kitchen table conversations and concerns are ignored on a national level, you know there's a disconnect. Today's conservative elites look for approval, meaning and a sense of belonging more from other elites than they do their own constituents.

In fact, it's worse than that. They are willing to sacrifice their constituents if it means acceptance among the elites. Eric Zamora, at least according to this ad, is not willing to do this and he's not afraid to sacrifice for his people.

I'd say Bravo, you know, in the British, the British term Bravo for for his bravery here. And I'm sure he's been called a Nazi and a far right guy and all the rest of it. And I don't know what else he believes.

All I saw was this ad. But this is we need more of this. This is what this is just obvious stuff. You're just saying obvious truth. That's the interesting thing to me about this video is all he's doing is saying the obvious and saying the obvious now is is horrible.

You can't do that. You're a racist, a horrible racist if you do. And and I've certainly run into that myself by just saying obvious things and saying, hey, we're not the same country we were 10 years ago.

And I could I could put names with this. And I'm reluctant to do that because there's so many names of people that I have hope for that I want to see this. But there's people that even in the church who are conservative, right, they say they're conservative and they'll even say in the modern lingo they're based or something like that.

And yet they're saying things sometimes that leftist liberals, I should say the liberals, you know, Democrat Party members would have said 10 years ago or 20 years ago. And they're saying, well, that's really bold and stuff today.

And it's like just super obvious stuff. And and they're and I see the Orbiton window shifting even among those people. There's certain things they're not willing to defend anymore. There's certain things that they're even soft peddling.

But they're the strong ones. They're the and that's when you deny reality, when you deny the created order, when you deny natural hierarchies and relationships and when you seek to take down the past and you're OK with people doing that and you're afraid of opposing it, I don't think you're conservative anymore.

I have hope for some people that want to be conservative on other things, but they have this tendency that they'll realize it. But I think we're in a country where just some very obvious truths about basic truths, men or men, women or women, society's built on trust and a common identity.

And you need that. And you these are things that that you can't say anymore. So anyway, I wanted to just let you know about that to encourage you. There are some people saying what needs to be said. And and I think this is what Trump tapped into for all his imperfections, for all the things that I didn't even vote for him in 2016 because of so many of the things.

But he was saying obvious truths that so many others who might have even had better principles and had thought through some areas deeper on some issues, they wouldn't say they were. And it's cowardice.

And that's the thing that I think moving forward, I think that's going to be what's in high demand. People are going to start to realize they're they're going to want brave people willing to make sacrifices for their people.

It's the same thing in the church. They're going to want to follow brave pastors willing to take shots, willing for the media to call them racist, willing to to suffer deprivation. They're not over time.

There is going to be more exposure to even those, quote unquote, conservative people that haven't been willing to take hard whacks at what's actually happening. And they even the ones that may fashion themselves as strong and they're unapologetic and those kinds of things.

Those kinds of things will eventually be exposed because those who are standing firm when everyone has to bow to the statue and you have three that won't do it. They're going to stick out like a sore thumb.

And I think we're seeing more and more and more of that. And my recommendation is stick with those people. Stick with the Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. Stick with the Daniels. Don't go with the people who are on the fence.

Don't go with the appeasers. Don't go with the people who are, yes, we need to we need to take a whack at the social justice stuff. We need we should we should stop this mass immigration. But, you know, at the same time, we need to realize not all these people are bad who are promoting this or we need to realize that, you know, we got to be very gentle in the way we that that kind of temperament, because I hear this all the time, that kind of really cautious, careful and just afraid.

That's what it is most of the time there. There's wisdom. We need wisdom. But when when you can't say obvious truths, this is my whole point, when you can't say obvious truths because you're afraid of what's going to happen, that's when that's when you've left wisdom, you've left your you're in fear and you're calling it caution, you're calling it wisdom.

But it's just fear that's going to be exposed more. And I think it's happening. I think it's happening in France. I think it's going to happen more and more in the United States as time goes on. It's easy to create an image.

It's easy to put out an advertisement, even like the one we saw. Like, I don't know this guy. I just know the ad he put out. It's very bold. I don't think someone would put that out if they probably weren't willing to suffer some deprivation of some kind.

But it's easy to make yourself look a certain way every election. It's easy to for a Republican candidate who's never held a gun in their life to put on some new hunting gear that he's never worn. And then, you know, hey, look, I have a shotgun.

Right. But people are seeing through that more and more and more. It's harder to say things that are going to get you in trouble. And I think that's that's what's going to be in high demand. So I'm encouraged by that to some extent.

I just thought this was a great ad. And so I hope that you appreciated the program today. It's not like a typical program. I didn't have a slideshow to go through. I just had a few things I want to share with you.

And I just hope it was interesting to you and encouraging in some way. More coming later this week. I got a bunch of book reviews, by the way, I'm doing. And right now I'm halfway through a book. I think it's called Confronting Injustice Without Compromising Truth, something like that.

But I have like three or four books in the queue that I need to review. And this is one of them. Many people have asked me to read it. I didn't really want to, but I I said, OK, so I did. Or I am. And I have some interesting thoughts on it.

I probably at this point, there's some good things I can point to in it, but I probably wouldn't use it. And I'll explain why that is in a future episode. But anyway, God bless.