Debate Reaction, G3 Controversy Continues, What is Conservatism?

day and decided to, uh, it is a wonderful day where I am. I hope that you are having a wonderful day wherever you are and that you're getting ready for the weekend and the

Lord's day. And, um, in my neck of the woods, we actually have our local, well, technically it's the

County over from me. It's a County I grew up in count, uh, County fair, and I love going to that.

And so I'm hoping I'll have time later today. If it's not today, it'll be tomorrow. Uh, that will, uh, go up there and, um, enjoy all the junk food.

I don't do the rides as much, but, uh, I used to. And so, you know, I was thinking about that though.

Should I do that? Should I like rediscover the Ferris wheel? I don't know, but I will of course eat a lot of junk food and there's, uh, performances and, um, the livestock, of course,

I love the livestock and we have these, uh, these milkshakes, the four H milkshakes, and they're just phenomenal.

They're the best milkshakes, uh, that you'll ever have. So anyway, um,

Abigail is streaming with us a good afternoon, Abigail. Good to see you. Um, we have more people coming in.

I know I didn't announce this, so. Uh, I didn't give any forewarning. I just decided to hop on and do a live stream and there's a lot to discuss.

I don't know exactly where this is going to go. So, um, those who are participating in the private chat or not the private chat, sorry, the public comments on Facebook or YouTube, uh, you have some direction over this particular podcast of a few things

I wrote down that I do want to talk about, uh, but I will be willing to take questions or really anything.

So, um, let's start here. Uh, I want to show you a, it's not a trailer.

Someone confused it with a trailer. It's an intro, uh, to the 1607 project documentary.

We're going to call it, I think, Virginia first, and there's significance to that, which I'll share at a later point as to why that title.

But the 1607 project is the response to 1619 project, 1776 commission, which we, we think probably did not, well, not, it's not even probably it did not do the job it should have.

It was also meant to oppose the 1619 project, but, um, it just wasn't adequate.

And so, uh, this has been a long time in the making, but I, this week and in the coming weeks and very involved in the editing process and, uh, getting the film ready so that, uh, the book that accompanies this particular documentary.

Uh, we'll come out. So, um, let me just show you, this is about a minute, maybe a minute and a half little intro, just to give you a feel or a sense of, of the 1607 project.

And just give you a window into what we're working on. And, uh, and I just have to say before I do, thank you for those who have contributed.

If you want the tax write -off, you can give to the Abbeville Institute. It's 501C3, go to 1607project .com.

They're going to underwrite this. And, uh, or, uh, I'm donating a lot of my time.

You can just give on Patreon or however, and I, and many people have done that. So if you're a supporter of this podcast financially through your prayers, uh, this is one of the things that you're part of as well, so I appreciate it.

And, uh, here without further ado, here is, uh, the 1607 project, Virginia first.

All right. Well, I hope that wets your taste a little bit for what's coming, uh, with the 1607 project.

If you want to find out more about this, you can go to 1607project .com. That's 1607project .com.

And there's more information there. There's a little, uh, promo trailer kind of thing that'll explain some about it.

But, uh, it is, it is what we've needed for a while. And I'm hoping if enough support comes in, we can make this also into a homeschool or a private school curriculum because, um, without getting into too much detail right now,

I had a conversation recently with someone whose kids are using, I won't even say the name of it.

Uh, not, not that I'm shy about saying names when I need to, but I, I don't, I don't want to right now. I don't think it's necessary, but it's a fairly conservative homeschool curriculum.

And he was just telling me it's rough. It's rough on the American history stuff. And we just, we need something.

We don't have, uh, enough, uh, curriculum. So anyway, that's one of the side projects that I'm working on.

And, uh, you're part of, uh, with this particular podcast. So thank you for your support of that.

Now, um, let's move on to some other things. We have, uh, people coming into the chat, uh,

David banks. Thank you, David. It's, it's a good, uh, to be here. I'm glad that you're listening in.

Um, somewhat cosmic treason says that there's anything Vivek, uh, is it Vivek or is it Vivek?

I, I honestly don't know. Cause I heard about three different pronunciations over the last two days. I'm going to say

Vivek. If there's anything Vivek GBT feel strongly about it's every side of every issue.

So someone does not like Vivek Ramaswamy. Uh, Steve camp says, are you the

Steve camp that wrote knocking on Wittenberg's door that you're still listening, please put in the thread because that's a pretty cool song.

Anyway, he says, conservatism is accepting the U S constitution and declaration of independence as originalists, meaning as to how the framers meant it and the words which define it.

And yeah, I agree with that. It is not the living, breathing document stuff. Uh, it's not

Oliver Wendell Holmes. It's not innovation. It's a preserving something that's true and valuable from really our own heritage, our

British common law heritage, our Christian heritage, something that has developed over the course of centuries and to cast it aside and to say that.

It's a no longer, um, relevant or workable or usable, or there's nothing from it that we can glean.

We're modern people. This is the project that progressives have been engaged in for so long to the point now where essentially the constitution is, is just about a dead document.

It's, uh, yeah, of course, there's still things that we, uh, we, we function in, in terms of the constitution, uh, by, but it is so violated.

It's not even funny. And so I think that's opened the door for a lot of people to want to go back to the drawing board and say, okay, what, what kinds of true and valuable things can we still preserve while at least recognizing that this is not being recognized as it should be.

So anyway, um, so, uh, let's see, we have, uh, we already have a controversy.

I haven't even started the podcast. John, John Saxon says under Mr. Camp's definition, conservatives don't matter.

Nobody cares what those dead guys think. Not trying to be offensive, but maybe that's not a controversy. Maybe that's agreement.

Okay. Well, let's get into some of the, um, the topics that I think, uh, I wanted to talk about today and I think we'll start,

I want to start just with a little personal aside, if you will entertain me for a moment and let me, uh, say this,

I have, um, I, I did something foolish and my wife, uh, tried to prevent this by giving me a cell phone, uh, cover, right.

To protect it. Cause I, I'm notorious for breaking my screen. I used to do that all the time, but then again,

I used to be a repairman and I had jobs that I'm taking my cell phone everywhere and I'm dropping it and it's in rough environments.

And so, um, anyway, I, uh, I got a phone maybe two years ago and, uh, it's an iPhone 11, right?

So. I, I bought it online. It was refurbished and I went like two years without actually breaking the screen until a few days ago.

And so I thought, oh man, I gotta go get the screen replaced. So I went to a local place, not far, at least

I was, um, driving through this town, it's, it's at one town over from me and I decided to stop.

And, uh, and, and I'll be honest with you. I was shocked a little bit at the conditions of this.

And I'll just say what town it's Poughkeepsie, New York. So I was shocked at the conditions of Poughkeepsie, New York on, uh, off of main street and in a certain section.

And I had been there before and I knew, you know, there was drug deals and stuff, but nothing like what I'm seeing now.

And I walked in and the shop owner who's from another country, uh, from Bangladesh. He had, he, he, he's an immigrant.

And by the way, he's one of the guys, when, when you talk to guys like him, it just makes you wish that we had a vetting process where we could bring people like him in and not, not the others who, um, and, and he was complaining about, uh, how so many immigrants, uh, kind of, uh, ride that gravy train and he's someone that doesn't want, he doesn't want anything from the government.

He doesn't take anything from the government. He's a hard worker, but anyway. He's new to this country. And part of that newness means he doesn't always know where the good areas are in the bad areas and how things are done.

And so he, he starts renting the shop, uh, in 2020, uh, in Poughkeepsie.

And it is, it just gets progressively worse and worse and worse to the point now where his, both of the people working with him, one had been stabbed the previous week, one had been punched in the face last year.

Um, and that was just, I asked him why. And he says, cause he's white. His employee was white and it's in an area.

That's not, we'll put it that way. And, um, when I was there, uh, I heard people trying to sell drugs outside the shop while I was there.

I got tons of mean looks from people. I had, um, uh, people just trying to provoke me.

It seemed like it calling out to me. It was just, I'm like, where am I? Where am I? I can't believe that this is not far from where I live.

And I put a burden on my heart and I have, I've been weighing this over the last few days. Like, I really want to go to these areas and obviously share the gospel, but just, um, and, and I don't know,

I don't know. I just feel burdened. Like I, this is not far from where I am. So the only thing is though, it's dangerous.

It really is for someone who looks like me, it's more dangerous. And so, um, doesn't excuse me or anything like that.

I'm not saying that that's a, uh, but, but it just means that you have to have an extra layer of caution. And so why do you bring that up?

Well, I bring that up because one of the things he said was interesting. He's, um, he's a Muslim. Of course, this opened the door for me to talk about Christ.

And, um, and, and I, I used to not like relational evangelism. Now I'm a pretty firm believer in it.

As long as you get to the point of sharing Christ at some, you can't just put it off forever. Right. So, so I've already opened that door with him and, um,

I'm going to see him on Tuesday because the screen he gave me is an aftermarket one. And I need the, it's not working out.

We'll we'll put it that way. So I'm going to go see him probably on Tuesday. And, um, and that's when I'm planning on sharing the full message of Christ's salvation with him.

But anyway, we had a good talk and, uh, and I just let him kind of talk about his perspective being in here.

Uh, and he loved Donald, loved Donald Trump during the time that Trump was president.

That's when he came here and he said his policies helped him as a small businessman and he watched the interview the other night and he's just really pumped about Donald Trump.

I just thought this was so interesting to me and it had to do with where his business was located in part too, because he looked around him and he saw all this anti -white hatred.

He's not even white, but, but he sees that and he knows it's bad. It's bad for business.

He, um, looks at the immorality, uh, and the, just the filth, the perversion, all the things that he sees around him.

And he knows that there's something wrong. In fact, one of his coworkers converted to Islam because he, he saw some kind of a morality structure in there and it's just anarchy it's anarchy on our streets, uh, in some places.

And so this is, this is what's going on in real places.

And I think the reason I want to bring it up is because, uh, I don't consider myself to be someone who lives in a overly privileged area or a rich neighborhood or anything like that.

I didn't really grow up that way. I mean, I don't need to give my full story here, but, um, but compared to where this guy is and compared to certain places, even in rural areas of Appalachia, of course, of course

I am privileged, of course, and I'm thankful for that, of course, I live insulated from some of these things, uh, it's changing, it's, it's changing fast, but I wonder to what extent some people, including voters are insulated from some of the effects of their own, um, policies.

And, and I think this, this brought brings out the disconnect I saw with the rich men, North of Richmond song. Uh, never have

I seen, I think a more clear, at least in recent memory, um, division between what

I would consider the more, I don't know, Puritanic. Kind of Hamiltonian.

I'm talking about in supposed conservative circles, more puritanical folks, more, I guess,

Yankee kind of folks. And then those who are more populist Southern Midwestern, it's like there was a split along those lines.

And I wonder sometimes if there's probably not one thing, but if socioeconomic barriers exist in such a way that people who are actually dealing with the real problems out there, uh, the drugs, the violence, um, even the sexual anarchy and the prostitution, all the things that are, that are happening, if they are, they can't escape some of these places.

It's very hard for them. And it was insulated from it. Don't know. They don't know what

Oliver Anthony's talking about. They don't, they just don't relate to it. They're there. And, you know, it's like, praise

God that there are places you can go to escape from some of this stuff in part. But, but we have to realize there's a whole lot of people out there who they don't have the luxury.

At least it's not easy for them to just pick up and get a new job. It's just hard work and determination, which is,

I think what we were all raised with does not necessarily, uh, many of much of the time it can get you out of these spots, but not all the time.

And do you really want to leave the place where you were born? I mean, what kind of attachments do you have to go to a strange new place to try to get a job?

It is it's rough. It's hard. And I don't think we should, um, underemphasize that.

And I have seen people doing that lately. Uh, learn to code, you know, that, that phrase, uh, just learn to code.

So, um, I figured I would just share that with you because it is a thought that I had, and this is a time

I think more than I've seen in a long time to rush into the fire as Christians to, to, to lean into that and to, um, it's not as though the gospel is the quote unquote answer for economic, you know, directly, at least for economic concerns, but.

But I think that there's a foundation in understanding who Christ is and who God is and his character that of course does lead to a good economic things and not just economics, but good moral behavior.

And, and so this is the time I think that people are looking, they're searching. I mean, this, this one coworker, uh, converted

Islam, you know, where, where were the Christians? I'm not blaming anyone in particular, but I am saying that on a national level,

I don't see Christian organizations actually taking this seriously. I see the opposite. I see they they're still this wanting to somehow, uh, really punch, right.

And, and people who might have color outside the lines, even a little bit on issues, uh, regarding race, which we'll get into a little bit today and other

They are, they are cast out into the outer darkness. They are.

Uh, and it's just sad to me to see this because it's not as we don't,

I don't even do that and I'm known as like the anti -social justice guy. We don't do this. We don't treat people who are, um,

Marxists this way. Really. We want to attract them somehow, but we have no problem punching people who are much more aligned with us if they just happen to deviate a little bit.

And so I want to talk about that a little, there's lots of comments coming in. Uh, yeah.

Don't forget to, uh, to like the, the, the podcast. I never say these kinds of things, but someone just reminded me, uh,

Contra talk with pastor Richard, pastor Richard Henry has a great podcast. He said, don't forget to like, so thank you, pastor Richard. Yes.

Uh, that does help the algorithm on the podcast. So, um, all right. So where do we go from here?

Well, I think in this context, it would be good to, uh, maybe talk about the debate and then we're going to get into some of the, the

G3 stuff. Um, and it's not just all G3. It's it's, I need to explain what

I mean by that, but Owen Strachan and. And what's happened over the last few days, uh, in conservative evangelical circles, and I realized this isn't interesting to all of you, this is kind of minor and I've even debated whether to what extent

I should talk about this. But, but I think it does. We do need to talk about some of it,

I think, cause there's plenty of people there there's an overlapping audience. I'll put it that way. And some of you were wondering what is going on.

And so I want to give a little insight on that. Um, let's start with the debate though. So I didn't watch the whole debate. I, uh, actually

I went online, Fox news was exclusively running it and I got the code or whatever, and I watched it for about five minutes and I couldn't take it.

I just couldn't take it. So later on, I went on Twitter and I just looked up some of the. Clips that people were passing around that were representative.

And, um, it just makes me want to mourn for my country. I suppose it makes me, it's an,

I'm embarrassed to be honest with you by it. It's cringy. Uh, it's not a real debate.

I don't really have, I don't know what to say, to be honest with you. Cause I think it's so self -evident that we have a bunch of immature people running for the highest position in our land.

And I'm saying everyone in the field. Um, honestly, the person who comes across the most dignified and mature,

I think is, uh, Kennedy. And Kennedy is a pro abortion.

So he's not really much of an option. Uh, he's when, when you're comparing him to even on just that one issue and I'm, um,

I, I do think there are other issues, but I think on that one issue, it's pretty determinative and it's pretty, um, it's pretty important.

So when you're comparing him to people who actually are pro -life, then it's really not a question.

So anyway, um, this is just the Republican primary. It's just, it's a joke.

It feels like the kind it's it's a kid's on a playground, uh, and fight fighting with each other.

And there's not a lot of substance. And, um, I do think some of this seems to be, there's like a syndrome of thinking that it's 2020 did not happen.

I even have to be careful what I say, because this is on YouTube, but 2020 read between the lines here, folks, it didn't happen.

And that we're still, it's as politics as usual. We can still, um, rely on elections as accurate determinations of public opinion, and they will render, render good results.

And we can trust the will of the American people because of that, that assumptions I think is still there.

And it's, it's, there's an elephant in the room that they're not really addressing. And I don't even know what completely the answer is, but at least it needs to be brought up.

And so, you know, what's the strategy here? Um, I wonder, I wonder what the strategy is.

Is it that some people think they can outlast Trump? I mean, that maybe he'll go to prison and then that will open the way for them to,

I don't know. Uh, are they running for second place so they can be vice president? I'm sure some of them aren't. DeSantis is certainly is not on that short list.

Uh, but Trump is far and away the candidate. And so what do you do in this situation? That now we see his mugshot on social media.

I mean, this is surreal and there's been rough times in American history before, but, but this is, uh, this is pretty bad.

I mean, this is reminiscent of civil war times. And, uh, so what do you do in that situation?

I don't fully know, but I know, you know, if I was in the race, uh, I think even if I didn't agree with Donald Trump on certain policy things, there's such a big problem.

Like the number one problem is we, if we don't fix, we don't, um, Understand the issue with elections and moving forward, try to remedy that.

Then what's the point of being pro -life, right? You can't actually get anywhere on a national level. So this is, this is the challenge.

And I think because of that, I would, I would make my stand on that and just say, look, the, the, the real threat right now is our last mechanism for a redress of grievances is possibly gone.

If not gone, it's almost gone. And so I'm dropping out.

I'm going to support the person who's obviously going to be the nominee, uh, at least according to the poll numbers.

And, um, and I will, and it's on, it's not because of that person.

And this is, I think the thing that's hard for people to understand is just how I feel about it. It's not because of Donald Trump and I love

Donald Trump so much or anything like that. It's, it's because of something so much bigger. They have identified him as the chief, uh, barrier to their, uh, the left's, uh, innovations.

And there's a reason for it. Um, he is a threat. They don't see the others as much of a threat and the others, most of the others don't seem like they want to be in that category there.

They think they can take advantage of the fact that, uh, the mainstream media is going to go after Trump harder and they can kind of, they'll be left unscathed.

And I'm telling you the biggest barometer for people who are voting in the Republican primary is going to be how much does the media hate you?

I think we're there. I think we really are. And that will be the determination as to whether you are actually authentically conservative and you're going to get, because if they see you as a threat, then you must be on the right side.

Um, that's just, that's reality. And it's, it's not that I actually, I like it. It's not that I want it.

It's just that I have to deal with reality where we are. That's where we are. And that's the big problem. And yes, we need

God. We need a revival. We need a revival. Um, I'm going to talk a little bit later about conservatism in this podcast, and hopefully some of this will be clear to you because I'm not an ideologue when it comes to voting.

I used to be more so. I've changed my position or not position. It's not even a position. I've just changed my approach to that.

And, um, and I think part of it is because I've had a fuller understanding of two kingdoms, not, not

R2K, but two kingdom theology. And, and I think conservatism more broadly, the rich tradition we have and what it is.

So I'm going to talk about that hopefully, uh, a little bit later, but we have, um, wow, we have a lot of people streaming, uh, for an unannounced live stream on a

Friday afternoon. Uh, thank you for spending your time here. Um, so lots of talk going on here in the chat.

I'm going to, uh, I'm going to keep plugging away here and we're going to switch to talking about the

G3 stuff. And Owen Strawn and I realize Owen Strawn and G3 are not synonymous, but, um, this is the heading that's now been used for months to describe the controversy over Christian nationalism, cultural

Christianity, these kinds of things, and the disagreement that, uh, G3 ministries seems to have with that.

And I think the important point that I need to make more than anything else, uh, to start with is that from where I sit every single battle in this particular controversy has been sparked by someone who, and it's not the speakers at G3.

It's not Votie Bauckham. It's not John MacArthur. It's not Steve Lawson, right? It's not Paul Washer. It's it's not the people who actually draw the crowd who comes to G3 people.

That's why they come to G3 is to see those guys. It's more the people. Um, it's, it's the people who manage

G3 and it's, uh, people like Josh Bice, uh, like Scott O 'Neill, like, uh,

Virgil Walker, um, Owen Strachan doesn't really manage G3, but I, he he's, I guess he's, he's involved with them.

And, um, and I, I don't, I don't know if I want to give the reason cause it's not mine to give, but I don't,

I feel very comfortable grouping him in with them, that that was a united front a few months ago against Christian nationalism, uh, and cultural

Christianity and all, and all, all the rest of it, right. We, we talked about that all. So all that being said, um,

I think from where I sit, every battle I've seen has been sparked by one of those guys saying something on social media that portrays the other side incorrectly.

Um, maybe it takes a tweet from someone who's super fringy that doesn't really represent the majority of the views of the people who think of themselves as Christian nationalists, and then using that as representative, whether that's

Josh Bice doing it with, um, general Flynn, or whether that is, um, I'm trying to remember who did it with Corey Mahler, but it taking one of those guys and then just making them the face of Christian nationalism, right.

Or it's something like, um, suggesting that Christian nationalists want a Protestant Pope. Josh Bice did that.

Or suggesting that, uh, they're, they're integralists, uh, or, and the list goes on,

I can't remember all of them, but every time I saw one of these things spark, it was because one of those guys said something or wrote a blog or tweeted something.

And then there was a response from people who actually proudly wear the label Christian nationalists.

And they said, that's your straw manning your, this isn't, doesn't represent what we believe, you know, please consider this retracted.

And initially the main thing was please talk to us. Let's have a sit down. Let's talk. Um, I was part of that effort, even though I don't even attribute,

I don't wear the label Christian nationalists, but I'm sympathetic to a lot of the people in that, uh, who do wear that label.

And I mean, I see it as honestly, Stephen Wolf's Christian nationalism is like reformed political theory and paleo -conservatism really repackaged under this label.

Uh, you have, um, some guys trying to kind of repackage certain elements of theonomy and, and, and some people will say post -millennialism.

I, there are post -millennials in this group, but I don't think it's post -millennialism. But, but certainly theonomy, uh, as Christian nationalism.

So, so paleo -conservatism, theonomy, reformed political tradition. These are the kinds of things that I think are worth looking at.

And I think there's, um, some value to, to each one of them, including theonomy, and I've said, I'm not really a theonomist anymore in the traditional sense of the word, but I, I find a lot of, and in fact, when people recommend for me, you know, how do

I understand God's law and its modern application? I'm going to look at theonomy guys, because they've done more work on that.

And they've, so all that to say, I can work with those guys. Uh, I think the ones

I know and, um, and, and so now many of these guys are, are using this label, uh, that, uh, it kind of like the label deplorables they've taken it, uh, and they've appropriated it for themselves and worn it as a badge of honor, kind of like fake news.

People used to, it was the name of mainstream media that came up with the term fake news. And guess who uses it now it's conservatives about the mainstream media backfired, and this is a similar scenario to that.

The mainstream media wants to smear Christian nationalists as proto -Nazis and yet the

Christian, the people who they're going after are going to, some of them at least are going to proudly wear that label and say, why not have a

Christian nation? That's basically what's going on. So, um, so anyway, you know, yeah, someone's just, so one of the trout in the chat said, oh no, it's the

NPR version of John. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. And, uh, I thought I might be able to get away with it, but, uh, you caught me.

Yeah, it's true. We have some company staying here right now. And so I'm trying to keep my voice down. So you get a nuanced, you know, very balanced

TGC type of John today. So super winsome, super winsome. All right.

So let's, let's get into this a little bit. Um, where do I want to start? I will start here.

Here's an article on, uh, this is on msn .com. So this is mainstream media.

And someone texted me and said, Hey, John, MSN is my title page or whatever at work when

I opened my browser. And I saw two pieces on Owen Straund or at least related to him.

And here's the first one it's from religion, new service, but MSN carried it. So, and, and for those who don't know religion, new service is, is known to be a really leftist organization as far as,

I mean, they just do hit pieces and they're, they do the work like for CNN in like specifically applied, you know,

CNN, MSNBC applied to, um, evangelicals, but, uh, the headline is Calvinist activist warns that white nationalism is invading reformed churches.

Uh, it says Owen Strand, a Southern Baptist seminary professor turned anti woke activists has spent years warning the liberals where undermining

America's, um, evangelical Christian churches. Now strand is taking aim at a new threat, mono ethnic

Christian nationalism in a series of recent posts on social media. And in his newsletter strand makes clear that the ethnicity in question is

European American. He warns that Christian nationalism or a strand describes it. The unbiblical view that we must preserve white ethnicity to build a

Christian nation has taken root in the reformed wing of the evangelical church, which of course,

I don't know one person who would say they believe that. Um, and, and if you watch the episode I did from last week on this,

I give you a fuller understanding. I go through some of the tweets from Owen strand. I show how he basically makes the same play or a similar play that very woke individuals made in 2020 by trying to couple a certain view of race and ethnicity with the gospel and saying, if you don't have a certain view of race and ethnicity, or have an incorrect view, then you don't have the true gospel.

And you're promoting actually a false gospel. This is dangerous stuff. I, I believe because once you start tinkering with the gospel and you start adding these requirements, uh, then you're in dangerous territory.

But, um, one of the problems is there just isn't evidence for it. You know, what's he talking about? Strand has singled out for disfavor

Christian nationals, activists, such as Andrew Torba. And so, and, and of course it takes a

Mount Mount Walsh apparently is included in this, which is funny to me. Um, the left has no sense of humor, you know, because Matt Walsh calls himself a theocratic fascist.

Well, that's a joke. That's a joke guys. Um, strand says by the minute we are smoking out white nationalism, godless and no centrism and Christian circles.

Yeah. That, I mean, what does that sound like? He's smoking it out. You know, Andrew Torba, I guess is the guy, the founder of gab.

He's, uh, you know, if you read Andrew Torba his book, which I have the Christian nationalist book, uh, it's, he talks about his view of Jews and their relations or their participation in American society.

And it's not what I was led to believe. I was, and I, I'm not an expert.

I haven't seen everything he's posted, but, uh, I had seen headlines about him being anti -Semitic.

And I just figured, well, there's, he's probably, you know, thinks there's this conspiracy and it's an ethnic thing.

It's a cultural thing. And if you read the book, it's a religious thing. It's, it's kind of like when people say the same thing about Martin Luther, and then you read

Luther and you realize he's talking about people who are religious Jews. Not saying there's not a culture that accompanies that, but, um, it's it, they're frankly misrepresented.

And, um, and so anyway, it goes on. I mean, it, it uses Torba as the punching bag, which the left has been doing for a while.

And, um, and we've already talked about a lot of this, so I'm not going to go over it again, but it uses this to more broadly go after Christian nationalists.

Uh, it it's going after basically Christians who would take political action to support their values from the last few decades.

It goes after Doug Wilson. Um, it's, uh, it goes after kinism.

It goes after, um, let's see, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, and then it brings in George Yancey, a professor of sociology at Baylor university said strand is like a lot of Americans who want to believe that race does not matter anymore, but who draw the line at overt racism.

That belief, however, rejects any notion of institutional racism or the view that past racism still affects

American culture. And it looks like my light went out. So hold on one second. We're back in business.

I don't know what happened there. I must've had it on the, the verge of, uh, it's like a switch that you turn.

And I must've had it just on the verge of going off or something. Uh, all right. So I am, uh, in the middle of this article and it brings in, of course they bring in Baylor, uh, university professor.

And, and, and so the whole point of this article is to, you know, basically it goes after Steven Wolf, you know, this is all, this is white nationalism.

It's trying to paint, um, Christianity, evangelicalism in particular, people who are involved politically as being associated with white nationalism.

And this of course is a big problem and it's, it's this level 10 threat that's facing evangelicals.

And so strand is, is useful to them. Oh, and strand is useful to them because they can point to someone who is, uh, allegedly a conservative

Christian and that, you know, on orthodox matters. For the most part, he is, uh,

I know there's Trinity issues and I know now he's saying these weird things about the gospel in my opinion, but, um, but he has been for years and so they can point to him and say, there's a conservative.

In fact, he wrote a book against wokeness and look, even he says that there's this big problem rearing its ugly head in evangelicalism.

Here's another, and this is a blatantly secular news website. This is not even attached to Christianity. And of course it's got, uh, it's, uh, don't tread on me.

Confederate, uh, battle flag stuff with Nazi swastikas and, uh, you know, military looking, uh, white young men, uh, in, in its photo at the front of the website, but the title is fight this wicked ideology, evangelical fundamentalist declares war on white

Christian nationalism. So, so now he's a fundamentalist. He's an evangelical fundamentalist. And, um, the whole article goes after the religious, right.

And I need to apologize. I don't know why this ad is not, uh, I keep trying to get rid of it. And if it stays gone, we'll keep reading.

If not, I'll just summarize the religious, right. Has a stranglehold on the GOP since the early 1980s.

Now there we go. Okay. So I'm not going to read this anymore. Basically. Uh, the point is this, that the, um, the religious right and their political activity, think back to Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberts, and all of that, all of that is corrupt, all of that is tainted all.

And look, we can, we can take quotes from this fundamentalist quote unquote guy and use it to promote the narrative that he, what he's saying is what we've always been saying.

We've always been saying this. And so he's finally coming around to seeing what we've always known. That's what's going on.

All right. So, um, let's now get into the Josh Bice stuff.

Josh Bice, the president, I believe of G3 ministries. Um, had this to say, if I can pull it up, here we go.

Uh, I'm going to go further into this. He had a, he had a few things to say, but let's, let's start here. Um, so Jeff Wright, uh, who runs, um, now

I'm forgetting the name of his blog, which I'm sorry, Jeff, I know the name of your blog, uh, angel, uh, something in heralds, someone put it in the chat, servants and heralds, it's servants and heralds, sorry,

Jeff, you have a good blog anyway. Um, so he's, and he's involved in Southern Baptist stuff.

Uh, he wrote, he put that msn .com link, uh, about from the article

I just, uh, told you about, and he asked who would have guessed that the ravening progressives at MSN would find common cause with the new anti -Christian nationalists in the same way they found common cause with Russell Moore and David French.

Now there's some truth to this. It's just making an observation. That's all he's doing. The truth is that that is how

New York times Washington post Houston chronicle. This is how they use

Russell Moore. It's how CNN use Russell Moore and PBS. They love to get their guy who was on the inside, supposedly who was one of them and use him to bash the group that they hate and that they are vying for.

Um, power with, and so they use Russell Moore that way to use David French that way. Um, this is a common tactic of the left.

And so Jeff Wright is saying, look, they're doing it again. They're using Owen strand this time though. They're saying, Hey, you know, who backs up what we've said all along about Christians and their racism?

Oh, and strand us. So it serves a purpose. Now here's the response from Josh. You guys need a good hobby.

Slander shouldn't be your choice. Slander shouldn't be your choice. And, um, one of the things

I know I mentioned it earlier, but I'll just remind everyone is that in this whole situation, as tempers have been elevated, the constant, and I know behind the scenes of this has been the case, the constant olive branch has been, um, extended to Josh Bice, to all of these guys.

And it has been for the most part, in every case I know of, it has not gone well, it has been rejected.

Uh, it has been, um, it's just, it hasn't gone the way that I think most of us would think

Christians should be able to discuss things and get along. And, and so now it's, uh, it's turned into just a rejection with many people to even interact.

I know I have that. That's the treatment that I've been getting. There's just no, uh, and I decided to say it.

And I know I said this on a recent podcast. I said, I'm going to be a little more transparent about some of these things behind the scenes, because I think people don't know.

And I've wanted to give the benefit of the doubt, but this has been going on for months. And so I will, I will say a few things here and there just to let people know this is what's happening and I'm not going to violate anyone's privacy.

Um, but, uh, this is what I said. Um, so, so let's, let's actually follow this up.

Josh Bice then wrote in a follow -up tweet, if you don't agree with someone's position, fine, but you can't misrepresent

G3 as a whole because of it. You broad brush and such sloppy misrepresentation is slanderous.

I don't agree with Christian nationals and movement, but I'd like to deal with the issues ideas rather than misrepresenting.

And I just thought this is rich. This is absolutely rich because this is the thing that I know myself and many people who wear the label

Christian nationalists have been calling for, for a long time, they've wanted this kind of a dialogue they've wanted to make it public if possible, but just even having private dialogues and trying to continue to a process of understanding and it's not, it just gets shut down.

It doesn't really happen. It's not a two -way street. Uh, and so I commented back.

I said, Josh, you told me you could not discuss the issues with me because I promoted lies and attacked G3. Now this is true.

I'm not going to read you his words. Cause I, I'm, I don't like it when other people do that about me.

If they just post here, something private, John said, you know, that was meant for you. Right. Um, and there's no legalistic rule here, right?

It's not like it's, it's morally wrong to always do that. There are cases where maybe it's permissible, but I don't think

I'm going to read for you what Josh said, though. I would really like to, um, but this is a summarization.

It's basically what he said is that, uh, that, that I attacked them unfairly, that I misrepresented them, that I spread lies about them.

And I, he went through certain things about, uh, promoting

James Lindsay. And I had said that they did this and they hadn't and things of that nature. And I went through and I sent them an email back and I'm going to read for you, uh, that email.

Just so you know, this was my last communication with Josh Bice and the whole exchange started.

This is on, um, May 17th of 2023. I emailed Josh, Virgil and Scott, uh,

Scott and the old Virgil Walker, Josh Bice. I said, I wanted to reach out to invite you on the podcast with Dusty, Joel and AD, if you're open to it.

I know there are still people in my audience who are confused over the dustups of the last few weeks.

I'm obviously sympathetic to Christian nationalism, though. I have my reservations. My platform is open to you.

If you'd like, we're planning on doing an episode this coming Tuesday evening. So this was one of my, this is not the only thing

I sent to some of those guys, but this is one of the emails and Josh Bice responded and, uh,

I just summarized what he said. And, uh, so basically pointing a finger at me, accusing me, um, giving some specifics, but I respond to those specifics.

So you can figure out what some of them are. And this is what I said. I said, thank you for your response, uh, responding to my invitation.

I am happy to correct anything I potentially could have said in error. I would be grateful if you can help me understand further some of your concerns.

And I, by the way, still stand by that. If I'm wrong, let me give me the opportunity to repent of it.

Give me, don't just wag the finger, like the talk to me as a real human, let alone a

Christian, a Christian brother, the great awoken in conference promo material has your, and James Lindsay's name on it.

Now, by the way, I should probably say this because I know people are going to bring this up, John, wait a minute. You don't do that with other people.

Did you do that with Tim Keller? Here's the thing when it's false teaching and there's a pattern of it over the course of years, it's a different story.

But at the time when I wrote this, this was a brand new controversy with, with people that we, uh, we treated as brothers.

We thought that they felt the same way about us, even if there were disagreements. So, so this is a little bit of a different scenario.

Anyway, I'm going to keep going. Um, in the opening session, the organizer welcomed everyone to the pre -conference portion of the great awoken in conference.

It seems like two portions of the same event for the same purpose to the same audience. I'm not sure how it's a misrepresentation to categorize that as sharing a stage.

Am I missing something? So Josh said he'd never shared a stage with James Lindsay and I'm pointing out. By any definition, wouldn't that be sharing a stage and not that that's even wrong.

I never said it was wrong. I just said, that's what happened. Um, there's a willingness to share a stage with James Lindsay, but not with Christian nationalists kind of thing.

I think I was saying there's a willingness to associate with James Lindsay, but not Christian nationalists. I made it clear

I'm going on with the letter now that neither of you nor G3 ever gave the impression James was a

Christian. I commended cobelligerency and use James and you attacking social justice as a positive example.

I'm not sure where you're getting the impression. I thought you endorsed any of his theology. So that was another, obviously now you're reading between the lines of my letter.

That was another accusation that somehow I, that they endorsed James Lindsay's atheism or something.

And of course they didn't. I never said they did. I said, I appreciate the clarification on G3's relationship with Lindsay.

I did say on my podcast in G3's defense, I don't know. There may have, uh, some been somewhat of a separation between G3 and Lindsay, like a breakout where he was like a mini conference attached to it.

I don't know exactly. Yeah, but he's been on the G3 podcast. That's a direct quote from, from the podcast in question where Josh says

I misrepresented them. And so this is what I say to Josh. I said, I knew that event was at the very least sponsored by a

G3 sponsor and G3 board member for people attending the G3 conference. But I was not sure whether it was officially endorsed, which is why

I left that an open question. I can certainly let my audience know that it was not by the way, audience,

I guess it was not. I don't see how this is a misrepresentation and I still don't. I mean,

I, I never conclusively said, I just, I said, but there is, there is this.

I mean, I just went through the connection. Okay. I still believe the best way to settle this as mature godly men is to speak openly and publicly about our differences, especially for those who are confused,

I'm not sure why you felt the need to tell me you've received messages about me, because this is one of the things

I'll just make myself full screen so people can hear me. This is one of the things, and you should, you guys should know that this stuff is happening.

Cause I, I'll be honest. I had this same, the same thing happened to me when I started taking shots at social justice advocates in the church.

I had people trying to put pressure on me by saying, I received negative messages about you, John. Uh, people to, to, to strike fear into me, uh, to intimidate me.

I'm going to expose something about you, John, those kinds of things. I got that stuff. And I just kept trudging ahead and I'm like, whatever dirt they put on me, whatever happens,

I know what the truth is. And if people don't want to listen to that, that's fine. If they're swayed by it, that's up to God.

But I didn't, I never thought in a million years that I would have similar things being said about like Josh Bice would be reaching out to me or responding to me and saying, uh, that people have said negative things about him to me or about me to him and it's, what good does it mean?

What good does it do me to know that there is, I think a purpose it serves, but it's, it's not,

I can't see how it's a very good one. Um, I care about what God's thinks, what people think is, you know, whatever.

Um, okay. I still believe I said the best way to sell this is mature. Kyle, he managed to speak openly in public about our differences, especially for those who are confused.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to tell me why you've received messages about me, but I suppose I could say the same thing.

There is much confusion, disappointment, and frustration among people who appreciate all of our ministries. And if we do not talk openly, the only way to address people's questions is to respond to blogs,

Twitter posts, and podcasts without the other person there to clarify and respond, which is surprised what's happening now.

If we did this, we may find we have a lot more in common than we think. I apologize for the length of this email, but I do feel compelled to share with you.

I attended a law school graduation today from, with my future sister -in -law. The speaker was Roberta Kaplan.

She's a secular lesbian lawyer, instrumental in striking down the defense of marriage act. She most recently represented

E Jean Carroll against president Trump. In her speech, she told the young lawyers present to become activists for social justice, to fight against racism, misogyny, and homophobia.

It was right about this. Uh, I, it was right after this, that I received your email.

My first thought was profound sadness, Josh, Virgil, and Scott. We are all brothers in Christ. We have a common enemy, both spiritually and manifested through evil people.

My heart is to see if we cannot work together in every way to at least find some areas of encouragement and cooperation and to allow each other to fight this enemy, even if the strategies we use are different,

I figure. If it's possible to find common cause on a podcast with a liberal atheist to fight social justice.

Perhaps it's possible to find common cause on a podcast with a Christian nationalist. It does not have to be mine and I don't have to be part of it.

That is my prayer though. I hope you can pray with me yours in Christ, John Harris. That was my email to Josh vice.

I never received a response from Josh that was back in May. I don't know what to tell you.

Um, I've tried to be kind as much as I can with Owen Strawn. Even in the last week,

I've tried to respond and I've tried to be direct, but at least be accurate and so forth.

And if there's, it just doesn't seem like there's even any willingness to interact at all. I'm surprised

I'm not blocked yet, to be honest. Uh, and I, and I don't, it should not be this way, brothers, this, this, it should not be this way.

And, and so, you know, I'm not telling you not to go to G3 this year and there, there is a men's retreat.

Yes, there is. The overcoming evil men's conference, overcoming evil men's conference .com is the same weekend. That wasn't on purpose.

Um, September what? 21st through 24th. But if you're already going to G3, I'd say, go have a good time.

I know that most of the people going there, you're not even going for the people who organize it. You're going for the speakers. Uh, and that's just reality.

But, um, so I'm not trying to hurt them. I'm not trying to hurt their business. I'm not trying to any of that. But I do think that this does reflect on their character to some extent.

It has to, I don't see how it can't, if someone wants to show me, otherwise prove me wrong, then I would be happy to, uh, uh, to hear, and if there are any concerns, reach out to me about this.

If you think I've been arrogant, if I've been inaccurate, I want to know, and I want the opportunity to repent. That has not been extended to me.

If I have sinned against them, they're not coming to me with it. If you think this is biblical, I have a bridge.

I can sell you, uh, in San Francisco. All right. Um, let, let, let us move on here.

Cause I really don't want to talk about this too much more. I, it just breaks my heart. It saddens me.

And, uh, and I don't want to leave you guys without hope because there is a whole lot of hope out there, but the hope is not going to come.

I've just learned this from elite institutions and middle managers and, uh, managerial elites.

And it just, that's not the people who run. Most of these ministries are not going to be the people who lead us out of the mess that we're in.

It's, it's going to be people with smaller platforms generally and a whole lot of them, and it's going to be common people, the people who, uh, the people,

I think a lot of people get it, to be honest with you. I just think it's, there's such a disconnect between our leaders and us. It's unbelievable.

Okay. Um, let us switch gears. What I have one more thing written down. Oh, that's right.

I have an article this year with you from national review. Okay. It's not a very long article, but it's fascinating to me.

This is from national review, which is, um, was, I should say a conservative magazine and there there's a number of articles

I'm doing. Uh, I'm writing a paper right now on, it'll be fascinating when I get done with it, because I don't know if anyone who's done this,

I'm comparing and contrasting the way that conservatives critiqued Nazism from the 1950s, sixties, seventies, and then the way that they are critiquing it now.

And I will just tell you this political conservatives are critiquing Nazism the same way leftists did in the 1950s.

I see little difference. Modern conservatives have swallowed. They're basically where leftists were in the 1950s on this question.

And we've abandoned the previous critiques. And so in my research, I was looking through the national review archives and, um, this article from 1956,

I thought was super interesting. I don't think I'd see many, unless you're reading chronicles magazine, you're not going to see an article like this today.

Certainly national review today is not this way it's by Gerhardt Niemeyer.

And it's, uh, the title is too early and too much. And let me read this for you. Um, it says in notes for a controversy, which is a previous article on the website, uh, that we're not going to read

Ralph and D Toledino addresses himself to the question in what do the conservatives really believe?

And that's a question we're asking now, isn't it? What do conservatives really believe his article invites controversy and it should indeed not be allowed to go unanswered for my part,

I should like to submit that he has raised the questions prematurely and furthermore that he has put the wrong question.

We can readily agree with him on the facts. It is true that those who oppose liberalism as being deeply in error about the matter of human freedom, do not now speak with a common voice.

No contemporary thinker can be said to have articulated their common convictions, no political leader has

United in his person, their loyalties and aspirations, but can the state of affairs be helped by impatient charges and complaints about the rootlessness, opportunism, and negativism of the conservatives.

So what are you saying? And this is a 1956 that conservatism is kind of a big tent of opposing innovation of opposing liberalism.

So there's different routes that that opposition takes different channels. So it's hard to idealize it and come up with a 10 point, you know, here's all the bullet points of what makes conservatism in any situation throughout time and space.

Uh, it's, it's more of a posture than it is an ideology. He says, let us leave aside the issue of whether such charges are justified and let us assume that they are meant to stir up those who might be expected to articulate, to lead, to unite a non -liberal political philosophy of freedom and human dignity is certainly a crying need of our time, but it's formulation must not be rushed.

Uttering the first word along this line is a matter of great responsibility. It calls for long and mature reflection. Nobody should be made to come forth with ideas that are conceived merely as a response to the need for conservatism to survive.

It merely will not. And by the way, I should say, this is what we hear today. Well, if we don't adopt gay marriage, then how will conservatism survive?

Well, is it conservatism anymore? So dealing with similar things, it simply will not do to go to conservatives into impatience with their present ambiguity by hurling irritated epithets at them so much for the prematurity and the question

D Toledino has raised. The question he has asked in which I hold to the wrong one is a question already raised by a rush of books and articles during the last few years.

What is conservatism? The true answer to this question is both simple and not very meaningful. Conservatism is a word.

The word is full of symbolism, emotional overtones, and hinted meanings, but conservatism is still a word rather than an observable political reality.

It makes little sense to complain that behind this one term, there is not also one unified political movement, one core of principle and one ideology.

If we unearth a political symbol from history and apply it to modern political phenomena, we have no right to expect that political reality to shape up as our ideas of the word suggest it should.

The mistake is that in this case is not the rather the mistake in this case is not with the conservative who have no common core principle, but with those who approach political life by asking what a symbolic word really is.

Along this line, one can only find the very answers, which one first has put into the object of one's inquiry.

It makes more sense to ask who uses this term and for what purpose. But when one raises this question, one cannot be by any means, be sure that one will find something that one could confidently call the conservatives.

There are many groups and tendencies in the American scene today who are dubbed conservative either by themselves or their political opponents.

The common designation does not necessarily mean that all these groups belong together and that they're potentially have or should have a common ideology.

Now, let me stop here for a moment. This parallels what we're seeing with Christian nationalism. There's multiple groups and movements and ideas, right?

But the problem is when you have ideologues who come in and try to quantify them all and say, it's all this.

It's all these abstract principles. This is what they believe.

It's white nationalism. Let's fit it into that mold. When they're ignoring the complexity of this, to be sure there are ideologies out there, but conservatism isn't one.

And I would wager that Christian, there are ideologues who are Christian nationalists, but Christian nationalism, as I've seen it displayed, isn't very ideological.

It's more of a intuition, a posture, a reaction.

To be sure, one may discover certain common elements among the various pretenders to the title of conservatism.

For instance, it may be true that they were all opposed to liberal preconceptions that prevail in federal governments, education, and communications, although this does not tell us anything about the reasons for their opposition.

One might possibly also discover similar attitudes towards communism and a general fear of bureaucratic monopolistic leadership in the life of this nation.

All this may be lumped together as a protest against the official forces and attitudes that presently shape our destiny.

And one may add that this opposition springs not from a radical spirit of total displeasure with our society, but rather from a concern for the social order in which the life of this nation has taken form.

So conservatives are concerned with social order. They want to preserve that. It's not a radical spirit.

When they see problems, they're gradual more. They're not revolutionary.

By the way, Vivek Ramaswamy, he's kind of an ideologue. You know, a lot of things he says sound more refreshing than some of the other candidates, but he's kind of an ideologue.

He talks a lot about we need revolution. We need this is whatever that is.

Is it conservatism is the question? Well, maybe not traditionally in every sense. Some of the things he believes certainly are.

Observations such as these may tell us something about why various political groups feel kinship with each other or have entered into a political alliance, but cannot get us further along the road of non -liberal insights into the conditions of freedom to make progress here.

We cannot begin to assume that something called conservatism really exists in contemporary America. We must rather discover the deeper logic of the reasons for which we hold liberalism to be an error.

In this, so he's saying we have to first discover why we have a problem with liberalism before we can figure out what conservatism is.

There's a symbiotic relationship here in this kind of undertaking. No man has a right to speak for anybody else, least of all for conservatives.

And one must not even assume that one should seek a definite core of principle, uniting all those who now go under the loose designation conservatives.

For our concern here, it is with truth and not with a symbolic term. One cannot possibly say that all these groups and individuals belong together under a common ideology until they have clarified their own reasoning.

Speaking now for myself alone, I am not persuaded that there should be what one call a definite conservative ideology.

The reason is that I am deeply distrustful of any ideology, which aims to subject the life of an entire nation to its guidance.

There were centuries without an explicit ideology, conservative or otherwise, because in a community that is alive to the goods of life within the frame of a political consensus, no theory is required.

Let me read that one for you again. This is where I think the fog starts clearing. If you do have fog on this,

I've had fog for a long time on this. Um, he says it is a community that is alive to the goods of life within the frame of a political consensus.

No theory is required in that situation. The theory as D Maestri put it would be written in the hearts of all countrymen.

It can be shown that the need for a specific conservative way of thinking was felt only as a reaction against a certain type of political ideology, which seemed to know no commitment to the living community.

When some people began to derive political conclusions from abstract speculations and claimed intellectual certainty about sweeping principles by which they intend to design or remake their entirety states, governments, constitutions, and legal systems.

Then, uh, oh, there it is. Then a conservative consciousness, um, often began to take shape in response.

In essence, such conservatives, uh, theorizing has not consisted in intellectual system building.

Rather it is attempted to restate the understandings on which a given historical country actually was based.

So this is what conservatism is. It's an attempt to rebuild or restate the understandings on which a given historical country actually was based.

What kinds of shared understandings, shared meanings, shared trust, shared, um, uh, interaction existed that kept things peaceful that kept things running.

What were those things? Uh, how can we ensure that those things remain strong? So it's not like an abstract family values.

It's a tangible, real family values, because that's, we recognize from history.

We recognize from our own experience that this is the right way. This is, this is part of the creative order, but it is, it is the way that our society functions and to tamper with that would be to tamper with, uh, everything that, that makes for a society to actually function.

And it's, it, and it leads to anarchy. So it's not about getting this abstract, you know, ideas in one's head and then foisting them.

It's about looking at history, looking at experience, looking at the way things have developed and then recognizing what actually makes for good government.

Okay. Um, rather than building definite core, let's see, I already read that their concern has seldom been with an ideology of their own, but rather with the planners, the no better innovators, the politically unresponsive intellectuals.

There's has been an argument, not against reason, but against intellectual presumption and a call to heed the fence posts of reality.

So it's the Richmond North of Richmond is basically what he's saying. It's a Richmond North of Richmond. This is,

I repeat where my own sympathies point. I am far from claiming that this is what contemporary American conservatives actually think or should subscribe to.

In fact, it is quite obvious that certain groups usually label conservative, do not share these views, but are committed to a definite ideology, which they seek to make the yardstick for all political decisions.

So who would those be? Well, uh, he says, nor can it be denied that many people who have no such ideology crave for a core of principle, which would enable them to achieve a certain logical consistency in their political positions, a quest, which is, but natural with a human mind.

And finally, I cannot rule out the possibility that those who, who of us who have fought militantly, both

Nazism and communism and have seen the destruction wrought by these totalitarian ideologies have acquired a certain primordial fear of all ideological thinking, which may play a large role in the position outlined above, however, that may be, it is the only, uh, it is only by focusing our attention on the nature of political reality, rather than on mythical conservatism, that we can achieve clarity of what we want and what we believe in the controversy.

There must be, let it be less self -conscious and let it be about the truths we have forgotten or tried or tend to forget.

So I just thought this was a really beneficial article because it makes clear some of the things we've been talking about my episodes with CJ angle and others that, um, there's an impulse now on the right to have a, an ideology to libertarians have always been ideological.

I think just about, I mean, I, I mean, Murray Murray Rothbard, maybe, you know, some of the early libertarians, not as much perhaps, but, but there always has been kind of this economic, you know, what's good for the market is, is what's right.

Um, and I would say classical liberals, they have, there's a certain ideology there, uh, and, and many of them claim to be conservatives now, but, um, conservatism isn't at its root, an ideology.

It's not a framework that you come up with in your mind and then you impose upon all reality.

I think theonomy can function as an ideology. One of the reasons I think I've sort of shied away from that, even though I see there's really good things to learn about, uh, the application of old

Testament law and how it can, um, be positive, uh, in certain situations, et cetera.

But that's not what conservatism is. Conservatism is about real threats, tangible threats here and now.

And what do we do about them? Threats that threaten the very core of our existence, our identity are the public trust that we've built up, uh, and threatened to take those all away to sacrifice them to ideological gods.

Conservatism is opposes that. And, and, and when the left says that, well, you're just, uh, the party of no, or you're just trying to, uh, you're reactionary, the answer is yes.

Yes. Conservatives are reactionary. It doesn't mean they can't play offense. It doesn't mean they can't try to restore things that make for public trust and make for good government, but it's not a, uh, you're, you're not building the kingdom of God here.

You're not building utopia. You're not attempting to, um, force a vision, a certain moral vision.

Uh, it is, um, it is you deal with reality and, and sometimes this runs counter to things that I would even say

I agree with. For example, um, I think of, I go back to Jesus when he said that, that when

Moses, um, gave laws on divorce, even though from the beginning, it was not so, but for the hardness of your heart, why did he do that?

Well, because there was a particular scenario in which that particular law was given those laws, that set of laws.

And that was the problem that they were dealing with. And so, um, you know, he, they didn't ban polygamy either.

Right. They didn't. And these are things that I think are healthy, that are good. You know, should we bring polygamy back?

Should we bring the old Testament laws on polygamy? I don't think so. You know, would a theonomist say we should,

I mean, I don't think most of them would, but you know, why were they there in the first place is because of a particular situations, particular scenarios, we live in a particular context ourselves, and so it's going to determine with our limited bandwidth, what we prioritize, what we focus on, what we think, uh, is a, is important to us and to the good of our society.

Knowing we'll never have a perfect society. Conservatives have this posture. They have this intuition.

They have this, um, it's not just ideas. It's not just ideas.

Okay. Hopefully that was helpful to some of you out there. Uh, lots of folks in the chat right now. Um, man.

Yeah. So, so we got some Vivek supporters out there. Uh, Quiana Shaw, you, you've said a lot of things. Um, very helpful things.

Um, any, any final questions or comments before I go,

I'm not gonna be able to look at all of these and go back, but if there's anything new, I'll try to address it. Yeah.

All right. Well, I think, I think that's probably it for the podcast then today. Um, there's just some discussion about Vivek and, um, big pharma and, and, and some of the current things that we're undergoing, which, which are important discussions to be sure.

Um, don't forget overcoming evil conference .com. If you want to come to the men's conference, we still have, uh, a little less than a month now before that happens.

So, um, so, so I'd appreciate, uh, if you haven't, it just makes it easier on me if you sign up earlier so that I can prepare and tell the camp how many people are coming and all that kind of thing, rather than last minute, if possible.

And, uh, if you need financial aid or anything like that, just contact me. You can actually contact info at truth script .com

and we'll, we'll make sure to address that. So, um, yeah, T James Boone says,

I'm very sad about G3 and I guess I'll end the podcast on this note. I am too. I am too. And it, it, it brings me no pleasure.

I don't think that in fact, I'm losing, I've lost support. Just, I don't talk about this kind of stuff, but I can sometimes see patterns.

I can see when I lose support and I have lost a little support. Um, it might also be the economy and, and, you know, but, but I, you know,

I can see it a little bit in numbers. I can see it definitely with Patreon, uh, uh, giving and that kind of thing.

Um, There does seem to be a parallel there when I started talking about G3 and, and saying that this isn't right.

Uh, there, there's people in my audience who really, I guess, did not appreciate that maybe they're not in my audience anymore, but it doesn't matter to me,

I think this is true and I'm not going to, um, change the way I do the podcast simply because it's a different group than big

Eva, I'm not on the raw, raw, raw team, you know, team red, team blue. Uh, you're,

I don't like that. I don't like that. I just think, you know, there's the truth. I think we build relationships. We are loyal.

I believe in loyalty, but I don't believe in the guilt. Okay. The guild, the, the guild thinking has gotten us in bad places and I saw it get us in very bad places during 2020.

And I, I'm not interested in a guild on the, uh, uh, less woke or a guild on the right side of things.

Um, it's just not membership in that is not a priority for me. Uh, and, uh, it, not that I would ever be let in anyway.

I think at this point I burned too many bridges by critiquing some of the theology out there.

Um, but, uh, anyway, enough about me. This is, I don't, I don't even like talking about this is enough about me.

Um, just pray, just pray for, uh, pray for Owen strand, pray for Josh, but it's pretty for humility, I suppose.

And you pray for me for humility too. We could all use a dose of humility, pray for our country. We're in sad times right now.

I have a hard time laughing at, you know, Donald Trump's mugshot and stuff.

I just, I know some people are, but this isn't funny to me. So just pray for our country.