News Roundup: French on Talerico, SPLC Bombshell, VA Redistricting, Re: Critics

And I see this all the time. He can't be a Christian because he's pro -choice. He can't be a Christian -

Not with Tallarico. He can't be a Christian because - I think Tallarico, it's because he said that he believes that they're like all religions share truth, share the central truth, basically.

I'm just really not willing to say that James Tallarico is not a Christian. I'm just not gonna do it.

Welcome to the Conversations That Matter podcast, fashionably late. I had a phone call that came in right before I was gonna go live and wanted to take it.

I thought it was important enough, but now I'm like 15 minutes after I said

I was gonna be, or at least as I scheduled it, which was four. So my apologies to those who are in the channel.

It looks like Cosmic Treason and Roman Zayt and Mark and a bunch of other people,

Kayawan, is that how I say the name? They're all in the channel having a discussion and I haven't even started. So welcome to everyone who's also coming in.

I can see the numbers increasing as the stream progresses. We have a number of things to talk about today, including that clip you just heard.

That was from the Allie Beth Stuckey program. A few days ago, it was David French. And the question really was, and I didn't play all the context.

This was a clip that the Blaze actually clipped, but context was James Tallarico supports abortion, supports transgenderism.

How can you say this guy's a Christian and David French doesn't want to write anyone off, apparently as a

Christian. So James Tallarico, perfectly within boundaries. The thing that's interesting to me about this, there's a few things, of course, but the first thing that stood out in my mind is

David French seems very willing to call into question Trump's Christianity quite a bit.

Trump's not a Christian. Trump's, on what basis, right? Well, Trump's ethical abuse.

Trump, the way he hates women and minorities, and it's that general temperament, that critique you hear from the left all the time.

David French has also gotten in on that. And we've talked about it on the podcast. And I didn't do deep research to find out who else he said that about.

I'm sure there's others, but Donald Trump at the very least, can we just, at least can we take Donald Trump and say, Donald Trump says he's a

Christian, has a cultural Christian identity. He even just did the prayer week thing where he read a portion of scripture and he has held

Bibles up and said we want to protect Christianity. And he's done a number of policy things that Christians are pretty happy with, at least conservative

Christians, for protecting Christianity and making sure that they're not harassed under civil rights legislation and this kind of thing.

Now, here's the thing. Donald Trump within boundaries, James Tallarico, who's running for the

Senate in Texas, not within boundaries. Senate, right? Senate or Congress? I think it's, is it

Congress? Maybe it's Congress. I should probably check that out real quick. I can't remember for some reason. I was just in Texas, by the way.

And it was interesting. I went to Dallas and Fort Worth for two days.

I was doing a film project there on the Episcopal Church. So I talked to Episcopalians and former

Episcopalians and that should be coming out probably, I would think, by the end of summer, that mini documentary.

So we went to Dallas and I'll tell you what, one of the things I've noticed in Dallas, first of all, it's huge.

It's getting bigger, but it feels less and less Texas. I just remember going there 15 years ago and before that even, and just not seeing what

I'm seeing now. Like it really does feel like California. Whether it's the accents or the way people dress or there's a number of factors.

You still see, especially when you get to Fort Worth, you still see some Texas, but it's more and more diluted. Anyway, James Tallarico is running for US Senate.

So I was right about that. And he has been to seminary.

We played some of the clips on the show. He loves the bravery of transgender kids and this kind of thing.

And the thing that I think is like a blaring problem with James Tallarico in regards to his

Christianity is he sees Islam as somehow legitimate. And Islam is obviously a false religion from a

Christian viewpoint, but James Tallarico doesn't see Islam that way. That's not what they were talking about in the context of the podcast.

They were talking about social views, but I would probably start with that. Just say, well, look, is Allah the same

God? Is Allah a legitimate God? Is that a path to God? Is that, what do you think about that? But the context is these social views.

And so I wanted to have a brief discussion about this and just say, look, these social views that people have, whether it's abortion or homosexuality, transgenderism, these social policies that are in debate.

If you are on the wrong side of these social policies, if you are on the side that is not in keeping with scripture, okay, you are on the side pushing to normalize these things, to increase these things, then you are not doing a

Christian thing. We can all agree on that. You're doing a very evil thing. And if you go to church and it's a real church, they should probably confront you about that.

And if you don't repent, discipline you about that. That's really not a discussion that would be controversial for this audience because we are

Orthodox believers. And we believe that when Jesus said, if you love me, you keep my commandments, that he meant it. Do you question someone's salvation over that?

I think there are probably ignorant people that let's say they got saved very recently and they before that had a number of erroneous views.

They may retain some of those views because they haven't actually thought about them. Now, those views are pretty overt, like murder and gender and stuff.

Like that's pretty overt. Like if you become a Christian, that's gonna be probably one of the first things you realize, well, that doesn't conform at all to the

God that I worship now. There is a discipleship process though. And people do, I think, come to greater levels of sanctification as they're being discipled.

They become more holy, in other words, and less tolerant of sin, and more conformed to the image of Christ.

God completes the work that he started in you. And the body of believers is around to help in that. However, if you retain these things after going to seminary like James Tallarico, you are now ordained to preach the word of God.

You are not just a Christian, but someone who really knows Christianity. You've been a Christian. You're representing

Christianity. You are trying to even run your campaign based on the moral foundation you say comes from Christianity.

You're not ignorant about these things. These are well thought through things. These are not just political decisions.

These are moral decisions that you've had time to ruminate on, and you have come to the wrong side of the equation, to the side of the equation that is against God's clear law.

If that's the truth, then I have no reason to treat you as a brother or say you're a Christian. That's just the bottom line.

You're someone who is, I mean, with the case of transgender children, I mean, it was better if a millstone were hung around your neck and you were drowning in the depths of the sea.

That's Jesus, not me. Because you're causing these little ones to stumble. This is actually a big deal.

And I don't care how nice someone sounds or how attractive and how they keep up with Christian protocol in other areas.

These views are reprehensible. And I am willing, unlike David French to say, that's not a

Christian. Someone who knowingly and with understanding of what

God's word teaches, who has been supposedly a Christian for years now, who goes around advocating for evil, blatant evil, you're not a

Christian. That should have been confronted a long time ago. If you were in a faithful church, it would have been.

And you may have the identity on some level of being a Christian, but that's not what a Christian does.

Christians love Christ. Christ says, if you love me, you keep my commandments. It's really not any more simple than that. And look, there's, or complicated than that.

And look, there's people who want to say that there's no law requirement here. Like your political beliefs aren't the basis for your salvation.

I totally agree with that, by the way. They're not the basis for your salvation. But if you support evil, then that is evidence.

I'm not saying you're doing evil. Like you're sinning and Paul says, I do the very thing I hate. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about you actually knowingly predetermined, premeditatingly, blatantly support sin and have no apologies and double down for it.

If that's the direction you're going, that is not a Christian thing. And we should not just assume that someone who does that is a

Christian, certainly. But it definitely calls into question their salvation. Because if you're a Christian, there's going to be fruit.

There's going to be repentance. There's going to be humility. And that humility is going to mostly be a conformity to Christ and a dying to self.

And I can't think of anything more selfish than killing children because it's convenient for your life or because wanting to switch your gender because you don't like the one that God gave you.

That's certainly out of step with honoring the creator that we have. So there's a little rant for you,

I suppose, but what fellowship is light with darkness, guys? I mean, it's really, it's idolatry on a certain level.

Like this is deep, deep sin to the point of, this is idolatry. This is saying that we reject the

God who made us and we're going to make ourselves God. We determine what our gender is.

We determine who gets to live and die. Sorry, guys. Sorry, not sorry.

Well, there's a number of folks already making comments in the chat. I'm going to get to some of these questions and then we will commence to talking about Al Mohler and Josh Hawley and the

SPLC and what's going on in the state of Virginia. Oh my, Virginia. We're going to also talk a little bit about the response

I made to critics of my talk and my article on the new,

I didn't know what else to call it, but the anti -Jewish theology. I did write an article about that.

I was on the fence about it, but I decided to do it just for whatever few well -meaning people, well, maybe out there who may be confused by it.

Hopefully this helps clarify things and we'll talk about that. I'm here to answer any questions and comments or cries of outrage while the podcast is going on.

So thank you for everyone who's here. All right, well, let's see. We have in the comments,

First Cosmic Treason says, can Christians sincerely work for, can they work for the failure of the secular state of Israel or is this morally impermissible as an article of faith because it places us under God's curse?

Certainly Christians, well, Christians can work against evil, right? So if there is a state doing evil, we need to work against those things.

At the same time, when you're talking about geopolitics, which is the category of this question, you're looking at nations across the globe and most of them are evil on some level, supporting evil, under evil, religious or non -religious.

And I guess everyone's religious, but they're overtly secular in some cases and they're most of Europe's like this, right?

Where they support horrible policies. From a geopolitics standpoint, this is a political question.

What's the best kind of outcome for the people that I serve in the United States? That's what

I'm asking if I'm a magistrate making these decisions. I don't wanna be, and certainly

I can't be someone who actually supports evil things. That's not negotiable.

But when I'm looking at alliances and trade policies and military cooperation, there are going to be times that I am going to side with people or people will side with me that I don't get along with, that don't represent in every way, shape or form my domestic policies and the morality that goes along with those.

That goes for the United States, by the way. I mean, if you even become a state rep or a local rep in this country, are you gonna abide by laws?

Are you going to have cooperation with a national government or a general government that has as many evil connections?

It's kind of unavoidable, right? And so this is the situation I think Daniel and Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego find themselves in.

There are limits to what we can do. But working towards, I don't know what that would even be, working against a foreign government that does evil things, certainly expose the evil things.

I don't know what working against it necessarily looks like. If they're threatening us, that's in our purview, right?

If Iran legitimately is threatening the United States, that is within the purview of the United States interests.

If they're not threatening the United States, then that's, and you're just gonna go there, I don't know what, to just change their policies because you don't like them.

I don't know that that's something that would be justified. But what I do think is the situation right now in the

Middle East, it is complicated. It does have a history. And it probably, when

I said this when it first happened, I didn't want Donald Trump to go in there. It's hard to say when we're not in a situation room, we don't have all the intelligence necessarily.

But given everything I've read about this situation, it's a mess because you're dealing with, in Iran, some actual ideologues, some religious zealots.

They don't care if you bomb them into the Stone Age, at least the people on the top in the government, right?

They are perfectly fine with that. They're going to hold tight. You can punish them economically.

I mean, you only have so much leverage with people like that. And I think the mistake of American policy for a long time has been to think that everyone's like us.

Gaza just wants, the people in Gaza want the same things we want. They just want a better life. Nevermind the fact that they support

Hamas. They have a pay for slave program.

They would, many of the families that even accepted charity from the state of Israel for medical things, that kind of stuff, they would be honored if their children grew up and became terrorists.

I mean, there is a mentality that we don't understand where it's like, it is better to kill your enemy than it is to be successful personally.

I don't know that Donald Trump sees that. And it's not, he can work over a boardroom, he can negotiate, but there is, there are interests that aren't economic.

There are interests, but not everyone is looking for just raising a family and living in peace, right?

This is actually something that's more, it's definitely in the West, but it's not all an

Eastern thing. Like there are people who will die for their religion. I think Iran has a lot of those kinds of people and they're in powerful positions.

So you only have so many negotiating strategies that you can use at this point.

I know the question, I'm way off the question now. The question was about Israel and stuff. But I think when it comes to our foreign policy, we have to think in terms of, is this a threat?

And if it's a threat, then what can we do about it? There are limits to what we can do too. And I think

Donald Trump knows this. There's electoral limits. Reducing Iran's ability to have not just a nuclear weapon, but also reach this immutability where they would be able to deflect any threat that came against them.

You can claim that as a victory. If the, whatever emerges there is more friendly to the

United States, you can claim that as a victory. You can claim that as we accomplished objectives that the

United States wanted to accomplish. But there's a cost to all of those things.

And I think we're finding out right now that having bases all over the world and being involved in these various places, yes, there may be

American dominance that may keep our dollars strong, but there's also a cost to these things, a quite literal dollar in bill costs.

And there's electoral, there's election considerations.

There's the diplomatic headache that all these things bring.

And it's not something that our country had to really worry about even 150 or even a hundred years ago.

This wasn't really, it's really a post -war thing, post -World War II that we sort of filled the gap left behind by some of these colonial empires.

And now we have to think about these things. So circling back to should people, should the

United States citizens work against the secular state of Israel in some way? I don't know what that looks like.

Evangelize them? Yes, that's one way I suppose you could work against. I don't know if that undermines the state though, necessarily.

I mean, it's, I don't think we're going to war with Israel anytime soon. That's because they're an ally.

They've been an ally. So really the bigger question is what does allyship look like?

What does enemy status look like? And those are the things that people are actually debating out there right now.

Is it someone an enemy because they have a nuclear weapon and they say death to America and they've killed thousands of our citizens?

Does that make them an enemy or they're so far away? Should they even be considered that? Is someone an ally just because they've been with us in various fights?

And when we tell them to stop, they do. And we can control them to some extent and we have an economic partnership and that.

Is that, they're on the other side of the world. Does that make them an ally? Those are legitimate conversations to have, certainly.

But I don't think we should be thinking about any foreign nations in a geopolitical way in terms of whether or not their moral standards domestically are good or bad.

And then we have some responsibility to do anything about it. I think it's more, what's the responsibility that we have to our own citizens?

And that then determines how we think of our relationships across the world. James Tallarico is a heretic.

David French is clueless. Well, yeah, rocky proof. Tell me what you really think about that. Calling himself a seminarian was the first sign.

Yeah, he's a seminarian, guys. Like James Tallarico is not out there saying I'm neutral on these things.

So anyway, hopefully that is all helpful commentary. We have some news to get to though.

And then I will take more questions as the program unfolds. Let's start with this.

I'm gonna start with Southern Baptist Land. Can we start with Southern Baptist Land a little bit? Let's go to this headline.

I miss this somehow. And since I'm focusing on this woman pastor issue in the SPC, I figured I'd let you know about it.

Called to serve, going where the bikers go. This is a story from the North American Mission Board.

That means Southern Baptist, you are paying money to fund this particular entity in your convention.

It's not just independent. Your money goes to this entity. This is from last, I believe it's December. I don't know.

I showed up on the mobile app. It doesn't seem to show up here with the date, but it is from, it's not ancient history.

And you have a picture here of a motorcycle chaplain. Looks can be deceiving, it says.

And Michelle Newsomes got a story to prove it. Michelle, a grandmother, motorcycle rider,

Southern Baptist chaplain, and one of the founders of Faith Riders Motorcycle Ministry had just pulled up to a

Southern Baptist annual convention meeting on her Harley Davidson Road King. And she ran into the ladies room to freshen up.

The story goes on. I'm gonna summarize it for you. And it just basically says, look, it literally says this about bikers.

They're an unreached people group. I kid you not. I don't know if you knew that. Bikers are an unreached people group.

I mean, we usually talk about like, I don't know, people in the rural areas of Bhutan or something.

It's like, oh, they're unreached people group. We need to go evangelize them. But apparently bikers, they're passing all those signs on the highway that say things like Jesus saves, but unreached.

So we've got to reach them. And the way to reach them is to hire a chaplain to go reach them. Now, I don't know why there weren't any men available for this.

Here's the point I want to make. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with a female evangelizing, obviously.

There's nothing wrong with that. I think if the woman at the well can go tell everyone in town, look at the person who knew everything about me, told me everything, and he's the

Messiah, I think a woman can evangelize, and that is perfectly fine. That's a good thing. Make sure it's safe though, right?

However, calling a woman who does evangelism a chaplain, that gets confusing.

And I think it's the confusion that has been the problem for the Southern Baptist for a long time. What do you mean by chaplain?

Does that care? What kind of authority does chaplain carry with it? Chaplain is generally a synonym for pastor.

It means essentially a pastor. It could be someone in the military.

It could be someone who's doing para -church kind of work. They're in ministry, doing pastoral kind of ministry, but they don't have a stable home church that they're doing that ministry in.

So if you're a chaplain for the fire department or the military, you are an extension of a ministry that exists at the home base.

So that's why in the military, you have to be ordained by a certain governing board that certifies you that you are a chaplain to represent their denomination or group.

So you are at the fire station or the police department, usually a local pastor who goes in, and now

I'm extending my pastoral role to this area. That's a chaplain. So should a female be a chaplain?

It's not really the proper title. If all you're doing is going and evangelizing, but you get the impression from this, there's more going on, right?

There's counseling and these kinds of things. I mean, what do you make of it?

I would say, I mean, you could use different words. You could say missionary, right? Couldn't you say missionary?

This is the problem with the Southern Baptist Convention. They aren't clear on these things, and the sloppiness gives you room for people with bad motives who want to take advantage of the theological lack of clarity here to drive their bad theology through the hole, the gaping hole that's been left.

And so this might seem like a minor thing to some of you. I've been giving updates in every news roundup about the

Southern Baptist and things I've been discovering in the Southern Baptist Convention about female pastors. This one is not a female pastor per se.

It's not someone who's in a church preaching on Sunday morning, as far as I know. I haven't looked up to see if Michelle's doing that, but this is someone who is commissioned by the

Southern Baptist Convention with your tithing money to be a chaplain. And I just think it's sad to me that at the top of the convention, they're not thinking through these things and how this looks and who could take advantage of that kind of thing, that kind of loose theology.

We need to make sure that the terms we're using reflect the theology that we have.

That's my only point. So now I'm not leaving Southern Baptist land yet. Josh Hawley and Al Mohler discuss challenges facing disaffected young men.

They feel shut out. This was on Al Mohler's In the Library podcast. And I'm not expecting

Josh Hawley to be aware of all the things that this podcast audience is aware about Al Mohler. I have a whole entire playlist on the podcast regarding Al Mohler.

I mean, he's changed his views on a number of things in the last few years, same -sex attraction, whether women should get, or women should be punished for pursuing an abortion or not.

Even on the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention, he's saying very different things than he used to say.

It used to be that they started because of slavery and defense of slavery. Now it's more, they started because of just wanting to do missions.

And are those mutually contradictory? Perhaps not, but he's changed his posture on critical race theory.

He said things that are certainly consistent with critical race theory, like things like racism is embedded in, influential in every single

American institution. He said that, I believe, in 2020, 2021. You would never hear him say that kind of thing now, right?

This is the metamorphosis of Al Mohler. And he doesn't, when he changes his opinion on something, come out and say, hey,

I'm changing my opinion. Sorry for what I said last time. Like he repented in 2014 for denying the existence of homosexual orientation.

Now he denies it again, but he's not going to come out and repent for it. I like it, it's just the currents change and Al Mohler tends to change with them.

That's what I've noticed. Now he has been pretty consistently against female ordination, which I appreciate. But anyway, this audience knows about Al Mohler.

This podcast, I wanted to just let you know about because this, I see this as just more kind of attempts to shift with the needs of the moment.

So he says, is this, let's see, is this Hawley or Mohler? This is Mohler. You mentioned the manosphere, which makes me think of all these young men out there, many of whom voted for Republicans and the president this last time around, but now say that they're very disaffected.

This is just a very, in many ways, disaffected group because I believe they feel shut out from American society.

Oh, I guess that's, okay, my bad. I think that's what Hawley said. So Hawley observed these difficulties.

Number one, they've been told by liberals forever that masculinity is toxic. He's right about a lot of this, by the way. They can't afford to buy anything.

They are uncertain about how to have a relationship, how to get married, if they can get married. Hawley, a member of an evangelical

Presbyterian church suggested that the pain and the alienation many young men feel offer

Christians an opportunity to basically disciple. Let's see, Mueller, who serves as the president still of the

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky, notes that no civilization can survive unfulfilled, aimless, restless young men.

It just doesn't work. One of the most basic Christian observations in politics and economics is there ought to be an appropriate link between labor and reward.

And if that is not honored, then you actually subvert everything you say you're trying to do. Mueller went on to stress the importance of teaching young men that they must delay gratification and take the initiative in things like work, relationships, and even hygiene if they hope to find joy and satisfaction.

He said that he had never met any sizable number of young men who regretted following the so -called success sequence, which includes getting at least a high school degree, securing a full -time job, and waiting until marriage to have children.

So let me just kind of cut through this a little bit. Al Mueller, unfortunately, has been one of the people in the

Southern Baptist Convention who has been a preventative, who has been a problem with young men pursuing those things.

Why do you say that, John? Because Al Mueller, even if you go as far back as the Great Commission resurgence book,

Mueller writes in that book, I think that was 2010, that the Southern Baptist Convention is gonna be this aging white male denomination unless we do something to diversify it.

And boy, did the Southern Baptist Convention decide they were gonna do that, including at Southern Seminary. A number of professors were hired at Southern Seminary that pushed critical race theory.

And this is the same era that I was exposing this is around the same time that Al Mueller is going back and they're trying to grapple with the history of the institution, to contextualize it.

And one of the things that they did in talking about how bad it was that Boyce and others who were affiliated with the seminary had at one time,

Gasp, had slaves. They had a program at that time to right the ship.

It was even framed that way. I've talked about it on the podcast. And that program was to give scholarships specifically to who?

To black people. Now, look, I have no problem with different cultures, groups, people from different communities wanting to help support those within their community.

That's actually a noble thing. That's not what this was though. This was, hey, we have a problem with the perception out there.

We're looked upon as, because of our history, because of just the way that the world looks at us as Southern Baptists.

So we got a race problem. How are we gonna meet that challenge? We got to diversify. We've got to tip the scales in favor of one group over another.

And now you got, especially white males feeling like, I can't win.

I got straight out of high school and I was told that, why even go to college?

Why go to seminary? Why do these things? I'm not gonna be able to achieve what I think I should achieve.

Now, part of that is a lie, by the way. You can achieve things. If you do excellent work and you will always have a benefit from that.

But it is disheartening when you find out that the scales are being tipped for others and it's not a fair playing field.

And in some way, Southern Seminary was not a fair playing field. And Al Mohler is responsible for this.

And here he is with the damage of going along with this for years, saying, you know, this is a cultural problem out there and we as the church need to do something.

We'll use the church, unfortunately, or as a para -church in this case. You went along with something.

That was part of the problem here. And that's why I just don't think there's credibility. Maybe Josh Hawley has some credibility with this, but I don't have any reason to think

Josh Hawley knows about any of this. But Al Mohler? No, unfortunately.

And it's sad. And I think what would have to happen is you'd have to admit that you shouldn't have done that. Shouldn't have tipped the scales.

Shouldn't have done the diversity thing. We should have just, if you're really about quality and as he said in this article, you reward someone for the work they put in, you gotta make sure that they're rewarded for the work they put in.

I don't know if there's much more I can say about it, but I'm not trying to just take this opportunity to bash

Al Mohler, you know, cause I don't like Al Mohler or something. It's more, Al Mohler is not unique in this.

I see this quite a bit of Christian leaders who now post 2020, post all the things that happened and the damage that was created by decisions even they made, they want to come in as the solutions to those things.

And it's like, I don't, I don't trust you, man. Like you're not even admitting you're wrong in some cases.

I'm glad for the guys who have, by the way, there are some who have. Josh Howerton's one of them. He had a, he made a statement on his show,

I was wrong. That, you know, it takes a little humility. Start there, right? Start there and then build some trust up over time.

People make mistakes, that happens. Sometimes if you're in leadership, those mistakes have a lot more repercussions than they would if you were just a layman somewhere.

But people do make mistakes and there is severe pressure, especially in the moment. There's always social pressure to do things that please the crowd or please the elites or please whoever.

And you have to be someone, if you're a man of virtue, who says no to those things. Says, I'm gonna do what's right. I'm gonna, I have convictions.

I know where my responsibilities lie. They're to God first, then to my family, then to my country. And I'm gonna make the best decision, not just what gets me likes, clicks, popularity, that kind of thing.

So I wanted to say that. I hope some people can rise up who can bring the encouragement, right?

I suppose I'm one of those podcasts, hopefully. To some extent, I wanna bring the encouragement that, look, life isn't over.

God is working to put you in a wonderful country. Even if you're a young man, you are living in a wonderful country.

There are always opportunities, okay? Don't think that there's not. And one of the things you need to do is make sure that you are in a good place, physically, mentally, spiritually, so that you can take advantage of those opportunities.

Because all God requires is that you be faithful in the things that he's put in front of you.

And you can't change the world. Geopolitics is not gonna be the thing for most of you. It is gonna be working within the community that you live in, or changing that community if the

Lord wants you to move. So we need a lot more of that encouragement, obviously.

In fact, I'm in discussions now with some guys who I think are pretty good in the realm of business.

And I wanna do a podcast on this. Like, what are the opportunities out there for Christians, especially young men who wanna start out and they're not sure where to go?

The traditional mechanisms that would get you a job that could feed a family aren't as strong as they used to be.

So what do you do? That's a legitimate question. And it's one that we need to be thinking about. So there you go.

All right, let's, oh gosh. I got the comments coming in, guys.

I got the comments coming in. John Harris, gasp, had slaves. At one time, gasp, had slaves to mock a hundred years of suffering.

Would John Harris talk like this if he was a time machine into a black slave, into a,

I don't know, I don't know what that means. That's bad grammar. And had to be a slave for just 10 years. Yes, I probably would.

Look, the gasp is, this was an institution that existed for all of human history.

And really the question for Christians is, did James Boyce, sorry, not

James Boyce, but Boyce College, I don't think, it's not

James. It's, yeah, it is James, okay. I was thinking James Montgomery Boyce.

It's James Pettigrew Boyce, okay. Different middle name. All right, so anyway, did

James Pettigrew Boyce treat slaves well according to the law of God, according to how

Paul says slaves should be treated or not? That's really the main question here.

Did they abide by what scripture says about these kinds of things? Abusing is evil.

It's wicked. It should be condemned. It shouldn't, you know, you shouldn't be supporting obviously that kind of stuff in any way, shape or form.

But the real question for Christians, when they look back and they see the patriarchs, they see the members of the early church.

They see those within their history who participated in social hierarchies, labor hierarchies that existed in all the societies at the time, they need to ask themselves, were they

Christians in that? That's really the question. So yes, what happened at Southern Seminary was you had the mere fact that some of the people who were involved at the formation of that seminary either had slaves or were in churches where there were slaves.

That alone was enough to condemn the history to perdition. And to say, we need social policies to diversify now in it to correct this problem.

That's what I'm talking about. All right, well, Breitbart News. We already talked about that.

We talked about David French. Okay, leaving SBC land. Let's talk about SPLC land. SPLC, the

Southern Poverty Law Center. Now, some of you don't know what the Southern Poverty Law Center is. And I think it's important to let you know a little bit.

This is kind of the main thing I would say that they're known for. I've known about them for a long time because they have gone after organizations that I've been fairly supportive of.

You know, like even focused on the family, it's ridiculous. You know, here's their focus on the family page on the

Southern Poverty Law Center. They are anti -LGBTQ. Well, no kidding. They're a Christian organization.

And look at the horrible quotes. Things like, homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage.

It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the earth. All right, well, that's, they're a hate group.

They're a hate group. Maybe let's pick another one here, shorter quote. Contrary to the popular myth that homosexuality is genetic, same -sex attraction is a preventable and treatable condition.

Well, if you believe in sanctification and people turning from their sin, then yeah.

But that's evidence that they're a hate group, right? Okay, case in point. Here's the hate map.

So if you click on, let's say, let's click on Virginia. All right, since we'll be talking about Virginia soon.

What groups, what hate groups are in Virginia? Well, you got the American Immigration Control Foundation. I don't know anything about them, but they're anti -immigrant.

You got various family foundations, Constitutional Rights PAC, American Policy Center, Gun Owners of America, Moms for Liberty.

There you go, Moms for Liberty in Bedford County. That is a hate group. Moms for Liberty in another county.

So we got all the Moms for Liberty here. Okay, most of this is Moms for Liberty. All right, some of it.

There's like five Moms for Liberty here. You got, man, all of these different, the

John Birch Society. I'm trying to see if there's any I've even heard of. You got some various militia groups.

Well, there you go. This is the, oh, City Elders. City Elders is like a

Christian, I think it's mostly Pentecostal organization. They get together, immobilize for politics, pray, have prayer breakfasts.

City Elders is about Christian supremacy. So they're a hate group. So you get the point, right?

I just clicked on Virginia and that was kind of random. This is what the Southern Poverty Law Center does. They've been around since I think the late 70s.

They started out with litigation against, well, on behalf of minority groups who were not,

I think, mostly black people at the time because I think this was in Alabama.

And it was against institutions that wouldn't integrate, that wouldn't apply affirmative action policies.

It was that kind of thing. And then it shifted in the 1980s and especially the 1990s to then just include informing.

I don't know what year they started informing, but at some point they started informing the government, including the general government, the federal quote -unquote government.

They started informing them about the activity of quote -unquote hate groups.

So their bread and butter are things like the Klan, the neo -Nazi, various neo -Nazi groups,

I think like Patriot Front, white nationalist group like that, or the list goes on of these kind of more overt white supremacy type organizations.

And of course it's all, I mean, I don't, do they even focus on Black Panthers at all? I mean, maybe they,

I should have looked that up real quick because I'm not aware. Let me see, Southern Poverty Law Center. And then let's see if they have any page on the

Black Panthers. Maybe they do, but those are certainly not the groups that they tend to focus on.

It's not coming up in a, just a basic search. I'll put it that way. So I have a suspicion that they don't.

Not seeing anything here. It's mostly, I think, white adjacent type groups,

Christian groups, that kind of stuff. So that's the Southern Poverty Law Center. Now, one of the things that I've been told for years about the

Southern, like in circles that I'm in, right? And in heritage -related, like Southern heritage -related circles, like Sons of Confederate Veterans, those kinds of organizations,

Abbeville Institute. In those circles, there's sort of a, it's common knowledge.

I'll put it that way from my experience. So I was a member of the SCB at one time for like a year or two,

I guess. I don't know, it wasn't that long. But they're not a political group, they're a heritage group.

I was a member, not a member, but I've written for the Abbeville Institute in the past. I've been to some of their conferences and stuff.

Again, an educational group, a think tank, I guess, if you want to put it that way. They're kind of like Claremont, but they're

Southern more. And it's in those circles, the common perception of the

Southern Poverty Law Center is that they're manufacturing the kinds of things that they want to oppose.

So everyone I've ever known in those organizations has always been like sensitive to accusations of being in the

Klan or being adjacent to like neo -Nazis. Like they're very defensive of those kinds of things.

And they certainly don't want anyone to think that they or their organization is sympathetic with any of that, right?

That's the lay of the land, if you will, in those kinds of organizations. It is the same thing, as the

SPLC has become more anti -Christian, it's the same thing with these Christian groups. They don't want to be put in the same barrel with neo -Nazis.

They don't believe those things. They don't, they find those things repugnant, but based on the moral repugnancy

Americans feel towards neo -Nazis, they extend that out to heritage groups, groups that are pretty normal,

American flag -waving Christian groups that 20 years ago, no one would have batted an eye at all, even 10 years ago.

But when you lack the target to go after, you've got to create a target.

And so the perception was, and I've heard it many times, that the

SPLC is a hate group, that essentially they are behind the very things that they say that they oppose, that they need those things to justify their existence, that they spread the net so wide because they need more fuel for the fire.

They need more hate groups to justify going after hate groups and informing the government about, oh, there's another hate group.

And they drum up this whole thing about this rising hate, rising hate, at least for years they did, because it always has to be on the rise.

It always has to be this threat that's right out there so that you say, oh, we'll give you money, we'll donate to you, we'll listen to you.

You're the experts in how to fix this problem. Well, that's a little bit of an introduction to the

Southern Poverty Law Center just so you know who they are. And in the thumbnail, I think I included the

CEO of the organization or the president, I don't know what they call it. But this is the latest news on the

Southern Poverty Law Center. Eight hate group leaders, including the

KKK, this is from the New York Post, Imperial Wizard, and Neo -Nazi, got millions from the Southern Poverty Law Center as part of an informant scheme, the

DOJ says. Southern Poverty Law Center is accused of funneling millions of dollars to at least eight leaders and members of hate groups, including the

Klan and the Neo -Nazis, to act as informants, which one nonprofit leader likened to paying an arsonist to help put out a fire.

The Alabama -based nonprofit was charged by the Department of Justice with wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering conspiracy on Tuesday for allegedly hiding from donors the fact that it doled out more than three million over the course of nearly a decade to field sources tasked with infiltrating violent extremist groups.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel announced Wednesday.

So, this is kind of rich. They're paying informants things like, so here's one.

One informant was part of an online leadership chat group organizing the 2017 Unite the Right white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, and ending up posting racist comments on the

SPL's behest while also coordinating rides for others to attend per the indictment.

In total, the SPLC paid the informant 27 ,000 dollars between 2015 and 2023, the paper's claim.

A veteran informant from the Neo -Nazi National Alliance was paid one million over the same period and assisted the SPLC at one point by stealing 25 boxes of documents from the violent extremist group's headquarters, the filing alleges.

He worked as a fundraiser for the Neo -Nazi group according to the DOJ. So, they have a chart here. They have different groups like, you know, the

National Alliance got 1 ,300 ,000 K for the Aryan Nations, 270 K for Unite the

Right, former National Alliance chairman, 140 K. So, they got all these charts there. Another informant received more than 300 ,000 between 2014 and 2020 while serving as a

National Socialist Movement officer, so Nazi, and member of the Aryan Nations affiliated sadistic souls motorcycle club.

All right, and this just goes on and on. And it makes you wonder a little bit, like, there's that joke about someone says something that's outside the boundaries of what acceptable society, sometimes even what

Christian society should tolerate, and they're a Fed, right? They're a Fed, you can't trust them.

They're there to be the informant. Well, it wasn't just the federal government that had their people in various groups, including

Tea Party groups. It was also the SPLC. And you wonder, you know, groups like the

Oath Keepers, and I don't even know, like Proud Boys and so forth. Like, are there people in these groups that are there because they're being paid to be there, and they're being paid to make the group more prominent, to bring success to the group in some way, so that there's a justification for a crackdown on the group?

And I think the answer is most likely yes. And little things like this, this isn't even a little thing, but things like this do,

I think, support that kind of a theory, that there is a great interest in fanning the flames of these things so that there's a justified crackdown.

And what do crackdowns do? They give people more power. They actually, I mean, who comes out on top of these things?

Well, for years, the SPLC has come out on top, until Donald Trump came along and said, we're no longer going to have the

SPLC inform the general government on hate groups, et cetera. We're not letting it happen.

They don't have any moral credibility. They're going after James Dobson. They inspired, they're reporting on this stuff, inspired,

I think it was focused on the, no, it was American Family Association, I believe.

Let me just make sure I have the right organization. I think it was the American Family Association, and I think it was in Virginia a few years ago.

There was a shooting, and the shooter, let's see, it was Family Research Council. Okay, it was in that,

I get them confused sometimes because they're so similar. So it was the Family Research Council, and it was more than a few years ago, it was 2012.

Man, I'm getting old. But the shooter, it was in Virginia. And this was one of the things that people at the time said, is like, the

SPLC is the organization saying Family Research Council is a hate group, and next thing you know, someone's going to go shoot them up.

So Donald Trump did the right thing, and the right thing is happening now. Because what's happening now is, not only are they being exposed, but there is legal action being taken against them.

Now, I want indictments as much as you do. I'm hoping for that. I'm hoping someone gets fined or goes to jail.

There needs to be consequences for these things, and severe ones. And when

I say severe, it's actually not really severe that I mean. It's severe compared to what generally people get.

Like the punishment should fit the crime. The SPLC should be put out of business for what they've been doing.

Not only is it the height of hypocrisy, but it's meddled with our government policies, and it's time for them to be shut down.

And so if they're tied up with so much legal stuff that they shut down, good. That's what needs to happen.

So I voted for this. I know many of you voted for this. We want this stuff ended. We want this stuff exposed.

We're tired of the stupid stuff. We're tired of feeling like our options are crazy people over here, or crazy people over there.

The SPLC is funding both sides of these things, apparently. And it's gotta end.

All right. Well, I'm sure there's some reactions to this. So we'll get to them when we can.

Let's talk a little bit about this whole kerfuffle. It's more than a kerfuffle in Virginia. National Republicans dodged questions about Virginia ground game.

As locals allege, none of them spent any money. So we just had a vote in Virginia for redistricting.

And by a sliver, by a percentage point, the

Democrats get what they want, and they get an authorization to redraw the district lines.

Because remember, they couldn't do it before, because the court said they couldn't. And so they needed to take a vote to give authorization to the government of Virginia to now redraw the district lines.

This is being challenged. But if you see the map of these district lines, let's see if this article includes it.

I don't know if it does. I think I had an article that did. I'm not finding it now though.

It's crazy though. It's literally crazy. It is districts that have little bitty, little bitty, like a mile wide strip that goes, goes, goes, goes, and then gets to Fairfax County where you got like a lot of left leaning people to sway the vote of Heartland, Virginia.

And that's how the districts look. So you end up having, you end up redrawing these districts and it creates all kinds of problems because you have

Republicans who now live outside their district. Like, and now it's such a mess, guys.

It is such a mess on like the Republicans are fighting each other right now over that kind of thing. The Democrats are happy.

They're laughing at this stuff. But the national Republicans didn't think this was a fight worth fighting.

That's the issue here. It's like, this is a national issue though because if there's a redrawing of congressional districts to benefit the

Democrats, I think it's four congressional members will be Democrats. And if they're going to try to bring impeach

Trump or really whatever policy the Democrats want, if they get four extra, the Republicans lose four and the

Democrats gain four extra congressmen, then that's huge. And that's a big problem.

And this is a problem on so many levels. You also have the fact that,

I was actually just on the phone with someone who's in Virginia politics very deeply this morning. And this was a vote that they won.

They won the vote. If you look at voting day, they won, the Republicans. When all of a sudden though, late into the game, all these ballots are discovered, these mail -in ballots that wouldn't you know it, they're all for the redistricting.

It's the same tricks that we saw in 2020. It's, and this was on a razor's edge and you just needed enough ballots to sway it towards the

Democrats. But there is a Virginia judge who is saying no to this.

This is according to Fox News. Virginia court declares states redistricting was unconstitutional.

Republicans are cheering the circuit court victory in Virginia that showed Democrats redistricting efforts are not quite over yet despite a referendum.

Virginia circuit court judge, Jack Hurley, what a hero, ruled Wednesday, one day after the

Democrat redistricting referendum, that all votes for or against the proposed redistricting amendment were unconstitutional citing rules that impose certain requirements that the referendum did not meet.

There are a handful of cases making their way through the Virginia court system challenging the referendum. The Tazewell circuit court just ruled the referendum unconstitutional.

Let's see here. Shortly after the ruling came down, Virginia attorney general, Jay Jones, a

Democrat who beat, Jay, I don't even wanna talk about Jay Jones. What a bad guy. He said that his office will immediately file an appeal.

So this is a mess. Let's see.

I think that's basically what I wanted to share on this particular issue from Fox News.

And yeah, the final vote, just to give you an idea, 41 .46 % to 48 .54%.

That was the final vote. And the challenge is that this is a violation of Virginia constitution and state law on how constitutional amendments must be handled or referendums with specific timing notice and procedural requirements for legislative sessions that apparently they did not meet and a failure to meet a required 90 day public notice postage period.

So they rushed it. The election being scheduled was too early relative to when the amendment was passed.

The ballot question presented to voters was misleading. And the special session and house bill exceeding the general assembly's authority under Virginia's constitutional rules and code.

So hopefully this will stall this or stop it. It's just sad to me to see what's happening in Virginia.

And you know what else Spanberger's doing, the governor there. She has just put into effect or is trying,

I don't think this has actually passed yet. She wants to put into effect a state law that would allow the electoral college delegates to ignore the candidates who win the state.

So this is another thing that I'm keeping my eye on a little bit. If you have candidates, let's say in a presidential election, you have a candidate who wins the state, generally the slate of electors goes with the candidate.

And Virginia is trying to change that. Now, why would they change that? Wouldn't that hurt a

Democrat? Well, not if you are appointing the delegates. Not if you have influence over who the delegates are gonna be.

How they're gonna do that, I'm not exactly sure. But there's a lot of really weird stuff happening in Virginia.

And the Democrats, man, when they get in charge with super majorities, they do not hold back.

They're not fair players. They lock the door behind them and they throw the key away. That's who they are. And what's happening in Virginia now is similar to what happened in California years ago.

California used to be red. California has no shot at being red. Again, the

Democrats sewed it up. That's what they did in New York. I grew up in a situation in New York where during my childhood, when

I was, I'm trying to remember what it changed. I was probably an early teenager. But Republican had a,

New York had a Republican Senate. They had a Democrat assembly and they had a Republican governor. And that was the status quo for a while.

I mean, do you remember 9 -11? Some of you do, some of you weren't around. But I remember, I remember you had a

Republican president, a Republican mayor of New York and a Republican governor of New York. You had

Giuliani, Pataki and Bush. Those days are over, man. Those days are so over in New York.

And Virginians are gonna be saying that in 10 years, if something doesn't stop this. And so if you're in Virginia, I know some of you are battle -worn, you fought this last election, you keep fighting.

Don't just settle down. Because if you let the Democrats just make the decisions and you give up on all the electoral process, you don't get it back.

And Republicans need to play hardball with this stuff. You gotta realize this is, this is this political life and death struggle.

These people don't want to share a country with you. The hard left does not want to share power. They're not interested in it.

They're not interested in fair rules. They are only interested in winning and keeping power for themselves.

You have to view them that way. This isn't 1980. Okay, well, let us keep going.

Let us talk, what are we gonna talk about? Oh, I think we're gonna get into some of the Israel stuff.

You know what though? Well, let's do this and then I'll get to my article. Israel promotes biggest

LGBTQ festival ever in the Middle East near site of Sodom. The jokes write themselves.

Of course, it's sad though. It's not really even a joke. It's just, but why would you do it near the site of Sodom?

Like, I don't know, like it's pretty overt and blatant. And yes, which ministry was it?

It's their foreign ministry put out this particular tweet. I saw it when it first came out and I posted something against it.

But pride rises at the lowest place on earth. This June, the Dead Sea becomes pride land.

The biggest LGBTQ plus festival ever in the Middle East. Four days of nonstop celebration, community and connect.

Yeah, community and connection. Yeah, I'm sure I know what that kind of community and connection is gonna be. Israel celebrates its

LGBTQ plus community bigger than ever. Now, Tel Aviv is known to have, they're liberal,

Tel Aviv. It's interesting, for years, I would hear about this kind of stuff happening in Israel.

And then when you actually go there and you drive around, you realize there's hardly any rainbow flags. There's hardly any overt public support for this kind of thing until you get to Tel Aviv.

And then you're like, oh, this is like going to San Francisco or something in the United States, right?

If all someone saw in the United States was what San Francisco was putting out there, they would just think the

United States is completely overrun with transgenderism and homosexuality. However, you have a government that I, this is what

I think the motivation is here. And this is my honest, my opinion about it. I think the government of Israel thinks that they can score points in the

West by promoting this kind of thing. And by saying things like, well, the

Muslims, they're not as tolerant as we are on these matters. We're more like you on this, which obviously for Christians is completely abhorrent.

We look at that and say, that's absolutely evil. Why would you want to relish in your evil? I actually sent it to someone

I know in Israel and just said, this is the reason that you have a lot of normal God -fearing

Christians. And if you try to, if you try to make the case to them that Israel is somehow also socially conservative, that there's a commonality there, which on a private level,

I guess you could say most of them outside of Tel Aviv are, this is the kind of thing they're seeing from the government.

What do you think they're going to think? You know, like this is exactly the kind of thing that we look at here in the

United States as Christians. And we say that does not reflect anything remotely in line with godly teaching, let alone

Old Testament teaching. I mean, it's the authority that even the things that religious

Jews and Christians hold in common that they say, well, this is part of what we believe should reflect, should be reflected in our morality, the

Old Testament. This is so outside of those boundaries. Like it's abhorrent, it's evil.

Now, what does that mean to me as a American who dabbles in,

I'm not an expert by any stretch, but when a foreign policy issue comes up, I comment on it.

It means that Israel's like every other Western country, basically. I mean, that's their, I mean, are they

Western? Yeah, I guess in a sense, right? Like this is basically what France and England and Scotland and Ireland, unfortunately, the

British Isles and the Netherlands and Germany, and Poland's a different animal, and I don't know if they'd even consider themselves

Western, but this kind of individual self -realization and exploration and being unencumbered so you can actualize the self that's your authentic self in your sin and depravity, that's something the

West has swallowed wholesale. And there are reasons for it, but I think sufficient to say, this is something that if people in Israel, if people who are pro -Israel, even in the

United States, they think that Israel makes a good ally, and they want to persuade

Christians of that and continue that kind of relationship. I'm just telling you, these are massive roadblocks for any

Christian, myself included. I can see geopolitical reasons to maintain economic and even to some extent, military relationships with countries in Western Europe and Israel, but I'm not going to feel any kind of moral commonality with their governments if this is the kind of thing they think is worth promoting.

And that's just basic Christian morality 101. There's really nothing complicated about it, but that's the way it is.

So I feel that way about my own country when there's a Democrat in the Oval Office. I mean, it's like, why are we celebrating these things that are so evil?

We want the best for our country, and the best for our country, for any country, it's not just for mine, is strong families, not undermined by pornographic things, by sexual immorality, those things break up families.

We want strong families where children are, they grow up in a wholesome environment, and then they make strong families.

That's the only way your culture survives, by the way. You can even have a bad government, or you can have all kinds of things against you if you keep doing that, if you keep having kids and raising them in good environments till they grow up and they're solid and steady and convictional

Christians, that's how you win, ultimately. It is a numbers game to some extent, and that is what is required for civilization to continue.

You can have the best government in the world, and if you don't have that basic element, then your civilization will die.

It is a life or death thing. So government's promoting these things, that's on the death end of it.

This doesn't lead to families and children, and it just, it breaks those things apart.

That's just a practical thing, let alone God hates it. All right, I'm gonna get into my article a little bit on, for those confused, what

I actually argued about ethnic Israel. But first, I will take some questions, and we'll go from there.

Calming the Waves said, "'How do you know the ballots are not legit? "'Is this channel just conspiracy thinking all day?'

That's what it is, all day long. Well, I mean, the reality of the situation is, my source is a friend who is deep into Virginia politics and connected to the highest levels of Virginia politics.

So I'm basically telling you what he told me, and I have no reason to doubt what he's saying.

People who are listening to the podcast are not required at all to believe that this is a valid thing, necessarily.

I mean, I think you can go do your homework, but it is true, this is, you have to have a paradigm that makes sense of circumstances, okay?

So the circumstances are that the Republicans were winning the entire day until there were ballot drops of mail -in ballots at the end, which, when they were counted in Fairfax County, were over, yeah, it was

Fairfax, were overwhelmingly for the redistricting. Now, you could say, maybe just everyone in Fairfax County just decided to do, like, or a large majority of people, or a large percentage,

I should say, people in Fairfax County decided to do mail -in ballots for whatever reason, and it's just the mail -in ballot people, for some reason, slant so hard left.

In fact, let me see if I can look up how hard left, if I can look it up real quick, because this is really the issue.

It's like, the mail -ins are the easiest to fudge, break down by vote, okay.

Election day in person, let's see, according to, okay, according to NBC News, if early in election day in -person voting slanted 53 % to 47 % against the redistricting, the mail -in ballots and absentee ballots, 73 % to 27%.

Guys, that's crazy, 73 to 27%. Why in the world are the 298 ,000 mail -in ballots, how come they slant so heavy?

Now, maybe that's just the way that mail -in ballots work. It's just the people who happen to do that.

Mail -in ballots are submitted by people who are very hard left.

I mean, and it's just like, but it's overwhelming, guys. That's absolutely overwhelming. And I think it should probably arouse some kind of suspicion that why are the percentages so different than the people who actually take the time to go in?

You'd think that the people who take the time to go in are the ones who care about it the most, on average, right?

You have people who are traveling and stuff, but in general, I mean, the absentee thing's supposed to be a mechanism for I'm not around and need to fill out a ballot.

That's a lot, 300 ,000 people, that's a lot of people to be absent. And ballot harvesting has been going on for years.

The Democrats are really good at it. It has the markings of what would be a ballot harvesting effort.

So is that a conspiracy? Yeah, some conspiracies are legitimate and grounded in,

I think, actual reasons. And then some conspiracies are just wackadoodle and have no bearing in any kind of, they're not in touch with reality.

They're just throwing slop at the wall. There's a lot of that online, but you have to make sense of that somehow.

There has to be a paradigm that makes sense of why those percentages are so off. That's really the point. So, okay.

I got some good comments here. Mail -in ballots are the

Dems' way of getting low -motivation minorities who normally don't vote to cast votes. NGOs go around and basically ballot harvest in urban areas.

We'll get to the ethnic Israel stuff a little later, cosmic treason. Let's see, what else do we got?

I'm not seeing a lot of questions. I'm seeing a lot more comments and some cries of outrage that aren't that interesting. Nowhere was

Shabbat changed to Sunday morning. An additional tradition, not by command, was noted regarding Sunday morning.

I don't know if this is, I do get pushback if I say Happy Lord's Day. And that's all I say is

Happy Lord's Day. I don't call it Shabbat, but I get all these comments, though, saying that some of them will say it's the day of the devil and that Saturday is the real day that you should be,

I guess, in church and counting as a day of rest. Has the SPLC focused on black

Hebrews? They are very anti -white, anti -Semitic. I don't know. I don't know if they have. I would think probably not, but maybe.

All right, well, let's move on. Let's talk about the Israel stuff. And let's get right to it.

And I will take questions, by the way, at the end of the podcast. We're an hour and 10 in, and this is a long one.

I don't want to go more than an hour and a half, so I'd like to be over in the next 20 minutes. Realistically, it'll probably be 25 minutes.

But this is really only for those, so here's what I'll say. Feel free to leave the podcast right now if you don't care or if you're just someone who watched my presentation or read my article on the new anti -Jewish theology and you're like,

I get it, you're probably fine. I had some opposition from,

I didn't see any serious opposition, but I did see some opposition from people who took issue with that.

And there was a lot of personal attacks and stuff like that that I don't find interesting at all. It's just, it was baseless.

But there were a few things I thought, you know what, I'll take this. It's a little more substantive,

I suppose, and I'll answer this. And I did it really for, I don't know how many people there are, but the people who might be listening to some of those criticisms and also watching my stuff and feel vexed about it and not sure what to think.

So I wrote this for you, and I don't know if I'll read all of it, but I'll sort of skim through it.

So I talk about my piece, and the piece, it's pretty obvious what my piece was, and it's on my

Substack. It was just called the, what was the title of it? It was on the

Anti -Jewish Theology Online. It was, so if you just Google that, you'll find it, but with my name and Substack.

I said, I identified four main components of this. First, the belief that ethnic Jews presently represent a universal evil.

Universal is a big, that's the sort of category. Second, a failure to pursue

Jewish evangelism in light of that belief. So for example, after 9 -11, there was a big push to evangelize

Muslims. I remember, I was in church. I remember all of a sudden we were doing this Muslims apologetics things, right?

But you don't have that with this. Third, the claim that there are no remaining promises for ethnic

Jews connected to Christ's second coming. So like God's just completely done.

They're completely out of the picture. And then fourth, a diminishing of importance and authority of the Old Testament.

And I also addressed the denial of Christ's Jewish identity and his future return, which are not as common, but do exist.

So I addressed those issue and I say in this, my goal was to help Christians in my circles who participate in online environments where they are exposed to these ideas to understand the theological and historical guardrails as clearly as possible, because this is a developing issue.

I also sought to persuade those who are beginning to move in this direction to reconsider. For that reason, I deliberately avoided making the matter personal, since I did not want to distract from the substance of the argument, especially in an environment where the cement has not fully hardened.

And by the way, you see Paul doing this. You see Jesus doing this at times. I think there is sort of a group that thinks like, you should always name names.

And I don't have problems naming names. I do all the time. I don't think you should always do it though necessarily. Sometimes people's minds shut off and sometimes it's best to try to get people to focus on reason, argument, fact.

And so that's what I was trying to do with this. So in response, I provided a biblical and historical survey of how our theological forebears understood the special place

God has for ethnic Israel and the nature of the in -gathering. I also offered some of my own reflections on the protection clause of the

Abrahamic covenant and how Christians should think about the modern state of Israel in relation to it. As anticipated, the article in my presentation on it proved helpful for Christians who are since these tectonic shifts.

And it also, there was some people who are unsettled because they understand what they're doing is opposition to dispensationalism and Zionism.

And they think that this is a support for those things. I've not seen what I consider serious responses. At the same time,

I recognize there are, I've already talked about this. Okay, so let's just get into the objections. Okay, so objection number one, you attacked covenant theology and promoted dispensational and Zionism.

Dispensationalism, there you go, and Zionism. So first of all, I hardly talked about dispensationalism because that is not what the article is about.

The assumption here is incorrect for several reasons. First, my focus was almost entirely on predispensationalist thinkers. The only two dispensationalists

I cited, J. Vernon McGee and Charles Ryrie, were both critical of the idea that the modern state of Israel represented a spiritual restoration.

Second, while Christian Zionism and dispensationalism are often conflated, they are not the same thing. And so I go over some of this.

There is a general modern affinity that dispensationalists and evangelicals more broadly share for Israel, viewing it as a preserver of Christian sites, a bulwark against Islam, and a fulfillment of prophecy for some.

Yet the prophetic expectation itself traces back to predispensational thinkers and was not strongly reflected in the founders of dispensationalism.

John Darby, for example, believed that restoration would take place only after the rapture. Likewise, C .I.

Schofield's associate, Arno Gabelin, regarded Zionism as establishing the conditions for prophecy but not prophecy itself.

Prior to World War II, some dispensationalists expressed views that would today be considered anti -Semitic. Even in Moody Magazine, by the way,

I talked about this in my episode on Zionism, Christian Zionism. And it's amazing what you see before World War II.

You see dispensational thinkers spreading, like even legitimizing portions of the protocols of the elders of Zion and things like that.

So there's a lot of stereotypes out there. Historically, they don't hold water really.

There's like a very modern situation and it's a very politicized situation that people are engaging in.

And as a result, I think they're not doing careful theology or history. That's to be expected. But I give you just a little bit here that I think would be helpful.

William E. Blackstone was among the first major dispensationalist figures to strongly support Zionism in the late 19th century, but it was not until the 1970s as mainline support for Israel declined that dispensationalists became more closely associated with political

Zionism rather than simply prophetic expectation. And you can watch my podcast on Christian Zionism where I talk about all this.

One of the things that's interesting about this to me is the fact that I think overall, more broadly after the

Holocaust especially, and then the formation of the state of Israel and the way that Israel won initial battles, 1948, then in 1956, and then in 1967, and then in 1973, what you had in those situations was a country that should not have won and winning in, and I use the language seemingly miraculous ways.

And all that means, I mean, I would say that about, you know, Valley Forge or, you know,

I don't know, even like the siege of Vienna. Like there's a lot of battlefield stories that you're just like, they shouldn't have won and they won.

How is this possible? And I think Israel had a sequence of those things.

Like they almost look miraculous. They're so against the odds and they won anyway.

Now it doesn't mean it's a miracle necessarily. That's why I use the word seemingly, but hey, like it's, we believe that God has providence and intervenes and this is just strange.

And so I think after those events, and there was a lot of tourism to Israel, a lot of Christians going there to study the

Holy Land sites or Christian sites, there is an affinity that started to grow.

And I think overall though, if you had a category for this, it wasn't just archeological discoveries.

It wasn't just going to Israel and experiencing these sites where Jesus walked, as important as those things are.

I think politically speaking, the Holocaust had just happened. And in general, Americans viewed

Israel as the underdog. And this is something Americans just, we've always had this kind of affinity for the underdog.

We see ourselves as the underdog in our historical fights. I mean, we just like a good story where the guys who shouldn't win, win.

And we tend to resonate with that. I think that's why wokeness resonated at first with a lot of America, even normal everyday

Americans. Like there's sort of this affinity just for underdogs. And then when you burn down half the, when you have the largest insurance payouts in American history, because of the damage done by the protests,

Americans, all of a sudden the roles are reversed. And the aggressors are now Black Lives Matter.

And the Me Too situation, they start getting careless. And I mean, they were careless from the beginning, but they started accusing everyone.

And Americans, normal Americans start saying, well, they're the aggressors. They're no longer the underdogs. The LGBT movement, same thing.

As soon as they lost their underdog status and started doing all these transgender library hours to kids, they lost that status.

And I think that's what's happened starting in the 1970s with Israel. Israel had an underdog status.

They're surrounded by all these countries that are bigger than them, more powerful, bigger GDPs, et cetera, and that don't want them to live.

And there's a sort of like a sympathy the United States feels with this. And then though, you have

Gaza. And Gaza now has become the underdog. They're under the thumb of Israel.

Israel is a quote -unquote apartheid state. Israel is engaged in quote -unquote genocide and quote -unquote carpet bombing. And you see how the mainstream media has been working on that for years.

And now it's shifted because Gaza is the underdog. And I think that's, you can actually see,

I think a lot of times the eschatology, the theological beliefs related to that tend to follow these political things.

And you see that even with the rise of post -millennialism and the optimism associated with it, and we're

Christianizing the globe and then dispensationalism with like, oh, like World War I happened.

And like, I guess we shouldn't be as optimistic. And you see these flavors kind of ebb and flow over time.

That's at least how I see it. That's the long view historically. But if you had any kind of definitive category for what happened with support for Israel and then disdain for Israel, I think a lot of it comes back down to sympathizing with the underdog.

All right, so that's a freebie. Wasn't part of my article, but the major assumption is that dispensationalism uniquely affirms special promises for ethnic

Israel, whereas covenant theology does not. This may function as a simplified theological character, but it does not match the historical record.

The reality is that before, covenantal and dispensational theologies were systematized and covenantal theology was like 17th century.

It starts to get systematized. Dispensationalism is of course 19th century. But before that, there were early church fathers who believed in future promises for ethnic

Israel. There were also covenant theologians who held to such expectations. Even today, renewalist

Zionists who not only possess an expectation, but also see themselves as working to promote Israel's restoration, as represented by groups like the

International Christian Embassy, Jerusalem, and figures such as the late Derrick Prince are not dispensationalists.

My purpose in the original article was to respond to rising theologies that strongly reject ethnic Jews or the promises made to them.

If I were promoting dispensationalism, I did a poor job. Okay, what else do I say? If I were promoting

Zionism, I would likely be out of step with many modern Zionists for stating there is nothing in scripture that requires

Christians or Christian -influenced nations to support the modern nation state of Israel politically in order to receive blessing.

It is unknown whether the success of the state of Israel is leading to a spiritual restoration. So I said that in the original article.

That, for some reason, some people didn't seem to notice. I do not expect the more crazed elements online to distinguish these features.

There is a persistent and fairly ignorant flattening of anything that could be perceived as pro -Israel into a supposed dispensationalist plot.

Dispensationalism itself is often mistaken for dual covenant theology, and Zionism is reduced to unqualified military support for Israel.

I have been somewhat critical of Jerry Falwell, who I generally have respect for because of his accepting an airplane from Israel during the premiership of Begin, but that does not seem to matter to a crowd that possesses a remarkable ability to spot supposed

Zionist schemes even on the McDonald's menu. Okay, so a little bit, I try to keep the satire and the sarcasm down.

I have a little bit of it, just a little, just enough. All right, so objection two, all the promises are fulfilled in Christ.

So here's my other sarcasm. I say, no kidding. Here's the second sentence of my original article.

We are fairly inoculated here against errors stemming from date setting, dual covenant theology, in which Jews can be saved apart from belief in Jesus, and the uncritical political support for Israel as a religious tenant.

Here is what I wrote at the end of the fifth paragraph, where I anticipated objections like this. I said, you will see regular re -articulations of the exclusivity of Christ for salvation or the fact that Christians are following the true

Jewish religions as if these are relevant points or are being denied by those who also believe that God has a future plan for Israel.

And then it was too many quotes, so I just summarized. Throughout the rest of the article, I repeatedly show how restoration must include salvation in Christ and any relevant land promise is ultimately fulfilled in Christ sitting on David's throne.

So the issue is not whether all the promises are fulfilled in Christ. They clearly are. The issue is whether God has national promises for ethnic

Israel connected with the belief in Christ. And this, to me, this was so obvious and so assumed, but this is, unfortunately some people seem to think that if you have, like anyone who thinks that there's an ethnic element to a promise that God has, then it is by definition somehow articulating a dual covenant theology of some kind.

Like you can be saved apart from that or there's for unconverted people are now, they are included in this promise.

You can have unconverted people that are included in blessings to some extent because there is fruit from the blessings.

You can have people who returned to rebuild Jerusalem with Ezra and Nehemiah that were not, they had not had their hearts pricked yet by Nehemiah, by Ezra rather.

The law had not been rediscovered and they're going back. You have, even in the, you can say this in the modern church even, that there are people who experience the blessings of what it means to be in the visible church from God in blessing that church and being with people who are stable

Christians and so forth when they are not converted. The promises aren't for them, but they still are benefiting from the byproducts of those promises, the blessings connected to them.

They are, in the case of Israel, and this is, I mean, I think I cite Charles Spurgeon later on in the article saying this, but Charles Spurgeon said, look, they're gonna come back to the land and then they're gonna be saved, which is kind of similar to the pattern

I guess you see in Ezra and Nehemiah. Okay, so what does that mean?

Is that the promises are for these unbelieving Jews? Well, no, but it's like there's unbelieving

Jews who are going to benefit from some of the, and as it were,

I suppose, not just benefit, but suffer under the whatever deprivations may be there because they are part of this stepping stone to coming back into the land and a spiritual restoration.

So those are two different things, but I think some people think like, if you believe what many people throughout church history have believed, that God has a special promise, a special relationship with this nation that he doesn't have with other nations.

Just even in Romans nine through 11, like God doesn't say that about Zambians, right? He's not saying that about other countries.

He's not saying that about even Persians or local people in the Middle East. He's saying it about Israel.

Israel, why, right? That's not dual covenant theology. It's only in Christ.

There's one vine, okay? And it's only in Christ. And these promises are fulfilled, ultimately, all of them in Christ.

He's the one that sits on David's throne in the Davidic kingdom. Any land promise that you think might be there, it's going to be

Christ's kingdom. So that probably shouldn't have had to be said, but I think

I need to say it because what would happen is if you believed that just the argument

Paul's making in Romans nine through 11 is the posturing and it's positioning and introducing kind of like this dual new covenant, this special status outside of Christ for unbelieving

Jews, if you go down that road, you're going to have to excise all of church history, basically.

The majority of church history, those people are gone because they're gonna be guilty of this. That's how they interpreted it.

All right, objection, Romans nine through 11 is not about God's keeping promises to ethnic Israel.

So yeah, there's a few comments about this. Like, well, you're missing the point of Romans nine through 11. It's not about that.

It's just about people who are Christians being now included. Well, that's, if you just read the text, you won't have that.

There are several things taking place in Romans nine through 11, but the passage does not include Paul arguing that ethnic Israel remains secure in the promises

God made to them. He grounds this in the preservation of the spiritual remnant and in the future in gathering that has not yet been completed.

Realities that are not promised to any other ethnic group. These promises are in no sense detached from Christ as I affirmed in my initial piece.

The apostle writes in Romans nine six, it is not as though the word of God has failed. Then in Romans 11, one through two, has

God rejected his people by no means? Paul is clearly responding to an objection that God has failed to keep his promises.

And this is so key guys, you just gotta read the context. Paul has, there's a hypothetical person giving objections to Paul that he is responding to.

If you miss that in the text, then you will get the text wrong. And those are the objections.

As the argument continues. So he refers to ethnic Jews at the opening of chapter 11. As the argument continues, he says in Romans 11, 28 through 29, as regards to gospel, they are enemies for your sake, but as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers for the gifts and the callings of God are irrevocable.

This section, Romans, is Paul introducing a dual covenant there? What's going on? This section,

Romans nine through 11 follows the golden chain of redemption. And then no one can separate passages. So context guys,

Romans eight. The whole, you read the whole chapter, go read it if you haven't. No one can separate you from the love of Christ.

There's who God ordained to be saved, who he elected, who he foreknew, will be eventually glorified.

There's nothing that can break that chain. That's the context. So God has these promises in place.

Then Romans nine through 11 follows this. And the point is that God keeps his salvific promises.

Paul explains this and shows how God is keeping his word through a historical remnant, the grafting in of Gentiles and a final restoration.

As I wrote in the original article, Gentiles who believe are now spiritual Jews, but Paul also reminds us that ethnic Jews are not rejected in this arrangement because a remnant, this is key, a remnant of believing

Jews exists and the promise of restoration remains, meaning you're going to have, it's so key, you're going to have people who are unbelieving

Jews become believing Jews. That's where that, those are the promises. The argument that Paul's point concerns only spiritual

Israel. So that's you and me, if we're Christians, understood as a body that transcends ethnic distinctions, misses the force of the objection he is addressing in the passage.

The categories he employs, the remnant, the partial hardening and the future restoration are not applied to any other nation.

That's something people have to deal with. You may not like it, but that's the reality. That's just what Paul's talking about there. Okay, objection.

Is the Abrahamic covenant irrevocable or not? So I wrote this in the original article. Leviticus 26 says before the spies entered the land of Canaan, God tells

Moses that he will eventually punish the nation of Israel for their disobedience by exiling them to the land of their enemies, where they will subsequently repent of their sin and return to enjoy the blessings of the

Abrahamic covenant. Okay, so I'm summarizing there. The five verses at the end of Leviticus 26.

Now remember Leviticus 26, it's blessings and curses. It's Mosaic covenant. Then at the end, all of a sudden the

Abrahamic covenant is introduced. And I just summarize for you what God says pertaining to it.

Now, is the Abrahamic covenant irrevocable? This is so simple to me, and I'm almost surprised this was an objection, but let me,

I can kind of see it though. I can kind of see it as I think through it. I can say like, okay, if you said like you're gonna, well, let me use an example that's like close to home for fathers since I'm in this.

If I told my daughter, you know, you're going to get a snack or you're gonna get a snack after daddy gets done doing yard work, right?

Am I putting conditions on her that her performance is going to either lead to or not lead to a snack?

No, I'm not putting any conditions on her. Are there conditions? Only in the sense that there's a chronology that must take place.

So they're not conditions in, they're not conditions in the sense of requirements for her.

They're conditions in the sense of there's an occasion that needs to happen, and that's what you have here. So, and I give another example in the article for like,

I just say, look, if you're gonna get your diploma, you've done the work, you're gonna get it, but you're only gonna get it on graduation day.

The conditions for getting the diploma aren't dependent on your performance. It's not like you have conditions you're under that you must meet.

Those have all been met. It's just a timing issue. So I thought that was kind of obvious, but apparently not to everyone.

There's another thing here too, though. There are two basic problems. And the first one is this. There's a conflation,

I think, of the conditional Mosaic covenant with the blessings and curses, because the Mosaic covenant does have that. You're blessed if you follow

God, you're cursed if you don't, with the unconditional Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant doesn't have those things as part of it.

So I don't know, it's a simple thing, but I figured I would at least connect the dots for people who might not be aware of that.

Objection, you misrepresented historical figures. So there was an objection that I cherry picked people like Justin Martyr, Tuturlian, Augustine, and Charles Spurgeon, obviously didn't.

Let me give you some, just run through what they believed.

Tuturlian believed that Jews were cast off because of their sin, yet he also affirmed a future restoration of ethnic

Israel marked by favor, acceptance, blessing, and salvation at Christ's second coming. He did not hold to a view of permanent rejection.

Similarly, in dialogue with Trifo, Justin Martyr makes it clear that unbelieving Jews should not expect salvation, but a time would come according to Zechariah when in Jerusalem, they would repent.

Augustine opposed unbelieving Jews while also holding to a future conversion where the Jews shall believe in the true

Christ. Augustine explains that this is a familiar theme in the conversion, I should say conversation and heart of the faithful.

In other words, it was commonly held among Christians. He says that the prophet

Elias will give the Jews a spiritual explanation of the law and persuade them to leave their present carnal understanding so they should then love the son of God who is our

Christ. Spurgeon, he had disagreements with John Nelson Darby and the

Plymouth Brethren that were primarily related to what he regarded as their schismatic temperament, their view of the atonement and their lack of evangelistic emphasis.

The assumption seems to be though that since I am allegedly arguing for dispensationalism, which

I already cleared up I wasn't, and Spurgeon opposed Darby's dispensational system, I should have included those disagreements.

And that assumption fails though at the outset. I was not arguing for dispensationalism, Spurgeon's criticisms and his 1869 writings do not meaningfully engage

Darby's view on ethnic Israel in any way that is relevant to my argument. There are to be sure places where Spurgeon resists certain ways of dividing the people of God before and after Christ's first coming, but those concerns are not germane to the specific point

I was making. Interestingly, Charles Spurgeon's expectation of a political restoration of the Jews to their own land, followed by a spiritual restoration aligns more closely with many modern

Zionist views than with the position of John Nelson Darby. Because remember Darby thinks you got to have this rapture happening.

So there's no reason to work towards in a political sense, anything related to Israel or palace.

Like why, why would you do that? Like, in fact, that's the same thing for Schofield.

He wasn't active in any Zionist organization or politically supporting the return of Jews to the

Levant. You don't see those things in those guys. Spurgeon, if you read more of Spurgeon, he blesses those who evangelize

Israel. He thinks that they have, there's like a special work that they're doing, special in like, not just like it's, it's good to evangelize everyone, but it's something unique and particular that they're doing that's special.

And he has this expectation that there's going to be this, this in -gathering that's going to happen in Jerusalem or this return,

I should say. And then, and then the in -gathering, then the salvation. So I quoted a broad range of people,

Kiliasts, millennialists, post -millennialists, and they're all proving the point that I am making, that there is a broad consensus against the view that God is finished with ethnic

Israel. That's the whole point. So I allegedly misrepresented theologians who believe the protection clause also apply to the church, such as John Calvin and Matthew Henry, even though I quoted them on this very point.

So I obviously did not misrepresent them, especially since I acknowledged their position. I simply disagreed with them and argued my case, and I do not regard them as outside of orthodoxy, nor do

I believe the call to evangelize or to avoid arrogance towards Jewish people, like Romans 11, 18 says not to do, necessarily needs to be rooted in a protection clause.

All right, so it's sort of key. And I said this in my presentation towards the end, I'm like, okay, I'm gonna give you, based on this theology, and it was a biblical survey, and based on a survey of church history,

I'm gonna give you how I think, how I approach my application of these things. But I wasn't saying that people

I literally quoted as taking a different interpretation than me on the protection clause are now, like I'm using them to, like,

I'm not. I'm saying I disagree with them on that point, and here's why I disagree, and I'm making an argument. But engaging with arguments can be hard.

It's easier just to smear people. All right, objection. There are preterists in church history. I'm not gonna spend a lot of time on this.

Obviously, there's preterists in church history. This basically goes along with, like I said, it's not until the late 20th century you see the idea that the in -gathering took place before 70

AD. That's true, and I was told that Matthew Henry, Richard Baxter, John Lightfoot, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Augustine would all disagree with me.

So I go through them piece by piece. Matthew Henry repeatedly uses language such as when the fullness of time has come, they will be taken in again, and the conversion of the

Jews will bring great joy to the church. That really sounds like he thinks this has all happened before 70

AD. Richard Baxter comes the closest because he does believe that this has been fulfilled, but it wasn't before 70

AD. And I would add this, in Richard Baxter's own words, by the way,

I'm not a big Richard Baxter fan at all because of his views on justification. He is a ground your justification in the works you do after conversion guy.

And I have never liked Richard Baxter. I've never appealed to Richard Baxter on anything that I can think of.

And I just don't even cite him because I just don't see him as, I don't know how to,

I don't wanna say he's not a Christian, but he's, like even the reformed pastor guys, like I know there's some fans out there, but it just seems to me like being the chaplain in Cromwell's army and then having to go and like sort of like make sure that everyone's not, like they're all doing the right thing.

It's like heavy law stuff. I gotta like police everyone, heavy law, make sure that they're keeping the law.

And I don't think he had a good grace preaching. It was heavy. Like you gotta make sure you upkeep a certain level of morality to make sure that you're still got your status of being saved.

That's what I see in Richard Baxter. So that's why I don't really tend to quote him. But on his view on this, he admits, he says that his friends warned him that he might lose his reputation for holding the position he holds.

And this is the position he holds. He believes that the Jews were under spiritual blindness until the empire of the

Roman world fell into Christian hands. So you're talking like Constantine is the ingathering. So it's much later than 70

AD, but this is a very novel view. And I also say, look, I didn't quote Thomas Aquinas in this for a reason.

And even though Thomas Aquinas affirmed a future ingathering, he was open to the fulfillment of the land promises, but he also had weird views on transubstantiation and purgatory, et cetera.

And so I just left those guys out. So I would caution people about taking this very novel view from Richard Baxter and being like,

I'm gonna build a theology off of that. John Lightfoot held to an ongoing salvation of believing Jewish remnant throughout the church age.

Martin Luther did not hold a fixed position, but I couldn't find anything that said he believed it all. This was all fulfilled before 70

AD. He kind of, he vacillated in his views and I don't even know where he wound up when he died.

John Calvin affirmed an ongoing and yet to be fulfilled ingathering. So he factors into the exact, in fact,

I even cite him. Augustine did not affirm, who did affirm a future more widespread conversion of the

Jews also. All right, so none of these guys affirmed that view. So basically what

I said in the article is completely accurate. Objection, you associate Muslims and black

Hebrew Israelites with views you are critiquing. This is kind of weird because like I'd mentioned them in passing mostly.

The Muslim thing, I just mentioned how Muslims view the Abrahamic covenant. And I did that because if you haven't noticed on X, especially, there is a growing affinity that self -proclaimed

Christians seem to have for Muslims, especially Tucker. And one of the things Tucker, I caught it when he was talking to Mike Huckabee, he said is that, he corrected

Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee says, well, the promise to Abraham. And Tucker was like, oh, Abram. It's to Abram's descendants actually.

And it was on the land issue that they're talking about. And I'm like, wait, that's, you know, as Christians believe that, and because the

Bible says it, that the promises are through Isaac because, and God even changes

Abram's name to Abraham on that occasion to denote the promises are to Isaac.

So all I was doing was I wasn't saying that any Christian necessarily believes this, but I'm saying like, because of the conditions we're in right now online, you should probably be aware this is what

Muslims think about this. You may hear this stuff. That's, and there wasn't, there was no motive of like, oh,

I'm gonna like smear my Christian opponents, quote unquote, by saying they're the same.

They're in the same category as Muslims. I'm not doing that. I'm just saying Christians should be prepared for the

Muslim understanding of this. Same with black Hebrew Israelites. I mentioned in passing, they have an

Edomite theory about the Jews and how they're, you know, the real Jews are, or the people who think they're

Jews are Edomites. The real Jews in that case are them. And there's other groups who also believe that.

My first exposure to that belief was black Hebrew Israelites. So I'm just saying as the author, that's where I first heard about it.

I'm not trying to smear by saying that, like everyone who

I disagree with must agree somehow with the black Hebrew Israelites. And that's somehow like delegitimizing everything.

No, they, there's literally a shared belief that black Hebrew Israelites have. It's a similar belief to like British Hebrew or British Israelism and other

Christian identitarian stuff. So I don't know. Like, it's just, it's just a dumb, it's in my opinion, it's a dumb objection.

It's kind of a desperate one. Objection, you advocate the Galatian heresy. Now this is a serious thing. If I advocate the

Galatian heresy, I'm a heretic. You know, I am outside of the boundaries of orthodoxy.

So how can someone say that? Well, supposedly my article advocates the Galatian heresy by pointing out that religious

Jews expected facets of Christ's second coming during his first coming. I kid you not. Because religious

Jews thought that the blessings of the millennium or the, depending on your eschatology, the final state, that these blessings are gonna come and the

Messiah is gonna usher them in. They didn't see two comings. They saw one coming of the Messiah. Because I saw that, and I think that what they were looking for, this political and more like this physical kingdom, that that's gonna happen on Christ's second coming.

Because I pointed this out, somehow I'm advocating the Galatian heresy. Now, we gotta know what the

Galatian heresy is. Here's what I write in Social Justice Goes to Church, right? Because it's a different gospel.

And Paul says that in Galatians 1 .6. Here's a summary that I've written about the Galatian heresy. The threat to the

Galatian church was an attempt to combine faith in Christ with a requirement to keep the law, especially circumcision, for the purpose of justification.

Paul argued that trusting in human ability to keep the law was both impossible and dangerous. Instead, he preached the good news that Christ redeemed those who live by faith in him from the curse of the law.

That's, I think, that's my summary. I think I give it an A. I mean, it's mine, but maybe a

B. Maybe I could have done better. But that is the Galatian heresy, essentially. Now, here's also what I said in the article.

I literally say this in the article. Paul continued Jewish practices like circumcision, taking vows and participating in temple purification rites.

But he insisted that such observances were not required for salvation. Let me read that again. They are not required for salvation.

The ceremonial distinctions of the Mosaic law were completely fulfilled in Christ, such as animal sacrifices for forgiveness or dietary restrictions that bar

Gentiles from participating in the covenant community. So literally, guys, against Judaizers, against the

Galatian heresy here, nowhere in my article do I combine law and gospel. The belief that Christ will return to establish his earthly kingdom is not the

Galatian heresy. Some, there are social justice advocates who will advocate for it. And I was trying to think,

I was like, what could possibly be, what would the Galatian heresy look like among a pro -Zionist crowd?

What would that look like? I guess you could say it's required. If someone said it's required for salvation, it's part of your identity of being a

Christian, you have to do some kind of, hold some kind of belief in restoring

Jewish people to the land or giving money to it or doing, like, I guess

I could see that, but like, obviously I'm not doing that. So it's just sloppy stuff.

All right, so in the conclusion, I just basically say, look, there's a lot of slop.

My encouragement is whatever your theological background, make your understanding your top priority and limit your attention to platforms that encourage that aim.

And we're living in a time, I think, when there is more focus on the Jewish people in Israel than I can remember in my lifetime, even at the height of the religious right activism.

And that's true, man. There is more talk about this stuff than I've ever seen. So it's not my preferred subject.

It might not be yours, but it's worth becoming familiar with the key passages and then arriving at your own convictions on this.

And I would encourage you to read broadly, read honestly, do the reading. I remember when I was taking ancient heresies course in seminary, reading dialogue with Trifo.

And I just remember thinking like, man, you have to know your Bible so well to argue with a religious Jew. Could I do it?

And that's something that I think is something we should all ask. Would I be able to show someone from the

Old Testament, Jesus is the Messiah, that salvation through him is through him and not through keeping the law, right?

And these are worthwhile things to, even for your own personal sanctification, I think getting into the

Bible never hurt anyone. So to reiterate my original point that I made in the original article, if Jews are as wicked as some people claim, then this should only further motivate us to speak the truth and love by sharing the good news.

And I do remember after 9 -11, I had the emphasis on doing that for Muslims. Like we were just attacked and you know what?

These people need the Lord. I mean, at least in the circles I was in. And I just don't see that with this issue. And that's one of the things that I was writing about in my initial survey, because there was a concern for Jewish evangelism throughout his church history.

And I highlighted some of it. So that's the article. I'm willing to take any questions on any of that.

You know, I'm not like the fountain of all things, eschatology, but you know, I figured someone needed to say something and I didn't see the voices that I normally would wanna see saying things, saying things.

And so I said, you know what? I'll just, I'll take this on a bit. I'll write about this. So comments, concerns, cries of outrage.

Now is your time or forever hold your peace. Romans 8 says,

JQers are reverse disbees. They think Jews are an apocalyptic enemy. So any politics not about owning the

Jews is rearranging chairs on a sinking ship. So that's kind of funny. Well, when you have like what

Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuente say that Trump is anti -Christ, you're like, I feel like I remember someone saying the president is, it could be the anti -Christ, but it wasn't from that crowd.

Wait, by the way, note about Tucker Carlson, because I was talking to someone before this podcast. I feel like I'm trying to hold some people, well, friends really, they're friends, but like there's some friends

I'm trying to like say, like guys, like don't jump into the ditch here. And the whole thing was like,

Tucker's so, you can trust Tucker more than anyone because Tucker is taking risks. And I'm like,

Tucker's raking in millions. I think I, was it yesterday? I think I saw the headline that he had made like $50 million since he started online and it's his independent platform.

He gets to control it. He is raking in money. And you gotta think about it this way, right? And because the whole idea is that like Tucker's against the elite.

Tucker is an elite guys. Tucker grew up in an elite household. His, on one side, it's a frozen food industry, you know, heir, he's the heir to that, to that fortune.

On the other side, he's got a CIA dad. He's got money coming in from both sides.

He's basically your blue blood Ivy league frat boy type. And that's one of the reasons

I thought he was kind of funny on MSNBC because he was irreverent and he just kind of get that frat boy kind of thing going on.

I didn't take him seriously really, but when he got on Fox, he was more like, we're gonna kind of reveal things and do investigative stuff.

And some of that from what I saw, I thought was pretty good, but he's, I don't know, like he's,

I always thought he was an elite. Like he's not, well, you have to ask your question. Like, what was he doing for the last 15 years then?

If he's like now, now he's really against them, you know? Now like he's, well then what were you, like, were you a compromised guy for all that time?

Like what, and then it's like drip, drip, drip stuff. It's like the clip

I was sent was a, you know, it was Tucker saying that, you know, he knows the world leaders, he knows them.

And, you know, they are all religious, but they're not Christian. And I'm like, well, Tucker's not the greatest judge of that.

Whenever Tucker says he's a Christian, it's always like to support liberal individual rights of some kind, or, and he's talking about Islam and he's saying like, oh, they're so great.

Like they pray so much and they, the Sharia law, it prohibits alcohol, their societies are more advanced.

Like Islam, they love Jesus. I mean, like that's not what you get from an Orthodox Christian, I'm sorry, small

Orthodox. It's, Tucker is, he's drip, drip, dripping.

Like the elites, they're, you know, they're involved in some kind of like Satanist adjacent cabal.

They are, I'm not saying they're doing witchcraft, but you know, they're basically doing the same thing.

Okay, but there's no specifics, right? And it's like, I don't know, to me, you have to be careful with that stuff.

Like Candace Owens does that a lot where it's like, we're getting closer guys. You're all part of my, you're all part of Scotland Yard.

And it's more entertaining than a soap opera. Not that I find those entertaining. Like, what do I find?

Like, it's more entertaining than a crime drama on TV. You get to be part of it. And every day, every episode, it's like a new revelation to what they're doing to you.

And I think that's kind of the vibe now. That's what you make money off of. You make money off of convincing people that you, as a personality, as a talking head, have a perspective inside on the other side of the curtain.

You've got like sort of this gnostic perspective. You have the knowledge and you're gonna, every so often you give these nuggets.

You drop little pieces of it. Enough to keep people coming. Enough to keep people interested.

It's a big drama, but it only works because I think institutions have failed.

People feel like they're lied to. And now, I don't even know if a lot of people, if proof, facts, evidence, like I don't know if people even are convinced by those things as much as they are by tribal identities.

Like, oh, if the government said it, it's probably wrong. Because it's the government that said it. And if Tucker said it, it's probably right because we trust him.

He's against the elites. Like, if you have a status, that's what the cachet, not a commitment to a body of facts or a truth adjudication process.

I mean, that's kind of the old way now, right? That's boomer stuff now. Journalistic standards, no, it's more tribal now.

And so, I mean, what I've tried to say to people who are going that direction is like, look, the best thing to do is to realize the environment we're in first, that those kinds of things, that posture, that approach is very much incentivized.

And if you can get people, especially across the political aisle, because like the Israel thing is like more popular among Democrats.

So if you can like broaden your audience a whole lot and then get them listening to you, for as the source, there is a lot of money and loyalty connected to that.

There's a lot of power connected to that. And you don't even have to be right.

You don't have to make retractions when you're wrong. Like you have a loyal audience at that point.

Just recognize that's the moment we're in. And the independence of the internet allows for that. What we should be,

I think, as Christians, as believers, is we are about a truth adjudication process.

We do want standards that root back to our personality. And there's one that we are loyal to, and that's

Jesus Christ. So we are gonna be about truth. We are going to be about standards.

And we want those standards to be standards that reinforce truth. I've talked about this in the past some, like, and I've written about it.

Journalistic standards were things like, actual quotes from actual people who are involved in the actual situation.

You don't take bribes, obviously. You don't, to the point you won't even like accept a gift or a meal from someone that you're interviewing, you can't.

That's viewed as a bribe or a potential, it takes away your neutrality.

And journalistic standards were things like a peer review process of some kind.

You're making sure that people double check what you're saying. If it's a controversial situation, you are making sure you get both sides of the perspective.

Historians have their own version of this, which is different because it's more static. It's not fluid situations.

They're going back in time and just examining sources. That's what I do more. And they're making sure that they're weighing sources correctly.

Primary sources get more weight. Sources closer to the situation get more weight, whether that's sequential or distance or personal driven kind of sources.

Sources, although there's exceptions to this. Like if you're the dad and the son is like the bad guy, the dad may have, based on human nature, a reason to protect the son.

So you have to take all those things into account. And anyway, historiography, journalistic standards, even standards of just basic decency and conduct, those are things

Christians should try to uphold. And the institutions failed. And so what my thing has been since the beginning is we've got to restore those standards, not just cast them away.

All right, I'm off my soapbox, but I did want to say that because I don't know how many people are going these directions where they're just outsourcing their trust to personalities.

You can trust people when they prove themselves, which Tucker is not. But I do think you need to look past that.

You need to look at the process, the truth adjudication process they're using. And that's, look under the hood and that's what you use to evaluate.

All right, more comments, cries of outrage. John has boomer brain. Yes, yes, very. That's, it's almost a compliment now to be quite honest with you.

Just because it's like throw it out so casually. I was kind of early on, I did a video on boomer con thinking and now it's like meaningless.

Now it's just like, there's no definition. It's like, you know, if you just, you know those old stuffy things like truth adjudication processes.

Oh my goodness. Like everything's boomer brain now. God bless the great

Christian magistrate Donald J. Trump. I wouldn't say Donald Trump is a Christian magistrate.

He is a magistrate though. All right, no one, not one of you, especially

John will have an honest conversation about Jews and their disproportionate power and influence. It's a very nuanced conversation.

Instead he'll make straw man arguments. Well, I don't know. You can check the record. I have said for years that Jewish people, secular

Jewish people in particular are overrepresented in liberal causes. So that's not a new thing for me.

You just don't listen to the podcast. Really sounds like John is saying the land promises apply only to Israel, but not all

Israel, only elect Israel and not elect Gentiles. Look, there's layers to this, okay?

The ultimate new Jerusalem that's coming is all people of God, all right?

So it is a universal kingdom in that sense. The specific land promises that God made to Abraham that have borders and so forth, that was given to physical descendants of Abraham initially.

That is what it was. Throughout time, it is applied to and reiterated that it is about these physical descendants of Abraham.

Now, the sign of circumcision and the inclusion in the covenant community, there was a physical aspect to this, but we find out even in the

Old Testament that it is circumcision of the heart that denotes a true follower of God.

We find out, and this is referenced in the Old Testament, but we find out clearly in the New Testament that the remnant, meaning those who are true

Israel in the authentic spiritual sense, are the ones that are the promises are actually given to in,

I wanna say meaningful sense, but that was the intention the entire time was that these physical descendants would be spiritual

Israel as well. Like they would keep the covenant, that they would obey God, that they would not turn.

Even when they turn though, God still has mercy on them. God still has this remnant he preserves and he brings them back.

And that's Paul's point basically is like, look, even when Ahab's king, there's still those who didn't bow the knee to Baal.

This has got a sign that God still cares about this particular nation. And he gives them a, there is a hope, there is this light at the end of the tunnel for them.

And so when it comes to the land promises, if you look at the people

I quoted in the article throughout church history, who believe the land promises are applied to ethnic

Israel, every single one of them believes this is part of a, this is not separate from a salvation event of some kind.

This is part of an in -gathering and it is tied to Christ's second coming in some way. That is the consensus of the people who believe that.

And all of them believe that there is a future spiritual kingdom, whether that's the only fulfillment or the final fulfillment that Jews and Gentiles are both part of.

So the answer to the question is that the in -gathering, if it does apply to ethnic

Jews, that it is connected to a spiritual restoration and not disconnected from it.

And it's, look, you can compare it to the coming back under Ezra and Nehemiah.

It took 80 years for there to be, like it was a process that eventually culminated in Ezra reading the law and the spiritual restoration.

The spiritual restoration is necessary for any of this. And all the promises are ultimately fulfilled in Christ.

There's really no argument about that. There are, I mean, I'm trying to think who's even a dual covenant guy.

I'm outside of those circles. I mean, I don't know if John Hagee is, he may be, but if there are any dual covenant guy out there who thinks you can be saved apart from Christ or that it's just fine to have non -believing

Jews partake in the land promise with no future, like with not seeing what's happening now as a building block to a future spiritual restoration, then that would be obviously an error, an out of step with the voice of church history.

So I don't know if I can articulate it any clearer than that, but that is the position that I surveyed and tried to relate to you in the original article.

All right, well, I went way longer, like half an hour longer than I wanted to go, but there's so many questions coming in.

So I'll take a few more and then we're gonna end it. All right, there isn't anyone noteworthy in church history who taught a preterist view of Romans 11 until Peter Lightheart.

Okay, so, and James Jordan. All right, so let's, I wasn't trying to name names here, but, and they're more humble about it, by the way.

Like James Jordan's like, hey, I'm just throwing this out there as a possibility when he introduces it. All right, let's see.

I got to skip through some of this. Interesting question, after the

Jews, which group has the second biggest outsized influence? I'm guessing that's in liberal causes. I don't even know,

I don't think the Jews actually, even secular Jews necessarily have the biggest influence.

They don't, they're 2 % of our population. And about half of that, I think is religious Jews. So you're talking about a very small group.

They just are disproportionately, they bat outside their league, we'll put it that way.

And yes, a lot of them have been involved in things like Hollywood, the pornographic business, and OnlyFans and things that have subverted the country in a moral sense.

However, I think if you look at politics, law, government, and even those industries to some extent, you're going to see a lot of white

Christians, I'm sorry, not Christians, people whose ancestors would have been

Christians, but basically pagans or secularists who, atheists, et cetera, who have come out of that, most notably in New England.

And I made this point before, all of the radical, if you look at a sequence, the radical movements in this country, 19th century movements, we're talking about socialism, utopian schemes, feminism, even some of the other reform movements, they're pretty much all started by Unitarians, transcendentalist types, people in New England who have left their

Christian faith. They deconstructed their Christian faith, and now they're on a crusade for still doing this whole dominion mandate thing, but it's not with Christ.

That does not get the same kind of airplay at all that on the internet that Jews get.

But that is a big part of the story, and it's really where the story begins for Americans.

Whatever Jewish immigration waves came over in the 1880s through the 1920s and beyond, they were bolstering movements that were already there, essentially.

I mean, that's just history, that's just a fact. So I would say that former

WASPs tend to be a big group that has lent their efforts to, unfortunately, subverting the moral foundation.

And in many coastal urban areas, that's what you're gonna find.

All right, let's see. John Nix, some of these comments, guys.

Yeah, I agree with you, Roman Zaid. I'm constantly slandered with hysterical rhetoric on Twitter. I don't blame him.

Yeah, I might mute some people, because it's just stupid, guys. I do like the fact that this audience, for the most part, you guys are honestly one of the most intelligent audiences.

You check things out, you will even let me know if I get off, and you're very,

I don't know how to survey it, but I do know that just from my personal conversations, a lot of the people who listen to this podcast are people who are impressive in their personal lives when it comes to their social status.

In other words, I'm not saying they're all top of the pecking order elites in Washington or in Hollywood, not that I even want, not that I expect anyone from Hollywood to like this podcast, but you're the clergy in the churches, right?

There's definitely a lot of laymen, but I just know there's a lot of people who are in organizations and powerful positions and so forth who listen to this podcast, which

I really appreciate. And I'm aware of that. I'm aware that you're giving me your time in the audience.

And that's, I view that I think is the, that is my lane. That is where I, that is who

I am reaching. I only want the people who care about truth and care about doing something. You're the guys that I'm trying to, and gals, who

I'm speaking to when I do the podcast. All right, let's see.

I'm not seeing a lot of questions. There's a lot of back and forth in the chat. What percentage of NAM funding is good versus for illegitimate things?

You know, I don't know. And this is one of the reasons that we would need forensic audits, and they keep getting rejected.

That's one of the things, if you're a Southern Baptist going to the convention, there's any, I don't know if there's gonna be any kind of option there.

There's been boats on it from the floor to do forensic audits of various entities. You need to vote for it. Question, John, what is your opinion on the millennium, on millennial?

I am a premillennialist. I tend to reverberate, or resonate, I should say, with the early church, and what

I've read of the early church fathers on this point. So I'm comfortable saying killiest. I go to a church that is a

MacArthur -style dispensational church. I don't think that's, it's not a heresy. It's not,

I don't have any problem with the people who believe that. I have my own skepticisms about certain aspects of that.

It's not classic dispensationalism. It's certainly not the kind of Darbyism that you saw

Charles Spurgeon reacting to. So historicist, premillennialist might be where I land right now, but I usually call myself undeveloped on some of the more minute questions, but I am a premillennialist.

So I do believe that the millennium, we're not in it. And I'm not an amillennialist in that sense.

I have good amillennialist friends. I don't think this is the millennium. I think the millennium is coming, and I do tend to think it is a thousand -year reign.

So it is going to, I don't think that we are ushering it in either, as some of the post -millennial brothers that I have would say, that the church is gonna just gradually take over.

I don't see that either. So that's where I land, although I haven't written, and I don't really care to write at this point on that stuff, because it's not something that interests me much.

I'm more interested in, there is a view that seems to be rising, or views that are outside of the

Christian tradition that need to be, that the brakes need to be put on those things. And that's across the board.

My amill, post -mill, premill brothers, like we can all join equally on identifying some of those things.

Okay. Jimmy Starfish asked a good question. What do you propose for the outsized influence?

I think he's saying of Jewish people, because complaining about it doesn't do anything. Well, I have seen some of the comments online from people who, when you see their solutions, some of them, yeah, man, it's a good question.

What are you gonna do about this? What's the point? I'm very practical about these things.

Naming the problem needs to accompany with, what is the solution? And I've always said the solution is, if a certain group has power and Christians don't, then what can we learn from them?

How do Christians gain power so that they can do good with that power? I would hope Christians gain power everywhere.

They do good things, actual Christians, even in Israel, right? I would love it if Christians, the 180 ,000 that are there or so, gain power in Israel to do what they should be, to pull that.

I would love if everyone was saved in every country, including Israel, and in the

United States, my home country, certainly. I want to see Christians at the top of that.

So what do you do? Well, I do know what I've seen Jewish people do, and that is, they tend to say, you're gonna be a doctor, you're gonna be a lawyer, you're gonna study so you can do those things.

I'm not as strict on that. I think whatever kids I have are gonna be able to go the direction that God has for them, but I want them to be educated.

I want them to do their best. I want them to apply themselves in their studies. I think that's like a good starting point.

So, all right. Man, I'm not gonna get pulled into all the

Jew stuff here. There's a lot. Put a question mark, by the way, by the question so I can see it, because the program

I'm using identifies questions. Sheila wants to know if I covered the gay pride parade in Israel.

Yes, I've talked about it in the past too, by the way, but I did cover the recent one. All right,

I think we're good. It's a mega long podcast, 45 minutes longer than I wanted it to go, but I think it was necessary for us to talk about this topic.

And it's just kind of where we're at, man. It's the topic of the day. People wanna talk about it. And we do need some biblical and spiritual guardrails for how to talk about this.

And yeah, so hopefully the next few podcasts, we won't.

We won't talk about it. There's a lot of other things that I wanna talk about. I will end the podcast with this though. And I did think about this a little bit with all the like, everything's dispensationalist, everything's

Zionism, everything is this or that. And I was thinking like, there's this quote from the

Southern Baptist Convention in like 1890 or something. And I don't know if I have it.

I don't think I have it in front of me, but it's from the past, right? Like there's these quotes from the past that if they were made today, people would be like, that's a

Zionist shill. Anyways, one of them was, I thought of this and someone actually reminded me of it, but it's the letter from George Washington to the

Savannah Georgia Hebrew congregation, which most of the Jews at that point in the America were Sephardic, they lived in the

South. And he says, gentlemen, I thank you with great sincerity for your congratulations on my appointment to office, which

I have the honor to hold by the unanimous choice of my fellow citizens, and especially for all the expressions which you are pleased to use in testifying the confidence that is reposed in me by your congregation.

As the delay, which has naturally intervened between my election and your address has afforded an opportunity for appreciating the merits of the federal government and for communicating your sentiments of its administration.

I have rather to express my satisfaction than regret at a circumstance which demonstrates upon experiment, your attachment to the former as well as approbation of the latter.

I rejoice that the spirit of liberality and philanthropy is much more prevalent than it formerly was and the enlightened nations of the earth, among the enlightened nations of the earth, and that your brethren will benefit thereby in proportion as it shall become still more extensive.

Now that alone, he's already breaking rules like internet rules of what you should say about Jewish people.

He's saying he wants them to prosper and continue. Happily, the people of the United States of America have in many instances exhibited examples worthy of imitation.

The solitary influence of which will doubtless extend much further if gratefully enjoying those blessings of peace which under favor of heaven have been obtained by fortitude and war, they shall conduct themselves with reverence to the deity and charity towards their fellow creatures.

May the same wonder working deity, listen to this, who has long since delivering, who long since delivering the

Hebrews from their Egyptian oppressors, planted them in the promised land whose providential agency has lately been conspicuous in establishing these

United States as an independent nation, still continue to water them with the dues of heaven and to make the inhabitants of every denomination participate in the temporal and spiritual blessings of that people whose

God is Jehovah. Now that last line especially, whose God is Jehovah, now it sounds similar to what

Paul says in Romans 11. Paul says they have a zeal for God without knowledge. He doesn't say that about idolaters.

He wouldn't say that about Muslims or Allah. This is George Washington. Why does

George Washington say that? This is what, 1790? Is he a dispensationalist?

Is he a Zionist? How can he say this? The same deity, he wants them to prosper. How, what is going on here?

Did they get to George Washington, the father of our country, that great Episcopalian Protestant? Like what did they, what's influencing this?

Well, what's influencing this is so simple. It's what's influencing Christians in general. It's the Bible.

He's exposed to the Bible. He's exposed to a society that knew the Bible. That's what's influencing it.

It's the, it's a tradition that he's standing on. If I said this today, or if anyone else said, just quoted

George Washington on this, there's a certain group online that would say he's a Zionist shill. And that's what, that's what

I'm basically talking about. I'm saying like, there is a group, and there are these four elements that I'm noticing that I think they need to be, there needs to be a serious opposition to them.

There needs to be some measuredness to this. It is totally fine to say, look at what

Israel did here. Look at the gay pride parade thing. It is totally fine to say, we should reevaluate our relationship.

Is it benefiting us in every way? It's totally fine to say, you know what? Secular Jewish people seem to have outsized influence in certain liberal causes.

None of that's wrong. It's where that is being taken and what it's being used for.

And I identify the four elements that I specifically were concerned about in my initial piece.

The belief that ethnic Jews presently represent a universal evil, like a substitute for original sin category, a failure to pursue

Jewish evangelism in light of that belief, the claim that there are no remaining promises for ethnic Jews connected to Christ's second coming and a diminishment of the importance of the authority of the

Old Testament. Those are the things I'm keeping my eye on, guys, because that's about the church. That's about Christians.

And that's who I do this podcast for. All right, God bless. Hope that was helpful. More coming. Bye now.