Second Q&A with Pastor Osman & Dr. Strachan

The Image of God and Human Dignity

All right, we're going to start our final session, the Q &A, so I've already looked through these and read through these, and I have good news for you. Since I've already read through these, I know that we're not going to get into another estrogen bath like we had last night with a discussion at Little House on the Prairie.

You said you were sweating during that. It's because you started menopause halfway through that answer. I don't even know where that came from. All right, it's behind us. We're not going to mention it ever again, except publicly.

Maybe publicly, but we're just going to put it behind us. All right, in what ways—and we got quite a few questions here, so I want to get through as many as we can, so we'll try to do—some of these might be rapid-fire answers.

All right. In what ways are we image bearers of God? Is it only the communicable attributes? Yeah, that's a good question. I don't think that we are supposed to isolate what it means to be the image in terms of one attribute.

There's a lively debate in the Christian tradition over which attribute it is, or is it our relationality? Is it our reasoning capacity? Is it our capacity for faith? Luther, Calvin, and others disagree all about what the image precisely boils down to.

In my view, and I wrote about this at some length in my book, Re-Enchanting Humanity, if you want to read more about the image of God as I understand it, Re-Enchanting Humanity, I spell out that I think we are the image of God.

So I don't think even that the image reduces to the communicable attributes. I think it is simply that God made us as a little representation of Himself. Now, we are communicating people like He is a communicating people.

We are a loving people like He is a loving God, to that question. So there's truth in that. We are like God in some respects in terms of our personal makeup, I mean. He's of a different order than we are.

But that would be what I would say. I would say the image is us. So the attributes that we have, our functionality, our utilitarian functionality does not undo us with the image of God. We are able to do those things because humanity is the image of God and the image of God is humanity.

It is our humanness, which is the image of God. Something unique to humanity that other creatures don't have. That's exactly right. So I'm in a little different place than some theologians and exegetes because a lot of them in the Reformed tradition emphasize that the image is lost in the fall or diminished or marred or all sorts of language like that.

I don't actually think that. I think that we are still image bearers, Genesis 6 and 9, if anyone sheds man's blood, his blood will be shed for man is made in my image, those kind of texts. I think that that actually signals that the image is an ongoing reality, though I affirm total depravity as was quite clear here.

But yeah, I don't think if you have less reasoning capacity, you have lost the image or you are less an image bearer or things like that. Yeah, I don't think that if you're not married, you're not fully an image bearer because the image actually is relationality expressed in marriage.

That was Carl Bartsview. So we could talk more. So if your image of God is based upon your functionality, then at some point, if you lose your memory, you lose your creative ability, you lose your ability to communicate, you have dementia, you lose your memory.

If that's what gives you the image of God, those attributes, then we would have to conclude that somebody who gets older and loses some of those capacities is diminishing in the image of God and we would never say that.

Exactly. Yeah. All right. What guidelines would you recommend for how much time we spend with the world and how we spend time with them? Thoughtful question. I'm not going to be able to give any kind of hourly allotment or something, and it's going to vary for all of us.

We want to exercise two principles. We want to be in the world, but not of the world. And that reduces in exegetical terms to what Jesus says in John 17. And so we need a lot of time where we are not of the world.

So for example, we need to be with the church. We need to be with the fellowship of the saints to some degree in our week. But then we also need to be in the world to some degree, and we need to be around sinners, even to the extent that people would label Jesus as a friend of sinners.

And I just, there again, I said this in my session, but I think a lot of us are on the far end of being away from the world. We need to be to a serious degree, but if we're not in and amongst unbelievers, no one's going to be.

We are the light of the world, Jesus says. I heard testimonies from former homosexuals whose churches didn't confront their sin right away, but they still eventually repented and turned to biblical sexuality.

How should a church handle visitors and or regularly attending homosexuals, trans people, et cetera? Yeah, that's become a thing where you don't address homosexuality head on. You kind of say, like Tim Keller did a version of this.

We're going to set that aside because that's kind of a nuclear issue. And what I'm going to do is I'm just going to talk to you about idolatry and sin. And that was kind of Keller's approach in Manhattan.

I don't have a biblical basis for that because, for example, in Matthew 14 with Herod, John the Baptist called out Herod for having his brother's wife being in that sinful pattern publicly and directly.

All throughout the Gospels, Jesus engages sinners and he doesn't just say, this thing you're doing, that's wrong, and disappear or vanish in a cloud of smoke. He works through the heart. He asks them questions.

There's a broader discussion. But fundamentally, he identifies the sin of the people he's talking to, the woman at the well. In John 4, he doesn't say, let's set aside adultery and sexual promiscuity for right now.

I don't want to be too on the nose with you. Let me just establish a general rhythm of sin is bad. And we'll get to that six months from now. No, he says, you've had five, and the one you're with now isn't your husband.

Now, I don't think he's doing that in a hateful way. I think he's doing that in a very kind way, but he's also quite direct with sin. Homosexual or trans person shows up in a church service, should they be allowed to stay there?

Oh, yeah. Should they be allowed to become members? No, no, no. No, I mean, upon repentance. Yes. And we've got to be clear about that, that we used to have more of a view in some conservative circles where conversion was like a bug zapper with homosexuality for some strange reason.

Homosexuality was treated like, if you became a Christian, there's a way to sort of pry out that sin, and you would never have that again. And there got to be some pretty interesting and strange, if you follow them down the line, efforts at things like orientation change.

And I would affirm some of what was attempted there, but not to the fullest extent, because we are, in winning people to the Christian faith, helping them leave behind sin patterns. But a lot of us who get saved have to battle heterosexual lust throughout our lives.

Just to cut it straight for a second. We didn't think that when we got saved, there was a kind of bug zapper way for us to never experience lust in that way. I don't know why the church 40 years ago was saying, if you convert to Christ, you can kind of get zapped, and you'll never have homosexual lust in your heart.

So I don't want to communicate to somebody that if they get born again, that they'll never battle that. They might. That's not the sign that they're not born again, though. Just like somebody having to kill lust in a heterosexual way.

That's not a sign they're not a Christian. So you got to be careful. Is it possible for a man to be truly saved if he is passive and checked out, angry, neglectful of family, not growing in fruits of the Spirit, prideful, and not willing to hear correction or rebuke?

Will the saved always manifest being a new creation? That's a tough situation right there, sounds like, from that litany of qualities, sadly. If that doesn't immediately sound like somebody who is experiencing a whole lot of victory in Christ, I guess somebody who's living that kind of life could be a Christian but be in a bad place.

I think we have to have a category for that. We know that Peter wandered from his Lord. We know that we can all stumble. We all stumble in many ways, James 3 -2. But over the long haul, a godly man will be able to hear correction at some level, will want to grow, will fight his sin, will confess his sin.

And so that person that is being described there, it sounds like, could either be a man who's unregenerate but thinks he's a Christian. That might be the most likely reality. Or he might be a Christian who's just really not doing well, and he needs kind of the electric clamps to his chest from the Spirit, and he needs to wake up and start repenting and confessing a whole lot of sin.

At the very least, he should be warned that given his current trajectory and his current manifestation of those qualities, that that could very well be indicative of the state of his soul. For sure. And honestly, if that is representative of a situation in this room, then I would encourage a woman who has a husband who is professing faith and maybe smiling on Sunday morning, but then is living in the utter gloom of misery Monday to Saturday.

I would encourage her in a respectful way to reach out to godly women in the congregation, talk to them, and then it really may be the case that there needs to be elder care for that couple. Not in a kind of, you know, Navy SEALs break the door down in the middle of the night on the guy, handle him carefully, but try in a gracious way to get this couple with a wise and godly elder, and maybe his wife, and talk through some dynamics of marriage.

Had a lot of questions about this, so if I don't get to your specific question, just know that I'm trying to hit this subject and probably incorporate a whole bunch of different questions that all kind of do the same thing.

Pronouns, Names, and Truthful Speech

If a family rejects you because you won't use their pronoun requests, do you step back and wait or try to engage, and if you engage, how? To put it another way, do we go ahead and honor people's requests that we use their preferred pronouns?

No, no, I don't think so. No, I don't think we can. This is a sticky one because I don't think that we have to go in, and like if we're trying to engage family members, I don't think we are trying to have an explosion socially from the outset.

We're trying to talk to that family member to have some kind of communication going on, so we're using wisdom in how we address people. If there's a transgender individual, I don't know that I would be trying to use a ton of pronouns or something like that.

What I'm trying to say is you don't need to be obnoxious as a Christian to be a witness. You don't need to say, well, what he is doing is he is saying this, and what I would disagree is he, you know, right?

So you can do this, I think, in honestly a wise and careful way, but you should not consent, I would say, to we will use your preferred pronouns. So I think I cannot use the preferred pronouns but still exercise some degree of pastoral sensitivity in that situation.

Does that make sense? Yeah, and if you're using, if you do bend to that and use their preferred pronouns, then basically you're affirming a lie. Right. You're saying something with your mouth and with your demeanor that is that is patently untrue and in fact is affirming their rebellion against God as creator in the created order.

Yeah, like I can't use their pronouns if they want to be called kitty cat. Yeah. I'm not trying to be silly, like if that person, if that family member, I'm trying to be a witness to them and we finally get to the table and they say, I will talk with you, but you need to refer to me as kitty cat, you know, and I'm a cat and my pronouns are cat pronoun, you know, seriously, I can't do that.

But I'm not necessarily, if they say that, going to then go ballistic about all I'm going to, I am going to try to be, try to engage them well. What do you say to them specifically? They make that request, this is your niece, your grandchild or your aunt.

What do you say to them? How do you respond to that request? Look, I'm here at Thanksgiving and I heard you speaking about me in the other room. You said, I'm a she and I'm not, I identify as a he or they them.

And I want you when you're referring to me and I'm not in the room to use them my preferred pronouns. I think you need to do what we were trying to talk about throughout the conference and you need to have that good, open, honest communication.

And you need to say something like, I love you to the core. I want your good. I am not here to get in a fight over what you are called. I cannot use those pronouns that you request that I use, but what I can do is I can talk with you.

Let's talk together and seek to hear the other and reason together. And I want to show you love. And just like you wouldn't be loving me if I was doing something wrong in my life. And I said, affirm this from where I stand, I can't affirm you.

But again, I want to talk to you. I want a relationship with you and let's see if we can reason things out and at least have a civil, mature conversation. I would start there and in that conversation, I would try to get to the gospel and sin and those kinds of things.

That's a better answer than I would give. I would tend to be far more sarcastic and biting and flip the premise on them and say, okay, every time you refer to me, I want to be referred to as handsome and brilliant.

And when you're speaking to me in any situation, anytime you refer to me, I get my own adjectives. You get your own pronouns, I get my own adjectives, handsome and brilliant. So maybe that's the best strategy.

Okay, so how about on a similar vein, somebody was once known as Jackie and now they want to be referred to as Jack. Those are rather than Jackie Chan, I guess I was trying to think of non-dual gender names or Michael wants to be referred to as Michelle.

Do you go along with the name change and begin to use a different name for that person? There again, my personal approach would probably not be to aggressively repeat their birth name 20 times in a 10-minute conversation, honestly.

Just like if I'm talking to a gay person, let's say, I'm probably not in a 10-minute conversation going to say 20 separate times, being gay is a sin. But what I am trying to do is be truthful, cue to the truth, stand for what is true.

And so I'm neither afraid of using their birth name, nor am I acting as if that is the ultimate issue. The ultimate issue is the heart. And that's where I'm not where those churches are that say, we're not going to talk about homosexuality, put that to the side for eight weeks, just hear us out on idolatry.

The idolatry of identity and chasing work and satisfaction and money. That's what we're going to talk. I'm not there. I'm not there. I'm not willing to say, let's set that to the side, but I'm also not the guy who's going to come in and use a bullhorn and shout at you directly about the one sin.

I know that you're enmeshed and I'll talk about it with you, but I am happy to talk about sin more broadly. And I don't think we have to have, what I'm trying to say, Jim is, and what these questions are getting at is I fear that sometimes we feel that we're being unfaithful in evangelism.

If when we're face to face with a sinner, we don't only say this sin is wrong, like repeatedly. If you don't do that, you're a bad evangelist, you're compromising the gospel. And what I want to say to people is no, look at how Jesus converses with sinners of many kinds.

Look at where the conversation goes. He's able to talk with them. He's able to reason with them. I think we can laugh with them. I think we can form a bond with them. If there's something we like in terms of movies or culture or sports teams, I think we can forge that connection.

Christians don't have to be the weirdest, most offensive person in conversation that they possibly could be to be a faithful conversant. When I talked earlier about Rosaria Butterfield, the pastor there, I think his last name was Smith, the pastor who engaged Rosaria, you can read her testimony.

Some of you probably read this, Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert. If you want a good book about a pastor engaging a professor of queer theory, which is all these situations, right? He did it well.

I didn't say perfectly, but he did it well. And he was clear from the outset in a gracious, firm way. He didn't agree with her being a lesbian, but he let the relationship develop and he let the conversation go all sorts of places.

She had lots of questions about the Bible, and he would patiently talk through Old Testament passages. You know, oh, so you do believe in mixed fabrics being sinful? You know, all that sort of stuff, right?

And he wouldn't say, no, I'm not talking about that. You must repent now. He would talk all the way through it. And it took her time. I'm not saying we don't share the gospel in a given conversation. I think we do.

But it took her a long time to become, she calls it her train wreck conversion, because it was just an unfolding series of smashes in her life. And it took a long time. So I think the church today, I think our wing feels too much pressure to kind of get the bullhorn out, click it in, and just go at level a thousand.

I think we need to calm down. And we shouldn't do relational evangelism in terms of setting sin aside, but we should feel free to be friendly and kind and nice and hospitable and loving and funny and truthful.

And truthful. On a similar vein, this is going to get increasingly more difficult. Your HR department—. More difficult than this? Yeah. Your HR department sends out an email saying, we would like you to include your preferred pronouns in your email signature from now on, so that everybody else in the company knows how to refer to you.

Do you go by that? Do you abide by that? Or is that affirming a lie? I don't know that it is a lie for you to say that you are he, him, or she, her. So I don't know that that's in itself sinful for you to say.

But isn't it a lie to affirm that any of us has a right or responsibility to prefer our pronouns? Pronouns are a feature of reality. So it would be a lie to affirm the premise. Because really, what we're talking about is the premise of their position is that we should abide by other people's preferred pronouns.

The premise of their position is that one can choose their pronouns and make that known so that they can be referred to however they want. If that's the premise, the premise of that is a lie. The premise of that is rebellion.

And if we go along with that with our HR department, isn't that affirming a lying or an untrue premise? Yeah. I mean, it could be. I want to leave open that possibility. I guess I'm not convinced that if you ask me, am I a he, her, or a they, them, I think I can say I'm a he, him.

I might have said that wrong just a minute ago. I think I said he, her. It's 3 .20 at the end of seven sessions today. After last night's book episode that we had, we're all a little confused right now.

I'm starting to get a little bit internally confused myself. No, I don't know about that. You were confused before you showed up here, I think. Go ahead. Listen, you just need to like literature more.

There's some good literature out there written by women. So yeah, these are hard questions and I want to be a little bit careful about like, this is the line in the sand. I just want to be careful because people are in humongous corporations where you have to say your pronouns.

I want to leave some room for conscience. This is me. You may be in a slightly different position. Your position makes sense to me. I don't think it's unsensible. But I want to leave a little bit of room for like, here's the line for me, here's the line for you.

I can't even play by the preferred pronoun game. That's defensible. Someone else might say, I'm going to say I'm he, him, not he, her. I'm he, him. But what I can say as a red line is, I don't think you should use preferred pronouns of someone who is going against their God-given sex.

That to me is a clear red line. Okay, how about I'll give you a tactical response to this. Would it be appropriate, because this is how I would suggest handling it. Tell me what you think about this, yay or nay.

I would email back and say, I am a biological male. So you use what pronouns are appropriate for biological males. It's good by me. Right? I'm not picking pronouns because I reject the premise that I can choose my own pronouns.

But the reality is, the truth is, I was created as a biological male. Therefore, use the language that is appropriate to refer to biological males. I will not give you my pronoun, you use English. Try that.

Again, back to this. This is my default. Sarcasm is my spiritual gift. So I go back into the default sarcasm, and I have to always pull back from that to be gracious like Owen. Right? So there's sarcasm and then there's Owen.

I don't know about the standard as Owen, but I don't want that pressure. But I would, yeah, I like that. And that's actually, that was maybe not articulated on my part a minute ago. But I can actually say my pronouns are he, him.

That's not a preference. So I think we're ending up in a very similar position. This is how you should refer to me, HR. I'm a he, him. There's no preference so you know. Yeah. Something like that is great by me.

Transgender Identity, Clothing, and Family Relationships

Yep. All right. A little bit of a more difficult situation. And I bring this one up, not because anybody asked it, but because I know that there is a family in this room here who knows somebody who has family.

There's a person in this room who has family members who are in this situation or have dealt with this situation recently. Yes. You own a business. You hire somebody as a receptionist. Michelle comes in.

She does a great job. You refer to her as Michelle Smith. This relationship goes on for five years. Then you find out that this was once Michael. Yes. Smith. And because of surgery, because of drugs, because of the presentation, you had no idea that this person is actually a biological male.

They pull off the female act very, very well. Now that you know this information, how do you refer to this person? You refer to this person as he, him? Do you refer to him as Michael? Because you do that, you're going to jail in the state of California.

It was almost at that point. How do you handle a situation like that? That is a very difficult situation from the outset. So let that be said. But it's probably one that a number of us are going to face.

Because in that situation, you've been affirming a lie for five years, not knowing it. Right. You've been going along, believing what you thought was true and acting according to what you thought was true.

Now you find out that something else is true. You continue to do that, then you are living by lies and affirming an act of rebellion. Yeah. I mean, the employer relationship is a sticky one because you get into discrimination law.

And so you have a place as an employer, as a Christian, I mean, for going, this does not cut it with what I know to be true from scripture. But that can be a very sticky reality in terms of getting sued and those sorts of things.

So someone just has to know that. You know, to make it a little more of a handhold morally, this premise you're giving me would be similar to you have friends who you find out one of them is transgender, so to speak.

One of them transitioned the way that you're talking about. They didn't actually become the opposite sex, but they tried to. And you've been affirming their marriage. Can you go on affirming that marriage if one of the individuals transitioned, so to speak?

And I would say no. No, I don't think I can. I can't pretend you're Kathy when you're Michael. Yep. But that is going to be a whole barrel of monkeys fun, you know, and trying to be a witness to people in that situation.

I think that there we come back to the principles. The underlying principles is we have to be truthful and honest. We have to speak the truth and love. This may sometimes cost us. And I think unless the Lord brings revival and changes some things in our nation, there's going to come a point where we are going to be.

It's going to cost us to affirm things that are basic truth. Yeah, I agree. Yeah. All right. Dial off a little bit. Those were tough ones. Let me back up a bit. What about those who want to dress as a boy when a girl or a girl want a boy and they want us as family to support their change?

How do we deal with friends who support their child's or grandchild's change even when they are believers, Christians who have children that have gone through the people who claim to be Christians, their children are doing this and they want to affirm it?

How do we handle those people who are affirming that? Yeah, very similar kind of approach to what we've been talking about. We're trying to be as loving as we can. And we recognize there are broader issues than just the clothing decisions, but we cannot affirm that.

And I believe that love would, especially with a child in question, call us to try to have a conversation over that where we would warn them of the danger of what they are doing. What is first wave feminism, second wave?

Oh, sorry. I am so sorry. No, rude. But that's what kicked up in our circles a few months ago. That's exactly what happened with a certain very famous preacher. And it's all over. It's all over the nature of what it means to be loving of people living in lies.

And the broader principle that you and I are getting at here, there's going to be some gray areas. There are in this. We need to honor that. But at base, at base to find the wall behind us in all the fog of this gender confusion, it is not loving to affirm somebody's lie.

And so the grandparents who have a grandchild who is getting married to someone of the same sex, right? They are not being loving in going to that ceremony, in sending a gift, in any way affirming that all the loving thing for that genuinely loving grandfather or grandmother.

What a horrible situation to be in. We have great compassion for that. But the loving thing is to do what we're talking about. It's to have hard conversations. We're so terrified of having hard conversations, by the way.

We're just terrified of it. And I understand why, because there can be severe consequences that come to us. But we can't be terrified of hard conversations. We've got to draw on, in a David-like way, the power of the Spirit.

And we've got to pray, a lot of prayer. We need a lot of prayer, a lot more prayer than a lot of us are giving about these things. And we've got to then say to grandma, who is very confused about going to the gay wedding of her grandchild, do not go.

Do not send a gift. That was terrible counsel that was given publicly. Devastating, awful, damaging counsel. Instead, what needs to happen is, hopefully, you, grandma or whoever it is, you know, grandpa, I don't know who it was, but you try, reach out to your beloved grandchild, set up a time to talk to them, and say, say, I love you so much.

I love you because of the gospel of grace that has forgiven a sinner like me. I'm a sinner just like you. And I've got to say to you, you are putting your soul in mortal peril by going further down the road in the sin of homosexuality.

Please, in love, I beg you, don't do this. Run away from your sin and run to the forgiving arms of Jesus. He will wash you clean to the uttermost. You are not in a different category of super sinner over me because I'm a heterosexual sinner.

You are just like me. That's the advice that should have been given, not because I'm perfect, but according to Scripture. That is the advice that should have been given to that precious grandmother facing a hard situation.

Never to affirm the sin of any sinner, not just homosexuality, that's culturally palatable now, but of any sinner. You have to try to do the hard work of having, I'm sorry, having a hard conversation, but a true conversation, a gospel conversation, and pray for their soul and pray for them to come out.

He's talking about Alistair Begg just in case anybody didn't catch the illusion. What is first wave feminism, second wave feminism, third wave feminism? What are the distinctives between that? Quickly, just you just kind of give a brief description of it.

First wave feminism centered in the right to vote, the right for women to vote in public elections and related issues, women in the workforce, some of those kind of things. Sometimes first wave feminism is presented as like, yay, evangelicals affirm all of that.

I'm personally good with women voting. I don't have any biblical basis to say women shouldn't vote, which would be a separator with me and some in the patriarchy camp who would say men of rulers of the household, they're the only ones who should vote.

I find that an extension beyond what scripture would say. I understand how you could get to that position. I'm not saying it's wicked of the devil. I just think that's probably a click or two beyond where scripture is.

There was a lot of feminist energy and some very bad theology in first wave feminism. Second wave feminism is 1950s and 60s feminism. It's women rejecting traditional gender roles. Third wave feminism is feminism of the 80s and 90s.

Feminism expands to include homosexuality, lesbianism as a cause that's linked up with feminism. Then fourth wave feminism embraces even further transgenderism as a dimension of the feminist project. Feminism has gone, I reversed the direction, has gone further and further to the left to the degree that now the feminist cause has lost its way because there are men who are supposedly feminists who are presenting themselves as women.

That does not fit in particular with the second wave feminists who were totally about womanhood and a real understanding of womanhood. We would disagree with them strongly on a number of issues, but they really did believe in womanhood.

The movement is eating itself. I've heard an analysis of all four waves of that basically saying that the seeds for fourth wave feminism, second, third, and fourth wave feminism were laid with the, we would look and say women should have the right to vote, but the arguments that they used and the way they went about doing that paved the way and laid the foundation for second, third, and fourth wave feminism.

So basically the fourth wave feminism today is not a refutation of women have a right to vote with the arguments that they used. Fourth wave feminism now is a, it's really the fruit or the flowering of that first wave feminism.

Yeah, there are, there are, for example, first wave feminists who believed in the, the motherhood of God. God is mother, like clear as a bell. And that is a no bueno reality. They may have argued for some things like you just said that I think I can affirm from a biblical standpoint, not their standpoint.

I think women can vote. I'm personally good with that. But yes, the seeds that were planted were not actually all good seed. So went from women being equal to men, to women don't need men, to women can be men.

Kind of a full circle. It's not even a spectrum. It's just, we'll get right back to the point now where they're eating their own really. Yeah. And you would expect that the feminist movement would be up in arms at men, transgender men entering girls' bathrooms and changing rooms, for example.

And there are a few of the old guard feminists who have spoken up, but largely they have been silenced. And these are all secular people, very secular people. Largely the older feminists have been silenced by the newer pagan forms of feminism.

And so they're not defending girls much at all. And now you've got a video of some hulking kid in an eighth grade girls' basketball league in Massachusetts, like smashing these little girls. And all the liberal parents are just watching and clapping.

And you're like, oh my word. But this is a missions moment for us because there are people out there on the left and middle and right who are not Christians. And we can say, I think we should point them to these things and say, do you believe this is right?

Do you believe, guy at the local grocery store, if you get into a conversation, do you believe it's good that men are going into the little girls' rooms? And you should absolutely take that as an evangelistic opportunity to say, the reason you know that's wrong is because God gave you a conscience and we ultimately need Jesus.

So use these moments. Everybody wants to, sorry Jim, everybody always wants to evangelize the left, the far left. What about people on the right? What about conservative people who actually agree with us on some of these things, but they're not born again, not even a little?

We need to use these moments to evangelize them too. And show them that the reason that they objected to these things is because they're borrowing a worldview that they will not affirm by faith. Yeah, so but basically, feminism now has ended up resulting in an attack upon women.

Totally. The second, third, and fourth wave of feminism has now resulted in women under attack. As one podcast host I heard recently said, if you think that this country is horrible under the patriarchy, wait till you see it under the matriarchy.