On Women: Feminism

0:37 Welcome to the Stone Choir Podcast. I am Corey J. Mahler. And I'm Wo. Today's episode of Stone Choir is part two of our series on feminism. Last week we spent about a hundred minutes talking about the scriptural basis for what God what God says the purpose of a woman is in the world in creation. I mean we established as God established, we didn't. You know, it's a couple podcasters aren't writing any of these rules. God said that woman was made as a helper fit for man. And we established through the scriptural basis how that is consistent from before the fall through all of scripture, Old and New Testament. So today we're going to be talking about what has happened in the last few centuries in Christendom as we first begin to depart

1:23 from that. Uh up front I want to mention that we are not really going to be talking about any other societies outside of Christian societies uh because a that's not really our problem and b if as you're listening along you think of counterexamples of oh well this other pagan society had feminism long before Christendom did. Yeah, exactly. Those are pagans. They're all burning in hell. They were feminists long before us. So thank you for making your point. Like that we we could do a ninety second episode here that just said, you know what? Feminism correlates to damned society. That's not really a good podcast, so we're gonna go over in detail what's played out really since the Enlightenment.

2:03 So off to the races, we're gonna be talking about feminism as it really began its genesis in the Enlightenment in the West. And as we mentioned last week, really the reason for that is that every Christian society has understood what we said last week. Christian societies have always been based on God's rules and norm for human civilization. When nations were Christianized, whatever pattern they had for male-female relations before Christianity arrived, they all naturally adopted the headship principle. They adopted the premise that the man is the head of the household, that a woman is a helper fit for man, whether she is a daughter in the case of children, and then when she's married off, when she becomes one flesh with her husband, he becomes

2:56 her head. This was codified in in European law. It was the norm and society. So it wasn't really much of an issue. Like these weren't points of of specific contention really until the Enlightenment. You know, it's probably in almost every episode the Enlightenment seems to come up. We'll do an episode here probably pretty soon talking about it. I think for us to do that proper treatment is going to take a little more research than some of these. So we haven't tackled it yet. Just for that reason, it's going to take some more work on our part up front. The enlightenment was a period of time in really in the 1700s in Europe when the notions of Christendom were set aside for the sake of science

3:39 and reason. Uh let me just read you briefly something that was is from Wikipedia. I mentioned last week I highly recommend using Wikipedia for looking at these subjects. When you're looking at feminism or women's Liberation or the Enlightenment. Anyone who's writing for Wikipedia is a huge fan. So when we are criticizing and attacking some of these things, these are good sources because if you just take re you can find and replace in any article there, good for bad and you'll basically have a correct Christian opinion on the things. But because they're bragging about what they've accomplished, they're very thorough. In fact they're thorough to the point that they will try to to pull in things that have nothing to do with their agenda

4:18 to try to say, oh yeah, this was this was this thing as well. So they can just basically co-opt all of Christian history into their own worldview. This is part of what Wikipedia says about the Enlightenment. Philosophers and scientists of the period widely circulated their ideas through meetings at scientific academies, Masonic lodges, literary salons, coffee houses, and in printed books, journals, and pamphlets. The ideas of the Enlightenment undermined the authority of the monarchy and the church, and paved the way for political revolutions in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A variety of nineteenth century movements, including liberalism, communism, and neoclassicism, traced their intellectual heritage to the Enlightenment.

5:04 The central doctrines of the Enlightenment were individual liberty and religious tolerance In opposition to an absolute monarchy in the fixed dogmas of the church. So basically a one-sentence summary of that is something that you will find popping up on really all any of these basic articles talking about it. And it's something that I think I remember almost verbatim from social studies as in grade school. The Enlightenment was the triumph of science and reason over faith and superstition. And I want that to be a central tenet that you keep in mind as you're listening to all this, because one, the Enlightenment is entirely a European thing. It occurred in Europe in Christendom. We're not talking about anywhere else.

5:47 This was entirely within the sphere of the Christian dominion. That's important because the second part of that, it's the triumph of science and reason over faith and superstition. Those mean the same thing when they say them. Faith can only mean the Christian faith, and superstition just means principally the superstitions of the Christian faith. So the enlightenment all by itself, everything about it was principally man in his reason, overthrowing God in scripture that's been revealed to us, overthrowing monarchy, overthrowing the church. That those three things are always part and parcel of any discussion of of enlightenment, thinking and its influence. And that's important because that's why we did the episode on genealogy

6:32 of ideas. We're going to talk about repeatedly in this episode. This is the genealogy of the ideas that many of you hold to be sacred. The idea that women are equal to men, the idea that the franchise should be universal. All of these things are new in Christendom as of the seventeen and eighteen hundreds. They weren't held previously and ta today they're sacrosanct. So we're contrasting Christianity with the Enlightenment because they're two competing religions. And I think that's that's important to carry throughout this entire conversation. And to emphasize the point of the genealogy of ideas, we were discussing before we started recording. A central symbol in Christianity, in scripture, that we really ignore, is

7:16 the idea of a tree and its fruit. And a tree is known by its fruit. A good tree does not produce poisonous fruit. Poisonous fruit does not come from a good tree. A poisonous tree does not produce good fruit. And And Christians have just stopped paying attention to that. we read it, we go, yes, okay, and move on. We don't pay attention to what scripture is actually saying there. If you look at the fruit of something, and the fruit is wicked, the fruit is evil, the fruit is poisonous, that is telling you the thing itself is wicked, evil and poisonous. And jumping ahead a little bit really, but not in fullness, we'll go through this chronologically roughly. We're living in the results of what we're talking about here with

8:04 first and second wave feminism, with the roots in the Enlightenment, protofeminism so called. We are living the fruit of that today and we can see the wickedness in our societies. We see it in abortion, we see it in so called sexual liberation, we see it in the growing support for prostitution, pornography. the list is endless. All of those things are the fruit of these ideas. And so as Christians, we have to look at this and say it's a poisonous tree. We cannot consume the fruit from this tree. We cannot believe the things that are said by those who hold to this ideology, this competing religion. And so it's not a matter of saying, well, I reject transition Transgenderism but I'm okay with all of the things that came before

8:55 it leading up to it. No, because that is the inevitable result of all of the things leading up to it that we're going to discuss in this episode. And so, as Christians, we have to go all the way back to the source. We have to go back to the source of these ideas. What is the tree? Which tree bore this fruit? Does this come from Scripture? Does this come from God? Does this come from natural revelation? Because of course God is the author of two books, Scripture and Nature, the natural world creation, and we've pointed out before that when God himself appears and speaks in the book of Job, he doesn't appeal to his word he does it after a fashion, because of course he spoke creation into existence, but he appeals to creation

9:43 he appeals to that as illustrating his glory, his might, his majesty. And so yes, we can look to the natural world for truth. There is truth there, yes, it's fallen and corrupt, but it there's still truth there because it is God's creature, it's God's creation, it is good because it comes from the ultimate good. And so we have to look at that source. Does it come from something that is from God or is it a corruption? Because of course Satan can't create anything new, but is it a corruption of God's good order and therefore a wicked tree bearing wicked fruit? And in the case of feminism, it does not matter which wave. That is the fundamental baseline here. It doesn't matter if it's first wave, second wave, third wave, or

10:29 so-called fourth wave that is starting in the last decade or so. They are all wicked because they are all rebellion, they are all against God. They do not come from a good tree. They are wicked fruit from a wicked tree. And a fundamental truth that I want everyone to bear in mind when it comes to feminism was already mentioned in Wo's opening. Woman was made to be a helper for man. Anything that is against that core nature of woman is evil. And so feminism fundamentally seeks to make woman not a helper, but an equal and a competitor, at the very least, the the latter waves want to make woman above man, and really the first one did as well, but anything that makes woman a competitor instead of

11:22 a helper is not from God. Because God made her to be a helper. And so we can see this wickedness, this wicked strain running through many different things, and all of the waves of feminism. If something is contrary to what God has ordained, to the nature of the thing as God intended it, as God made it, then that is wicked and Christians cannot support it. And so again, it does not matter which wave of feminism, and you will see even pastors making this argument. They'll say, well, third and fourth wave feminism are wicked, but first and second wave were fine, or maybe they'll say only first wave. That's not how it works. A little bit of poison is not good. A lot of poison is worse, of course, but you don't eat

12:11 the poisonous fruit. You don't eat one bite, you don't eat the entire fruit. You avoid it, you avoid the poisonous tree. And as I I mentioned we were discussing a few things before we started recording. If you let Satan play in your yard, you're going to wake up the next day with him in bed with you That's how these things always go. They always get worse. And so you can't dip your foot in this pool and say, well, the first wave. No. It is all wicked. It should all be avoided by Christians. And that's why we're going through the history of this pointing out all of the signs that this is wicked fruit, that this is not from God, that this is from Satan. So I think a good place to begin the story of Western

12:56 feminism is is as was mentioned in in the Wikipedia article about the Enlightenment, in the salons of France in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, in the coffee houses of England in the colonies around the same time. The salons in France were really one of the first times that women became a type of participant in public life, in matters of discourse and debate and discussion. And the salon was sort of the very smallest version and then the coffee houses were even more egalitarian than that. Basically what happened in the salons, the women acted as sort of governesses or moderators. They're basically they're kind of a stone police, like just to make sure that the discussion was polite, everyone followed the rules.

13:40 It was basically the men who were doing the discussion. But the women were present, they were in the room, you know, they had maybe a little bit to say. It was it was the very smallest bite of the of the apple. And so by itself you look at that and think, well there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I honestly don't know if I could disagree. In isolation, I don't know if I would shout that down, you know, without knowing anything that happened in subsequent centuries and say, no, stop, get the women out of the room, we can't do this. Like it just it doesn't look like there's a problem there. I think that what's illustrative is that it had never really happened before. It wasn't something that had occurred in Christian societies.

14:19 You would have, you know, private discussions in homes and these were sort of bigger than that. I mean this yeah, the salon was fun fundamentally in a home, but it was really sort of a public gathering of of friends that became more and more important to how society ran. And then as that model was adopted kind of by the the English bo on both sides of the Atlantic, it became much more egalitarian, as I said, the there were men's only debating societies and coffee houses where only men were permitted to speak. There were some where there was completely mixed company and the women were equal participants. And then at some point it kind of actually became fractious and the men got tired of the women talking.

14:58 And so women created their own coffee houses and their own societies to discuss these things among themselves about matters related to the public sphere. I think that's the important distinction here is that they weren't talking about the duties of a helper to a husband. They were talking about, you know, in the case of the slans literally a lot of it was books, it was poetry, it w it was it was strictly non-political and then it began to evolve into being more political. And in the US and in England it was much more strongly linked to things that had traditionally only been in the In the sphere of the man. And sphere is a a term that you'll find popping up to this day among feminists as something that they find despicable because the

15:41 the claim that's been inserted back into history, and we'll get to some of the various points where that's made. Feminists will claim that it was men that created these artificial spheres where the woman is basically chained in the home. All she can do is cook and clean and make babies and she can't talk to anyone and that's her sphere. Yeah, it's more like being cauterized or like being a pearl that's sealed up and and kept separate from everything else. It's seen as a matter of subjugation. And so these departures from the spheres as they began to occur in these public places, again, on their face, I think even as a Christian, you wouldn't necessarily think ev even as a you know, as I'm sure many people think of us as hyperactive, hypersensitive Christians,

16:26 I don't think I would necessarily look at that and think, oh man, this is really bad news. I think in rest retrospect, it becomes much clearer what was beginning in those places because again, it wasn't that a woman talking is inherently sinful. We're not talking about church where God forbids women to speak. If she has a question, she can go home and ask her husband. We're talking about civil society. So God didn't explicitly say don't do this. It just typically wasn't done in Christian society. And I think in retrospect we can maybe question why that is, you know, I don't know why the sent fence is here. I'm just gonna tear it down. That's basically what happened. we demolished Chesterton's fence and then we got the results.

17:07 But as we look downstream from those first events, we can see that as women began to engage in civic life and public life. They didn't have opinions. They had ideas. They had things that they wanted to get done. And increasingly it became visible to them that they disagreed with their husbands. I think that's when we really became we got off to the races on the feminist thrust that has led us to the point that we're at today. You made an important point there that if something has never been done before in Christendom and suddenly someone brings in this novel idea. We don't necessarily have to reject it out of hand, but we do have to be skeptical. Why is this thing that none of our Christian ancestors has ever

17:55 done, that has never been part of Christendom, that has never been accepted in Christian society, why is it all of a sudden a thing? Why is this now being pushed? And of course, in this case, with the advantage of the vantage point of centuries of development, well we know why. But if you have that initial skepticism of things like this, you may avoid the problem down the line. Because Satan's plans span decades, centuries, generations. And so something that he has planned for your great great great grandchildren? Well the beginning of that may not look bad to you. Well women are just joining us in the coffee house to discuss politics. Now Now of course, to a Christian that actually probably should

18:48 look bad because of the subject being discussed. Because fundamentally, Christianity and nature as well teaches that the woman's space is in the home. That is her world. Her world is the private world. It is the maintenance of the home, the teaching of children, the rearing of children, etc, those things, that is the woman's sphere. The man's sphere is the public sphere. Not all men, of course, because if you are a woodworker and you spend all of your time in your shop and you don't involve yourself in politics whatsoever. As a man that is typically fine. Yes, there are times where you may have to have some voice and things speak up, but for men there are as well different spheres. But the public sphere itself

19:40 is solely the sphere for men. It is something only men should in which only men should be engaged. Politics is a man's pursuit. And so we see, even here in proto-feminism, and then leading into first wave, it naturally leads into first wave, because in proto-feminism, you have this push for women to discuss things like politics and economics and political philosophy. I wouldn't say I wouldn't go so far as to say that all discussion of philosophy and things like that are wrong for women. That's not true. We don't hold that position because of course some parts of the Christian faith are philosophy. They touch on philosophy, as it used to be taught and held in our universities when they were still Christian, theology is the queen

20:32 of the liberal arts. It is the highest form of philosophy. And so these are still issues that women can, of course, discuss With their husbands at home as they are supposed to. That is the right ordering of things. Because the woman has a head and she should discuss these things with her head. But you see the the lead-in from discussing the issues in the salon and the coffee house right into first wave feminism. And first wave feminism is of course the agitation for so called political rights. And of course, those political rights themselves were the fruit of the Enlightenment. One of the first major concomitant with and sort of downstream from the Enlightenment was the American Revolution.

21:23 Uh we all know, probably virtually everyone has memorized the the opening lines to the Declaration of Independence, which is one of the most obscene lies ever told in the English language. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those words are a spell that has been cast on the heart and mind of every American who's been born since or who was alive at that time. Because instantly that became true. It describes itself as this is true, this we hold these truths to be self evident. In other words, it's unthinkable not to think the thing that we

22:06 just said, and then here's a list of them life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Now the reason that that was the kickoff for feminism in this country is that there was the inherent irony in what happened in the in the war for independence, which was a revolution. You know, that's the war for independence is how we couch it here. It was a revolt against the right rightful king of this colony. And we'll get into some of the other revolutions that followed. I think that there's some structural difference between a colony thousands of miles away rebelling against its motherland and A country trying to overthrow its own own king on its own soil, but fundamentally, as a matter of morality, it's difficult to justify

22:50 what is functionally regicide, which was was what was going on. They were overthrowing the king, anointing themselves as their new lords and masters. The irony of what happened immediately thereafter is that we had predominantly English, it was all basically all northern European people in this country, plus some Africans who had been imported against their will as slaves into the South. When we said all men are created equal, and then we you know we had the three fifths compromise, which said, Oh well not you. You know, Africans were not permitted to vote. they were not full citizens, they were counted as partial men for the purpose of apportionment of representation because the South wanted that.

23:37 That was a political compromise in favor of the South to say, yeah, you have these Africans, so we'll we'll count them as three fifths for the purpose of giving you representation in Congress. After the war between the states, well and leading up to the war between the states, we also have the genesis of feminism, because in the aftermath of the American Revolution and in the aftermath of that spell of the Declaration of Independence being cast, everyone starts believing it, saying all men are created equal. And some are saying, well, what about these Africans? Are they men? Aren't they created equal? And if so, why are they slaves? And then you have the women saying, Well, our d when it says all men, does it mean all mankind?

24:19 Because we're part of mankind. Why aren't we equal? Well, why don't we have representation too? And that's why the salons and the coffee houses mattered because as women became participants in public life and in these political matters, they suddenly realized that maybe they didn't agree with their husbands and they wanted to be heard too. And so the genesis of feminism in this country was fundamentally one of the simultaneous rise of a desire for abolition of slavery and liberation of women. Those two throughout all of American history have always gone hand in hand. In first, second, and third wave feminism, they all happen at the same time. And the feminists themselves say this this, they will say that the

25:02 two are inexorably linked. And they're called waves, but really they're just generations. You have a fit and a start and you have this spurt of energy and they move the ball down the field. And then it sort of died out for a generation or so, and then a subsequent generation came along and revolted again. And so in first wave feminism, one of the first voices that I turned up that I found kind of interesting was a man named John Neal, N E A L. He has quite the Wikipedia article himself. He was he was a very impressive man on paper. I I find his face to be pretty punchable and I I disagree with virtually everything he said or did, but you can't fault the guy for being lazy. Uh it he was v he was incredibly prolific in his life.

25:46 And one of the things that he devoted most of the nineteenth century to doing was fighting for the quote intellectual equality between men and women. He fought coverture, he demanded suffrage, equal pay, better education, and working conditions for women. Now working conditions for women is is hilarious because how would women have bad working conditions if they're in the home? You see, already s feminism, as it begins to encroach, is creating the very problems that it's then trying to solve. You know, we talked today about we know about sweatshops and about and about horrible working conditions in the industrial revolution. That's principally what he was fighting. What was that? That was women working outside the home in horrible conditions.

26:27 Yeah, they were it was awful. They w they were they were working incredibly long hours in dangerous, miserable conditions. His solution was well we need to get them better working conditions. I think the Christian solution would be to say they shouldn't have left their home in the first place. And so even at the very beginning, before any of this is really taken off, we already see the machine of feminism as creating one problem and then using itself as the solution to its own problems. And that's a pattern that gets repeated throughout the history of this thing. And that is one of the the strings of irony that runs through all of this of course, is that feminism has never once made women better off.

27:07 It has always made life worse for women. And some women today are starting to realize that, recognizing that they would actually rather be at home with their children caring for the home, instead of working for some corporation that cares not at all about them, paying them some minuscule wage and will terminate them for whatever reason it feels like. Feminism is not a good deal for women. It's not a good deal for men either, because it turns the helper God created for man into a competitor and creates animosity between men and women instead of What men and women are supposed to feel for one another, which is mutual respect and love for one another, supposed to have marriages form out of that.

27:58 There's a reason we see the marriage rate collapsing, and it is in large part due to feminism which creates that animosity on the part of women toward men, and then men react to that animosity by not wanting to deal with women. It breaks down the family, it breaks down everything fundamentally. But here at the beginning, even initially, we see that one of the goals is to get women into the workforce because of course this is just serving another of the idols of the Enlightenment and capitalism, the things that flow from it, and that of course is Mammon. Because if you have basically double the workforce, yes you are going to increase overall productivity Productivity. But everyone is going to live a worse life, except of

28:47 course those at the top who are benefiting from the increase in productivity. Because as anyone who's studied any of Any economics knows, well what happens when you increase massively the supply? Well, the price of the thing is going to drop. And so what happens when you take the workforce and double it? Well, now you have significantly lower wages, which has been one of the long-term consequences of feminism is lower wages for workers. And so now instead of being able to survive off of one income for a family of however many children you happen to have, well now you have to have both parents working. The man and the woman both have to work in order to meet just the basic needs of the family because of feminism.

29:41 Feminism demanded that women be allowed into the workplace and then made it absolutely necessary for women to be in the workplace in order to survive in the world feminism created. So as mentioned, it created a problem and then offered a supposed solution. Of course it isn't any solution at all because now there is no buffer. There's no you know, if the husband is injured, the wife can't go out and work a little bit, which used to be the case, that uh often happened. Now we could discuss whether or not society should have some sort of safety net to deal with that instead of forcing women to go out of the home and work, but that's a separate issue. The issue here is that feminism destroyed that buffer and made it

30:26 so that most people now live inches from abject poverty. That is a long-term consequence of feminism to go back again to the idea of bad fruit. We see here the evil, wicked, poisonous fruit of feminism in society. It's not a good tree, because a good tree does not bear bad fruit. As we mentioned last week, one of the legal principles that was overthrown over a century or so of feminism was that of coverture. I want to read now what the English women's property rights were. This is the English common law description. It was basically what was in effect on this side of the Atlantic as well. English common law defined the role of the wife as a femme covert, emphasizing her subordination to her husband in putting her under the

31:14 quote protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or her lord. Upon marriage, the husband and wife became one person under the law, as the property of the wife was surrendered to her husband, and her status as a separate legal personality with the ability to own property and sue and be sued solely in her own name ceased to exist. Any personal property acquired by the wife during the marriage, unless specified that it was for her own separate use, went automatically to her husband. If a woman writer had a copyright before marriage, the copyright would pass to the husband afterwards, for instance. Further, a married woman was unable to draft a will or dispose of any property without her husband's consent.

31:56 Now today that sounds kinda terrible. It sounds it sounds diminutive, it sounds oppressive, but when viewed in the context of two becoming one flesh and the man being the head of the woman, that's basically a legal recognition of the order that God ordained. And I think that that's important because again, as we're looking at these issues, you know, we're quarterway through the 21st century now. We're looking back through centuries of post Enlightenment thought. And so when we read and hear these things, they sound awful. They sound just alien and obscene and hateful. If you look at them from that day, what were they trying to do? They were trying to solve the problem of headship. What is how does the law, how does the left hand of

32:46 Christ's kingdom deal with the created order that God has ordained. This was the solution under English common law to deal with that. And I I think it's kinda hard to find fall with it theologically. There were obviously some practical problems that sometimes cropped up. And one of the recurring themes that we'll find in this episode is that when you have things like abusive slave masters or abusive husbands, the solution of the revolutionary is to overthrow the institution that they see as embodying the abuse. Whereas the Christian approach, as we described in last week's episode about scripture on feminism and the week previous on slavery in scripture, the Christian solution, the scriptural solution from God is not revolution, it's not

33:37 overthrowing that headship, it is making the head accountable to God, in some cases through the state, for being faithful, for being obedient to God, because masters also have a master in heaven. So if a master is cruelly and unjustly beating his slaves, the solution from a Christian perspective is not abolish slavery, it's the state should intervene so that that man stops abusing his property, because although the slaves are property, they're also human beings, and they also may have protection under the law. That's entirely appropriate as a Christian for the Christian prince to intervene in the case of a faithless master or a faithless husband. So see, feminism sees through the Marxist lens of power dynamics we

34:24 have oppressor and oppressee and we need to overthrow the class of the oppressor. The scriptural approach as we've talked about in the last couple weeks is simply if someone is being cruel, if someone is doing something ungodly, he should stop doing it. If he's a Christian, and whether or not he's a Christian, the godly prince has a right and a duty to intervene to prevent that evil from happening because evil sin should be illegal. You know, that's that's one of the problems we're having today as we're beginning to discuss Christian nationalism in a wider sphere is where do you draw the line between that which is sinful and that which is illegal? And maybe there are some cases where things that are sin should

35:05 not be against the law under the civil law. However, they're not two separate questions. There's a reason that for thousands of years the civil law was lined up pretty much directly with what God has said the law should be. And that wasn't just that's not theonomy. That's not that's not God being the direct overseer of a country. That's simply Christians in their spheres, in their vocations, obeying God. And if God says do something, we should do it. And if you're a godly prince, you should do it. If you're a godly master or godly husband, you should do it. And if you don't, someone should intervene to prevent that. Except in the case of a godly prince, there's you know there's no one over a king except God, so that means he has

35:52 the greatest answer for if if he sins against his people, but ultimately they are his people. And when I mentioned the quote there, protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or her lord. I think that's important because it it recognized that a woman always had a head. It's something that we lost in the revolutionary fervor of the Enlightenment in the Americas is that we ceased to have barons and lords. I'm not necessarily bring back that sort of class system, but I think it's important to recognize that when we when we declared no gods, no masters in 1775 and 76, when we said we will not have a king, we will not have anyone over us, it fundamentally changed the hierarchy that God has had established.

36:38 Because suddenly when we became a democratic republic, we were choosing our own masters, our own rulers, and saying, Well, you can't really rule. You have very limited things where you can do and we're gonna decide what you can do to us or not. And there can be discussion around where the lines are there, but I think it's important that when you eliminate the notion of subject, it really erases a lot of these distinctions. Because again, in England, the woman was a subject of their king, and she became a subject of her husband. But even without a husband, she was still subject to the king. And so when we hear subjugation we think, oh no, it's evil. No, there's someone over you. There's always someone over you.

37:19 As we said last week, all of these things, the fight for feminism, the fight against slavery is always fundamentally about knocking out that middle portion between the man and God. Because we are not ruled directly by God. We are ruled through intermediaries, through fathers, through husbands, through godly princes. That order is God's order. And so what these things do on their face is not to say we want to overthrow God, although in private they will say that. But in public what they say is we just want to knock out this middle support. I don't need to have a man over me. I don't need to have a master. I don't need to have a husband. I can do it myself. And what that does is it eliminates God from the chain, and

37:59 you do become your own God and your own master. And again, we're living in the aftermath of those results. Some of them do go so far as to say they want to overthrow God even in public. But I think you touched on an important truth there's a Christian solution and there's an atheist or satanic solution to basically everything, and they follow a pattern. The Christian solution is to get to put it in two words, reform and regulation. The atheist or satanic, the Marxist solution, these are all equivalent terms, is basically abolition, and it's always abolition. The solution to a handful of slave masters abusing their slaves. Oh, we have to abolish slavery. The Christian solution is to say no. We enact laws to regulate this, to reform the practices, to bring

38:54 it in line with what Scripture says. And that runs throughout everything. We could apply that to the economy and society as well, because you have what's the m most radical solution, as it were, to issues presented by problems in the economy? Well that would be the hardcore Marxist or anarchist position, which is basically just abolish everything. Get rid of it as much as you can, reduce property rights, eliminate property rights, etc. We all know what they actually advocate, regardless of how it may work in reality, as we've seen, for instance, with the USSR But that's not the Christian solution. The Christian solution when you see these problems in the economy is say we need reform, it needs to be regulated to control these

39:44 sinful results of fallen human nature. You don't abolish the system, because imperfect fallen humans cannot use it perfectly. Of course that's the case. We are all fallen, we are all sinful, we make mistakes, we sin. Things are not going to go exactly according to plan. That's one of the reasons we have this sort of hierarchy. Yes, the hierarchy is innate, it is part of God's good ordering of creation, it would have existed without the fall, but now subsequent to the fall, one of the duties of those higher up in the hierarchy is to ensure that things below him run properly, to curb the wicked, basically to use God's law in the three ways it is supposed to be used, although quite a bit of it

40:27 is punishment when it comes to those ranked higher in the hierarchy in order to curb wickedness in society. But we also have that in society itself, in the the social setting, the atheist solution to finding any sort of problem, and yes, of course it is pretext in many cases, but finding any sort of problem in the inner relationship of men and women, or parents and children even, which is what we're getting into these days, is to get rid of those relationships, is to abolish them, is to radically reorient, reconfigure society so that you don't have this hierarchy, you don't have these relationships, you get rid of the power dynamics. And yes, even though Marxists are obsessed with the idea of power

41:12 dynamics, power dynamics is a real thing. If you go stand before a prince, he has power over you. That is just the reality of it. And that holds today. If you are in court, the judge has power over you. And it doesn't actually matter if you're the one on trial or not. Yes, if you're on trial, he has more power over you, but if I appear in court as an attorney, that judge has power over me, he can hold me in contempt, he can throw me in jail. The power dynamics are real, those still exist, you cannot get rid of those. But the atheist solution is to attempt to get rid of those. The Christian solution is to reform them, to regulate them, to bring them in line with what God set up, how God ordered things,

41:52 and what Scripture says. And yes, I'm sure some have heard in the background of this the echo of Seper Refemanda, and yes, that's a problem. We should not always be trying Be trying to reform because if you bring something in line with Scripture and in line with God's law, you don't need to keep reforming it. That is not actually the cry of the Christian, is not Semper Reformanda. That's not. That is the cry of the rebel, the cry of the radical. Because as you have undoubtedly been able to see thus far and continuing as we continue this episode with feminism, it is a ratchet. It is a constant attempt to continue rebelling against whatever little bit of God's order they find, wherever they find it, through constant revolution.

42:46 And there's a distinction there. Revolutions are almost always wicked things that are meant to overthrow rightful order. Rebellions are not always so, Because sometimes a rebellion can be against tyrannical authority that has become oppressive and contrary to God, and that's an episode we will eventually do. I don't know when, so I won't make any promises on that. But there's a distinction there that is important to maintain revolution versus rebellion. And we're talking about really revolution here. Yes, it's rebellion in the sense of it is rebellion against God, which of course is always wicked. But there is in the political and social sphere a concept of rebellion that is not always wicked.

43:31 And we'll be getting into more of the the revolutions here as we move into the next bit of this, because we see the revolutions in Europe that follow on really from what happened in the US in some ways, because you have the US Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have what many don't know because it is no longer really taught in history class, you had revolutions throughout most of Western Europe and also in some parts of Eastern Europe in the eighteen hundreds. Some starting a little earlier, like the French Revolution and obviously the American Revolution. But this was a wave of revolution that spread throughout Christendom, and the goal was the same throughout: no gods, no masters.

44:14 It was a desire to destroy the right ordering of the left hand kingdom, of the kingdom of the left hand of Christ, and to destroy that hierarchy that God had instituted as part of his creation, as part of his good. And so that's what we get into now because we see the consequences of that today, but this is where it started. And as I mentioned up front, that's literally one of the explicit descriptions of the enlightenment, overthrowing monarchy, overthrowing the church. What do we find? Both of those happening. And so after the American Revolution, after the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the colonies becoming their own country, immediately Quaker agitators and some others began fighting for freedom for the slaves in the

45:05 South. They wanted the abolition of slavery. They said, Well, all men are created equal. We have these men who are not being treated as equal. We need to fix that. The Quakers wouldn't resort to violence, but many others resorted to violence. And so there was a lot of discussion in the first half of the nineteenth century in the eighteen hundreds in the United States about this. And this was where feminism coalesced in the US. And one of the seminal moments in feminism in the United States was the Seneca Falls Convention of eighteen forty eight. This was the first women's rights convention. Now the reason this is key is that the they had a women's rights convention Invention in parallel with the work that had been

45:49 done by the abolitionists in the decades prior. And see, as I mentioned, these things are part and parcel. They're inextricable. The abolition of slavery and the so called liberation of women have always been inextricably linked. You'll find on the mouth of every feminist today, you'll see it in all of the all the conversations about it always link them because it's true The reason that there was a Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, there was a women's rights convention, is they began to realize that maybe the fight for the abolition of slavery wasn't going to do women any good if they were not treated as their own specific constituency. And see this flows from the salons and from the coffee houses

46:33 as a participation began, as the agitation picked up from those conversations, pretty soon you have massive conventions where this issue of women's liberation is seminal. And 1848 is a is a crucial year, you know, as Corey just mentioned. Look up on Wikipedia Revolutions of 1848. You can there's an entire Wikipedia article just about all the revolutions that occurred in this year in 1848. Hell literally broke loose. it had been happening before, but the mask really came off in eighteen forty-eight. So the Enlightenment lit the fuse, and here's where we see the first detonation. We see simultaneous to work for abolition, we see now explicit work for the liberation of women, for women's suffrage, for women's rights, for

47:26 equal rights, for the abolition of coverture, of basically total equality and then ultimately today we have the usurpation of man entirely. You know, the modern feminist goal is to have babies without men at all. And they're doing that. they're producing they can produce an embryo embryo where they've taken DNA from two eggs or from you know two female donors. So that's that's the transhumanist next the end of the beginning that we see in these smaller moves. And And the Seneca Falls Convention was was fueled again by Quakers and a woman who was seminal in all this, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, uh she was really one of the most important feminists in history. Susan B. Anthony kind of gets more press, but I think in in reading

48:12 about this and looking at the impact, I think Stan was probably more important. She gave rise to to organizing this thing and to making a a front burner issue in society. But what she said even in the eighteen forties as she was describing this is really revealing and it gets back to the point that we were talking about at the beginning about this being about scripture. Like this is when we're talking about feminism, we're not just talking about beating up on girls and saying we want we want misogyny, we want subjugation. That's not the point. This is a theological problem. Listen to what is said about Elizabeth Cady Stanton. She said she had been terrified as a child by a minister's talk of damnation, but after overcoming those fears with the help of

48:57 her father and brother in law, had rejected that type of religion entirely, meaning Christianity. So even as a child, she in her in her young life, she rejected Christianity. As an adult, her religious views continued to evolve. While living in Boston in the eighteen forties, she was attracted to the preaching of Theodore Parker, who, like her cousin, Garrett Smith, was a member of the Secret Six, a group of men who financed John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry in an effort to spark an armed slave rebellion. So that was her cousin, that was her spiritual leader, their literal terrorists and anarchists, undertaking demonic activity to foment violent rebellion. This is her genesis as she's becoming an arch feminist.

49:44 It continues. Parker was a transcendentalist and a prominent Unitarian minister, which means completely not Christian, not remotely, who what Who what did he teach? He taught that the Bible need not be taken literally, that God need not be envisioned as a male, and the individual men and women had the ability to determine religious truth for themselves. So you can see why Stan would really like that, because that's that's everything she was looking for. She wanted no gods, no masters. She didn't want a God who was a man. She wanted to be her own God. And Parker gave it to her. Subsequent to that, in the Declaration of Sentiments written for the eighteen forty eight Seneca Falls Convention, Stanton listed a series of grievances against

50:25 men who, among other things, excluded women from the ministry and other leading roles in religion. In one of those grievances, Stanton said that man quote has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action when that belongs to her conscience and her God. This was n the only grievance that was not a matter of fact, such as exclusion of women from colleges, from the right to vote, etcetera, but when a belief, when the challenge is a fundamental basis of authority and autonomy. So this is crucial. This protofeminist, this harbinger of everything that has happened in the last two centuries in the advancement of so called women's rights, why did

51:11 she do it? She did it because she lied about women being made f as a helper for man. She said no, a woman will define her own role, and that's between her and her God, who clearly was not the god of the Bible. And she specifically attacked Christianity. She attacked Christian doctrine. she was for women's ordination, which was again a fundament a function in part of being surrounded by Quakers who are a demonic cult. I it's it's tragic that we didn't stamp them out. Uh when the first Quakers began coming to this country to to Massachusetts Bay Colony, they started getting executed and King I think King Philip II actually put a stop to it, which is unfortunate because if the Quakers had been ended by conversion or by godly justice,

51:57 we wouldn't have these problems today. But instead they were tolerated because that was one of the values even of those colonies. While they were they were Christian in principle, tolerance was already an enlightenment value that was being pushed into the hearts and minds of men to say, Oh, I I can't judge your doctrine. You that's between you and your God. Well, two centuries later, Stanton it has her god telling her what to do, and we see the results. One of the major works produced by Stanton and a committee of other authors, which says something about committees, perhaps, but was the woman's Bible, which basically they went through and just rewrote the Bible in order to agree with feminist ideology.

52:40 That was published in two volumes, and it is a wicked book. It is an inversion of what scripture teaches, it is an inversion of what God says is true, and that's just exactly what you expect from feminism, because feminism is an inversion of what God says is true, of what Scripture actually teaches. As we went over in the first half of this two-part episodes series, scripture is very clear. Again, woman was made as a helper for man. Any attempt to make woman a competitor, an equal to man, is rebellion against God, is wickedness, it is sin. And so we see that here in the beginning of the feminist movement in the US and elsewhere. As was mentioned, this is also involved in some of the revolutions

53:36 that are going on at essentially the same time in Europe. Many of those who failed in the revolutions, because not all of those revolutions really got anywhere in Europe. Some of them were crushed, although at great expense, in both terms of treasure and blood. Many of them came to the US and bolstered the feminist ranks here, and so that is part of the reason that we have such a concentration in the US. And of course a lot of this took off after World War I, some of this took off during the revolutions that took place in the seventeen hundreds, intensified in the eighteen hundreds, intensified again in the nineteen hundreds for various reasons, we'll get into that in a moment. But it is worth highlighting again just how much interrelationship relationship and how

54:28 complex the web is when it comes to abolition and feminism, and all of the issues that then flowed after that. They are part and parcel, they are the same thing, because they are both rebellion against God's good order. Scripture does not teach, as we went over in the episode on slavery, that slavery is sinful. You can exercise it in a sinful manner, you can exercise it in a perfectly Christian manner. The desire to abolish slavery is is morally equivalent to feminism, because both are a rejection of the order that God has instituted in creation, they are ultimately a rejection of God. And so that is why you see so many of those who worked in or were associated with abolitionism transitioning right into feminism.

55:24 And then the women's suffrage movement and so-called women's rights. and then expanding the franchise ever more and more because it never stops. As we have said many times, there is no floor. Sin can always get worse. It always snowballs. The slope is always slippery. One of the things that happened in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War when the thirteenth, fourteenth, and then fifteenth amendments were passed, Stanton and others were ticked because they had hoped that the fifteenth Amendment, which basically granted citizenship and effectively voting rights to freed slaves, didn't include women. See, this was their plan all along. the the feminism was trying to draft behind abolition, but it was

56:16 all the same fight. And there's some some choice quotes from Stanton when she realized that black men were gonna get the vote and she wasn't. she went mask off and she's like I'm not gonna quote what she said here, but modern ears would be offended by the words that she used because she wasn't doing it for them. She was doing it for herself. And so when African Americans were freed and given the franchise and she wasn't, she didn't see that as a victory for liberty. She was ticked off because she was still second class. And And so in 1868, Stanton and Susan B. Anthony founded a paper that was short-lived called Surprise, Surprise, The Revolution, where they began pushing for, well, if we didn't get in the

57:00 15th Amendment, we gotta fight and fight and fight until we achieve equality for women, which finally came in the nineteenth Amendment a decade or so after her death. I think it's worth noting that when Stanton published the women's Bible, that was in 1895. So that's nearly fifty years after the F Seneca Falls Convention. Now, although at the Seneca Call Falls Convention, she had already exposed that she was not a Christian, that she was hostile to God. It was only in the latter years of her life when she felt she had nothing to lose that she really went fully mask off on the degree to which she specifically hated Christianity. And it caused caused a huge rift in the feminist movement of that day because she was actually denounced by her own organization.

57:47 And her close lifelong friend Susan B. Anthony fought against the organization because for her the sake of her honor, but ultimately they didn't narrowly pass a condemnation of what she said. What she and the other editors in the women's Bible did was to methodically work their way through it, quoting selected passages and commenting on them often sarcastically. One of the things that she had told an acquaintance in in response to her views, well, if we who do see the absurdities of this old superstitions never unveil them to others. How is the world to make any progress in the theologies? I am in the sunset of life, and I feel to be my special mission to tell people what they are not prepared to

58:29 hear. So she knew that she had nothing to lose. She knew that her enemy was God and Christianity, and she revised this wicked Bible for the sake of trying to tear down God and the God of Christianity. And she explains why in the book itself. I do not believe that any man ever saw or talked to God. I do not believe that God inspired the Mosaic Code or told the historians what they say he did about woman for all the religions on the face of earth degrade her, and so long as woman accepts the position that they assign her, her emancipation is impossible. That's it in a nutshell. She's absolutely right. As long as you accept Christianity, the emancipation of women is impossible. She knew what battle she was fighting, and she knew what master

59:15 she was serving. So what her words are absolutely true here. What they are not is Christian. They're absolutely contrary to Christian doctrine and scripture. So what does that have to do with us today? Well, this is the genesis of voting rights for women. This is it. This is the woman that gave you as a woman the so-called right to vote. You now have the franchise, both in public life universally, and in our churches now, since early the sixties. Virtually every church now permits women to vote on matters in the church. All of that is the Genesis born of a woman who hated God and devoted her life to overthrowing his order. You want to talk about the genealogy of ideas? You want to talk about the fruit of trees?

1:00:00 This is the tree. Stanton is the tree. And all the things that we have today that we take as personal rights, as things that are sacrosanct, those are the fruits. Those are the fruits of a demonic tree. Stanton is burning in hell and her life's work lives on today by people who think that when they hear these things, when they hear what she did, they think that she did it in service to God. And I pray for those people that they don't mean service to their God because if they go down that path and are fully committed to it, what they are saying is that their God is not the triune God because her God was Satan. She devoted her life to a satanic pursuit of overthrowing all hierarchy in direct opposition to God.

1:00:47 So why are we talking about feminism? This is why. Feminism was born of satanic worship. It was born as a doctrine of demons. It's inextricable. And this is only first wave feminism. We're not even talking about later generations yet. We're not going to spend a whole lot of time on those because it's more recent history that you know better, but it kept getting worse because of where it started. There's not one single moment of any of this, you know, with her unitarian universalist pastor and her anarchist demon cousin trying to foment violent rebellion and murder. These are the trees from which the fruits of these beliefs came. They did not come from scripture. That's why we devoted the first episode about feminism specifically to scripture

1:01:32 to demonstrate, here's what God says. It's literally the opposite of everything that these people are doing. So today when we hear feminism in any of its forms upheld as something godly, as something that's found in Scripture by men today. They're lying. They're absolutely lying. Demons found this in hell and they brought it to man. And man brought it to church. And church is now shoving it down the throats of Christians who, if they swallow it, will ultimately cease to be Christian. These are the stakes for these conversations. We see this sort of argument going back to the more blunt rejection of Christianity, of Scripture versus the supposedly moderate forces that didn't want to reject those things yet,

1:02:17 which of course that is the key. But we see a form of this all the time, and it's basically, a rough form of the Motten Bailey argument. For those who aren't familiar, the Motten Bailey Castle is a type of European fortification where you have what is called a mot. It is a keep on a hill, a raised area, and then you have a walled area below that that is the Bailey. The Bailey is where you have your your little town. So if you are attacked, you retreat to the mot because it is more defensible. And the reason that that's used is because that's exactly how the argument goes. The Mott and Bailey fallacy is this you make a wild claim or an indefensible claim, that's the Bailey. And then when someone points out that you made a wild and

1:03:02 indefensible claim, you retreat to a moderate, reasonable, defensible version of that claim. Doesn't even have to be that directly related, just as long as you can kind of make the argument they're maybe related, you retreat to the mot. And then as soon as the threat passes, because well you've defended yourself in the mot, you return to the Bailey and make the same argument. And we see a form of that with many Christians today, including many pastors, where they'll say, Well, obviously we can't worship demons, well that's the mot. That's the absolutely defensible position. No one is going to say, well no, no, you can't worship demons. But then they go down to the Bailey after the threat has passed and say, But of course we can have women voting

1:03:48 in our congregations, and we can have women exercising political rights outside the home, and we can have A, B, C through Z. That's not how it works. Because Satan is the camel that sticks its nose under your tent flap. If you don't stop it then, you wake up with the entire camel in the tent with you. And that is where we are today. So we get attacked by pastors and others when we point out these stark black and white lines in scripture where it says, No, you may not do this, because the entirety of our cultural inner inertia is against these arguments because we have, for centuries, not been listening to the Word of God, not been listening to Scripture. We have been listening to Satan filtered through these various agents, some

1:04:46 of whom we've named. And so they'll say this seemingly reasonable position, and then as soon as they're subjected to scripture, they retreat to the mot and make an argument that is in line with scripture. And they'll say, Well, we believe the gospel. No one is attacking the gospel. That's not the point. That's not what we're focusing on with this podcast. And so some of the critiques will be where's the gospel in what you're saying? We affirm the gospel. The issue is as a Christian, once you are a Christian, then what do you do? It's not a matter of just saying, I believe in Jesus, I'm over the line, I'm safe. No, because there is more to the Christian life. James is a book written to Christians.

1:05:35 There are supposed to be works that flow from being a Christian, and part of that is listening to the Word of God because Christians have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and when they read the Word of God, when they hear the Word of God, they understand it. That's not saying you'll understand everything, there are parts that are difficult to work through, and God gives differing abilities to different people. But the core truths of the Christian faith you will understand when you hear them. You will understand truth when it is spoken to you from the Word of God if you are a Christian. And that is the point. These are things that are in Scripture, and we as Christians have to obey them, we have to listen to them because they are

1:06:17 the voice of God speaking to us, telling us how we should conduct ourselves. And so when God says that a woman is a helper, if society says that woman can be a competitor, you have to choose as a Christian, are you going to listen to God or are you going to listen to society? When Scripture says that woman has a head, and that head is man, and society says, No women can vote, including in your churches. Are you going to listen to society or are you going to listen to God? As a Christian you have to choose. And as a Christian there's only one option. Because if you choose the other one, you cease to be Christian. And so that is the what we see today in so many interactions with Christians, is that they will make a completely reasonable argument,

1:07:08 the mot, something that is just a core truth in Christianity, with which no Christian can disagree, and then they'll say, well because of that, and they go right to the Bailey to something that is completely indefensible and insane. And so And so it's well you believe the gospel, right? Well that means you have to get rid of your slaves. Well you believe the gospel, right? That means you have to let your daughters go to university and do all the things we know that young women do at university University. The Bailey doesn't follow from the mot, do not fall for it when you see that argument made, when you see that form of argument advanced. You can affirm what is said as the mot, as the keep,

1:07:52 the core truth, but do not let it distract you, and do not let it mislead you when the wild claim is made after it that does not follow that is not Christian. And that's what we see happening here with the issue of feminism. Except, of course, there is a slightly tweaked version of this, which is what we see with Stanton and others, where they just go ahead and make the wildest claim right up front, yeah, I don't believe in God and scripture is wicked and you shouldn't obey it, and instead, no gods, no masters. Usually you will have a moderating force within any of these revolutionary groups that will try to get the the bulk of people, the reasonable the well, somewhat reasonable people, to come along with them by

1:08:41 saying, Oh, don't pay attention to that person in the corner, she's crazy. The problem is the person in the corner screaming in these revolutionary groups is usually the person who's leading it realistically, because that's the person who is speaking with the unfiltered mouth of Satan, the person who is speaking Satan's voice. And Satan is the one leading the revolutionary group. And so you go from the supposedly reasonable people who say no we don't want to abolish Christendom and order and hierarchy in the family. We just want to make these tweaks to them. Well, if those tweaks are contrary to scripture, you eventually wind up with the screaming person in the corner, the actual possessed person in

1:09:25 some cases. Because that's the goal, that's where Satan is taking you. Even if you don't see where you're going, if you look around and the way is broad and easy, you are probably not on the straight and narrow. The incredible result of first wave feminism as it came to a close shortly after World War One was that in the span of about five years between about nineteen seventeen, nineteen eighteen and nineteen twenty two or twenty-three, virtually every country on both sides of the Atlantic almost simultaneously adopted universal women's suffrage. Now that's astonishing to think about. When you think about the disparity in history, in culture, in political governance, almost all at once, in the immediate aftermath of World

1:10:17 War One, you have the culmination of one of the principal goals of the Enlightenment. No No gods, no masters, instead democracy. And not only democracy where it's one vote for per household, but where women can also vote. And this is crucial in American history because the There are a great many things that in the United States politically, policy-wise, they fundamentally pivot as soon as the nineteenth amendment is passed. As I said last week, if at the time of the the ratification of the nineteenth Amendment women had had the vote, it would not have passed. Women were not in favor of it. It was not the majority opinion of women to be subjected to the political sphere because most of them were Christian women.

1:11:06 They knew better. They knew that it wasn't their place. They knew it was a burden. When we say not their place, we don't mean, oh, you go over there, you don't know what you're talking about. Just be quiet and knit. We mean that these things are ugly, they're painful, they're fights, they're actual fights that sometimes involve political violence. That is not the place for a woman. Shouting matches in public are not a place for a woman. In politics, sometimes those things happen anyway. And that is the reason that women generally wanted no part in it. They didn't know, they didn't want to be burdened with it. They didn't want to have to deal with it. They knew that it stunk. They didn't want any part in it.

1:11:47 It was foisted on them. And then at that point it becomes a numbers game. Because well, you know, your neighbor down the street, you don't really like her her views on things, so even though you don't really want to vote, you better go do it because otherwise you you gotta counter her vote. And getting back to the coverture thing towards the beginning, one of the essential things that's lost today when we think about the woman and her husband becoming legally one is that the voice of the household was the husband's voice. He was the head. He had the mouth. If insofar as voting is good at all, the husband voted on behalf of his household. Why would anyone in his household disagree with him if he is

1:12:31 a good and faithful husband and father? There should be no circumstance under which those under his care and protection would vote differently than him if they could vote. But once the franchise was given, it became a numbers game. And it also became a opportunity for opposition to occur between man and wife. And you know, today it's pretty normal in a lot of marriages for for husbands and wives to know who the other one voted for, but not to talk about it because you know in many cases you're actually canceling each other's votes out. Now in a good marriage that's not the case, but in a lot of marriages, that is the case. You know better than to ask her who she voted for because you know she canceled your vote out.

1:13:12 What's the win there? What is the point of that? There's an undermining of your headship. There is nullification of your vote. Like the whole thing is just preposterous. At some point, it just becomes theater, but it's not mindless, meaningless theater. It's theatrical performance at the polling booth, but the spirit that that voting engenders is fundamentally one of rebellion and independence, which is not permissible for anyone. To be frank, I don't think men should be allowed to vote. And if any men should vote, I don't think I should be allowed to vote. I don't have children. I don't think men without a household should have the franchise. I'd be fine with that. Now, am I worth listening to?

1:13:55 Well, I I think so, and some people do. But if you don't listen to me, that's fine. I don't think that my voting needs to be I don't think it's sacrosanct. I don't think it it fundamentally changes anything about my participation in society. So when we talk about saying that women shouldn't vote, Cory and I are not trying to exclude women. We both think that there should be monarchy, that there should be a godly king and there should be hierarchy and order. There are intermediary steps to get there, but voting is not something that we find to be sacrosanct. It's certainly something that's alien to the Christian faith. I mean even i when when the does when they chose the replacement for Judas, they cast lots.

1:14:37 They trusted the Holy Spirit to guide the casting of dice, basically, and that was how they decided. They let God decide. They trusted that the outcome of that sign would be God's will. And it was. I think that that would be a better form of church governance than what we have today. I would much rather see congregations if there's something to vote on that isn't a matter of doctrine, which obviously shouldn't be voted on anyway. I would rather see voting by lot if there's to be voting at all. I'm not saying that absolutely has to be done, but again, we're just trying to point out that these modern, particularly American notions of what is we now view as is religious. You know, the Declaration of Independence gets quoted by pastors as though

1:15:20 it's doctrinal. It's happened in the Missouri Synod from the very top, where the Declaration of Independence is used to make theological points. And when Harrison did that, he was making a theological point, but as a false prophet, he was making a point on behalf of a theology that comes from hell. The Declaration of Independence, there's some good things, and I've quoted it here before. There's some things about enduring a long train of usurpations, even though they evince an ultimate goal, because it's better to suffer well while there's a chance that forbearance may be rewarded than to have a rebellion, because even when it's a godly rebellion, it's still going to be awful. Christian men never want to see rebellion.

1:16:01 That's not what we see in abolition. It's not what we see in feminism. They constantly want to see rebellion against all order. And so first wave feminism terminates with everyone getting the vote. In the twentieth century, all of its politics were defined by that moment because with the ratification of the nineteenth where women got the vote and in every other society, it fundamentally changed the nature of politics because suddenly the woman's gift to be a manager of her household, where peace and accord are paramount, was superimposed on a world where that's not how it works. In the world there's scarcity. In the world there's violence and there are threats. The man's job in a household is to keep those threats outside

1:16:50 the house, to keep them at bay. Politics is fundamentally adversarial. Sometimes between nations themselves, sometimes internally, but they're often fights. Women are not equipped for those fights, and so the twentieth century history of politics is defined by women reshaping politics in the image of how they want to see the household run. And many of the problems that we have today are because women are conflict averse. And today we have men who are almost universally conflict averse. I have tried to have discussions, honest discussions with men face to face, where they flatly refuse to speak to me because the alternative is to disagree. And I'm not talking about picking a fight. I'm not saying I want to I want to have an argument.

1:17:34 I just want to d discuss a matter where there's a disagreement between two men, and the other man is terrified to actually disagree with me. That's such men are eunuchs. There's no other word for it. That is that is a castrated man that cannot stand in front of someone and defend his position. Again, we're not talking about being confrontational. We're not talking about a knockdown, drag out argument. The idea that two people could disagree about something and then discuss it civilly is something that women don't want. It they would rather have peace, even if it means chopping off legs and just making everyone the same height, and silencing anything that's going to cause discord in the home.

1:18:14 Some of that can work in some cases. Societally, civilizationally at large, it is guaranteed to cause evil outcomes. And so giving women the vote wasn't simply a matter of doubling the number of voters so you needed more ballots. It fundamentally changed forever the nature of the appeals made by politicians and the nature of what was being voted on and what the ultimate outcomes would be. We see that today in in American politics, where you look at if only men voted versus only women voted, you have diametrically opposed outcomes in the presidential elections That is a profound statement. It's a theological statement. It's there's there's no way in which a world, a society can work where men and women are so diametrically opposed.

1:19:01 And the only solution for that, the only godly solution, is for women to return to their proper sphere in the home. You know, m repeatedly is as I quoted some of these things, the claim is made by the feminists that men created these spheres. We did an entire episode, we did one hundred and five minutes about how God ordained these spheres for us. The woman's household and the man's household are internal and external. He rules, but she governs within it. He deals with the outside matters and then inside when he needs to, and the rest of the time, that's her domain, not to his exclusion, but as his helper. Everything that's happened in the feminist world is an inversion and a subversion of that to the point that now men are afraid to

1:19:44 do their jobs and women don't even know what their jobs are. They're just gonna do everything and no one will stop them. And when a man does stand up and say, actually scripture says we should do the opposite. Maybe we should take that seriously. Those men are punished in the most harsh means imaginable because such a man is a threat to the prince of this world. And so following on from first wave feminism is of course second wave feminism, which is really the genesis of a lot of the evils we see today. Yes, you need that superstructure into which to slot these things and Because a lot of these things were pushed through political means. But the proximate genesis, the start of these evils that are now bearing

1:20:32 their ultimate fruit today in what is called fourth wave feminism start in the sixties and the eighties with second wave feminism. And whereas first wave feminism focused largely on so-called political issues, although yes, it followed on from the political slash social issue of abolitionism. Second wave feminism really focuses on the social issues. And that becomes family dynamics, the relationship of man and woman, the domesticity of woman, reproduction rights, so-called, woman's participation in the workforce, and the structuring of the family and of course, because this is always one of Satan's goals with feminism, in whatever form and wherever it crops up, human sexuality becomes one of the major issues, and

1:21:25 that, of course, is what leads to birth control and abortion. And this dichotomy is important because the second wave feminism, you know, the subsequent generations basically what happened, you had You had first wave feminism sort of firing up in the 1840s or 50s and carrying on through the ratification of the 19th Amendment. By the 20s, there wasn't really anything left for them to do. And so there th there was this weird lull between the generations where they had one political power. They had one basically the man's power outside of the home to vote. And that was their initial goal to get them as them as first order participants in political society. Then there was a lull of 30 years or so where there

1:22:10 wasn't much more for them to do. And it was very interesting because today one of the punchlines for second and third wave feminism is the June Cleaver 1950s homemaker. You'll hear the 50s come up over and over again from modern feminists as the pinnacle of patriarchal repression. What's fascinating about that, I I for researching for this episode, I listened to several hours of feminists on YouTube. Yeah, you can you can you can pray for my soul for having to endure that. But I found it to be fascinating because they're very open about what they did. And one of the things that but one of the things they lie about, it just as Stanton and the others lied about man creating the sphere of the home and the household for women.

1:23:01 Today the feminist lie is that man really repeated the same thing, created that sphere of the household for women and the fifties was when that was invented. That that's really fundamentally what they I think some of them believe it. I I think they think the history didn't exist before that because what happened in the fifties is the same thing that happened in the forties and the thirties and twenties. And it always happened in Christian societies. Women were homemakers. In the fifties they were just they were beginning to be exposed more to public media, to TV as it at the very you know the TV was just sort of nascent at that point, but radio and many magazines specifically focusing on women for the sake of

1:23:44 propagandizing them. And so there became a homogeneity of of dress and of the use of makeup and hair. And that's the version of the 50s woman that is really despised by the feminist today. It's also what's held up today on the right hand political sphere as sort of trad. You know, there there's kind of that it it's a straw man almost almost as being held up by both sides. Where on the right you'll have them saying the fifties woman in the you know the traditional dress that's knee length and she has her hair done up and she has a drink ready for her husband when he comes home. The right says that's trad, that's exactly what it should have always been. And the left says that's horrible, that's patriarchy, that's the worst

1:24:29 possible form of human society. Both of them are missing the point that that wasn't unusual, except for the mass media influence on how th they all sort of behaved in similar ways. And of course that was also a function of of wealth because there were very poor people in in those days who had none of that because you know, they were poor. My mom's family in Appalachia had none of that. they were you know, they literally lived on dirt floors. They did not have the cocktail waiting for my my drunken grandfather when he came home with a belt. However, as something that's being held up as an example of either love or hate, it's really an it's an anachronistic view of what happened because that was just the first time the mass media was

1:25:17 encompassing that life for us all to see today. So we have lots of pictures and drawings and ads showing that. And they're visually appealing. And so everyone wants to latch onto it. But the reason that the second wave of feminism got riled up was that they started realizing that the revolution wasn't over. And as it as it wound up in the 60s, again with revolutions worldwide, you have communist revolutions sweeping the European continent, just as you had revolutions in the in eighteen forty eight and you know nineteen thirteen, fourteen, fifteen with World War One, we again have this paroxysm of revolution, violent revolution, in other places, and there was violence here as well. The sixties were marked by radical violence that's beyond even what we've

1:26:08 seen in recent history today. That uh that's gonna change, but it's the same spirit, just it's a revolution. It comes back again and again. Second wave feminism said, well we got the vote, but as Corey as you just said, what about the household? What about June Cleaver? We need to liberate her. It's not enough that June can vote. She needs to put down the cocktail glass for her husband. She needs to let down her hair and burn her bra and take off that dress and put on some pants and leave the house and go do what she wants to do. So the spheres are important in their dialectic because that's what they need to destroy. First the man's sphere outside the home, and then the woman's fear inside the home, both being destroyed and inverted simultaneously such that nothing

1:26:53 can remain. You can never have the June Cleaver version of the woman again. It's a it's a it's something that the right holds up as a model and the left holds up as basically the woman version of Hitler. Nothing could possibly be worse than that sort of woman who actually cares about looking good for her husband. And so it's a punchline because I don't want you to return to that. But it's not just return to that, it's a return to the faithfulness that those women were still trying to maintain. Because even though there'd been a lot of worldliness in the intervening decades after women's suffrage, they were still by and large not working outside the home. They were still fundamentally domestic.

1:27:35 And second wave was designed to overthrow domesticity because that is how you get women out of the home, and it's how you burn bras and burn veils and put them on the birth control pill. And as you said, Corey, then you get the sexual revolution. Cause when she leaves the supervision of her household, whether it's her father or her husband, suddenly there's no one supervising her. And if she can't get pregnant, she can do whatever she wants. She can be sexually liberated, which was Which was one of the ultimate goals of all of this. Eliminating dependence financially and eliminating dependence in terms of headship and then eliminating any sort of headship at all. Eliminating the idea that a woman would be told by a man

1:28:18 what to do or what not to do. To the point that today when we say that maybe it's actually scriptural that a man would tell a woman what to do or what not to do, if he's her head, not saying that I can go around telling women what to do if I don't know them, if she's not my relative, it's not my business. It is, however, the state's business, which is why Christian nationalism is important. See, these hierarchies still need to exist. And feminism is ensured that we chip away one layer after another until nothing can exist between unfettered man and all of his wildest desires. That's what Satan promised in the garden and it's what we're getting today. And the reason that the consequences are horrible is that those are

1:28:58 the fruits of the most poisonous tree. We really see a cycle of revolutions, of uprisings, throughout history, as Satan attempts to overthrow one sort of hierarchy in order after another. He doesn't always succeed, sometimes he is repulsed and pushed back. The revolutions of eighteen forty eight, as mentioned, were not overall successful. Germany is a good example of this. And even for those who maybe knew about the revolution of 1848 called the the March Revolution, typically in German, as you'll you'll know why in a minute here. Even those who know about that typically don't know about the revolution that followed World War One. The revolution of eighteen forty eight, eighteen forty-nine was put down, and

1:29:49 actually, if you know what I of Bismarck's most famous quotes it references that his rather through iron and blood quote references the March Revolution, but following on the March Revolution and some of those who some who lost, some who won left Germany in the the ensuing chaos and came to the US called the forty eighters. But the revolution that followed on World War I was the November Revolution, and that was between nineteen eighteen and nineteen nineteen. And that was the revolution that overthrew basically destroyed the German Empire, destroyed destroyed the traditional form of government in Germany and led to the Weimar Republic. And of course it was the weakness of the Weimar Republic that

1:30:38 led to chaos and in part World War II, yes, that's more complicated subject for another time, another place. But Satan managed with the revolution of 1918 what he did not managed to do with the revolution of eighteen forty eight. He brought chaos and a dissolution of proper order and hierarchy to the heart of Europe and it spread from there. Yes, there were other revolutions at the same time in other parts. Obviously, the Russian Revolution is pertinent here. But you see following on from feminism and what happened with in the US abolitionism and also feminism, but what happened with the feminists leading into additional revolution and the destruction of more and more, because Satan is never happy.

1:31:35 Satan is never sated, Satan is never pleased. He will always try to destroy any vestige of good, anything that is left, that doesn't conform to his image, which is just corruption and opposition to God. And we're not really going to deal with third and fourth wave feminism particularly in a in a lengthy way because we're currently living the fourth wave. We all know what happens with fourth wave feminism. But it is worth mentioning it is worth highlighting a a core difference, as it were, between what is now called fourth wave and the previous waves of feminism, because it was always an ultimate goal of feminism, but it was not laid out early on. Because the intelligence, the animating intelligence behind feminism, saw where it was

1:32:32 going, knew what he wanted to achieve, but many of his human actors may not have seen it along the way, undoubtedly most of them did not. Perhaps some of them had some conception, the most wicked ones may have wanted to achieve this, but one of the active goals of fourth wave feminism now is the destruction of what it means to be a man or a woman. Not just the destruction of the roles of men and women in society in the home, the relationship between men and women, but the destruction of masculinity, femininity, what it means to be by nature male or female. And that's why we have the transgender movement. That is fourth wave feminism. And so there was a pivot to some degree. You have some feminists now who write about men and masculinity instead

1:33:23 of writing about women and women's issues so called. Because the goal is to destroy what it means to be a man because if you have no men, well you can never roll back all of these supposed gains, this progress of feminism. Because there's no one to stand against it. There's no one to stand up in opposition and say these things are wrong. They disagree with scripture. We cannot do this if you destroy men and if you destroy masculinity, which they have done quite an effective job thus far. There are not very many actually masculine men left in the world at this point. But that's why you'll see some modern feminist writers who will try to argue that well men should be more emotional, should express their

1:34:08 emotions more in public, should cry, should do all these various things. If you are a man, now Woe may want to add a comment onto this or disagree in part, but for me, my position is very clear. If you are a man, you generally should not be crying and expressing these things in public, with the exception of a handful of situations, which would be the death of a close relative, the death of your dog, or the passion of Christ. Those you're allowed to cry for those, that's it. But there is a difference between what it means to be a woman and what it means to be a man, and the goal is to destroy that with fourth wave feminism, it is to make instead of humanity sexually and psychologically spiritually dimorphic as God created

1:34:56 us, it is to make some androgynous new man where it doesn't matter how you were born, what parts you have, all of that is irrelevant because ultimately of course their goal is to make it so that you can put off being physically physically male and become physically female the same as you would put on or off a new suit. Now they won't get there. They won't achieve it. But that's their goal. That is the the reality, that is the mindset of the enemies we are facing. They think that the science fiction they've been reading, where you can just swap bodies, where you can become whatever it is you want to be. Instead of, I don't feel like being a human today, I'll be a wolf today. They think that that's a reality, and they will fight tooth and

1:35:44 nail and they will burn everything to the ground in an attempt to get there. And that's fourth wave feminism. That's why you have to oppose third wave and second wave and first wave and protofeminism, because it leads inevitably to where we are today. We are living in the aftermath of centuries of virtually unopposed feminism. Now there were times in history where these revolutions were put down, where Christians stood up and said, No, we will not permit this, this cannot be done, this is wicked. A great example would be the peasants revolt in the fifteen hundreds in Germany. That was one of the first times where Satan really pushed hard. In the aftermath of the Reformation, he saw that perhaps there was

1:36:33 an opportunity here to overthrow rightful hierarchy. Because some of the peasants got it into their mind that because the Protestants had rejected Roman so called authority because of Rome's transgressions, that well we should be allowed to reject all authority. Because that's the spirit. That's always the spirit. It's always to push always for more. And so they attempted to overthrow their barons and their lords and all hierarchy. They wanted to completely destroy the government, basically create anarchy. And they succeeded in creating anarchy in certain states, where imperial forces had to be called in to put them down at the cost of quite a bit of blood and treasure. But that was put down.

1:37:20 Martin Luther actually wrote against the peasants in this case, it's worth reading. I'll put a link to it in the show notes. I believe I have an English translation that's not encumbered by copyright. But that was put down. That time Satan tried and he failed. eighteen forty eight, he tried again, that failed. nineteen eighteen, he tried and he succeeded. And he succeeded in a lot of the Western world with those revolutions, and we are still living through the aftermath of that today. And the thing is even Christians today who will point out that there were problems with those revolutions, which I would hope so because many of them were effectively communist revolutions they won't go so far as to say that the intellectual forebears

1:38:09 of those revolutions were also wicked, and we're right back to the idea of the wicked tree. If the fruit is poisonous, evil, then the tree is poisonous and evil. You cannot say, Well, I won't eat this fruit off the poisonous tree, but I'll eat that one. They're all poisonous, because the poisonous tree bears only poisonous fruit, and the poisonous fruit came from a poisonous tree. And so you cannot as a Christian say, Well, I oppose the communist revolutions, but I don't oppose feminism and egalitarianism and all of these various things, liberty in the conception of the French Revolution and in the conception of the American Revolution. If you say you don't oppose these things as well, all you're

1:38:57 doing is saying, I want to return to the point where Satan only ruled us from the shadows instead of openly. And that is not a Christian position. And so as Christians, we have to oppose all of these things because we have to stand on scripture, on God's word, on what God has told us, on what he has done in creation, the order that he has created, the rightful hierarchy he has instilled, these are the things that we have to defend. We do not get to defect from the truth because we don't like this particular truth, because this one makes us uncomfortable, because society says you cannot hold these views because society says if you hold those views we will persecute you. Because those who fall away during persecution

1:39:42 you don't inherit eternal life. Because it says those who persevere to the end. And so as Christians, we have to take a stand on these issues, on all of these issues. Not just push back a little. You don't just push back against the most recent evil. As has often been said, conservatives today politically are just liberals or leftists going the speed limit. And so that often plays out in our political sphere, in our government, you will have the so-called conservative parties are just 20, 30, maybe 40 years behind the left parties. And we have Christians doing the same thing in the church. You have the ones with the so-called rainbow, it's not a rainbow, it's missing a color, the so-called rainbow flag, the BLM flag, all

1:40:36 these various things festooning these beautiful buildings that were built to the glory of God and now serve as sanctuaries for Satan, but you have these buildings full of pastors so called, many of whom are women now, proclaiming that they are Christian, and then lying in God's name, and proclaiming immense wickedness. Today it's going to be transgenderism and anti-racism and all the various talking points of the Marxists, but down the street, you'll have a supposedly sound Christian church proclaiming the proto versions of all of the same wickedness just from a century ago. Sure the Christians are taking a little longer to catch up than the political realm did, but they're doing it more quickly.

1:41:26 And so you'll have Christians who are preaching abolitionism, and egalitarianism, and mutual submission, and a litany of a thousand other evils. That is not faithfulness to God. Pushing back against only the most recent wickedness of the culture, the most recent thing that Satan happens to be propping up is not faithfulness. Yes, if you are pos if you are opposing the place where Satan is attacking, that is faithfulness. But not if you've let him into your camp, and he's living beside you, which is what we are doing today as supposed Christians. And that's why we addressed all of the various forms of feminism. The yes, we didn't go into detail on the third and the fourth wave because you're living in it now.

1:42:15 You know what it is. But the reason you start with the enlightenment, and even before that, the reason you start with protofeminism is because that is the wicked tree. You cannot eat from the wicked tree. If you approve anything that comes from Satan instead of from God, you are in rebellion to God, and you will eventually end up where we are today and worse. To be clear, we're only talking about the last 300 years, which is Christians matter, because the Christian church has been around for 2,000 years, and the Christian faith has been around for 6,000 years. So when Corey and I point back to Scripture and to history prior to the Enlightenment, I hope that those are convincing arguments to

1:43:07 you. I hope that as a Christian in the twenty first century you can understand that if your personally held, strongly held moral convictions are fruits of the Enlightenment, such that they were alien to every Christian for fifty-seven hundred years, I would hope that that fills you with profound dread. That's our goal. Yeah, if you hold some of these beliefs and it's in good conscience, and we tell you, did you know that no Christians for fifty, seven hundred years believed what you believe, and in fact, scripture and every believer in heaven teaches and believe the opposite of what it is that you're saying today. That is important. I don't else say it. Like that is the essence of the continuity of Christianity.

1:43:56 It doesn't come in fits and spurts. That's a hallmark of the devil. When you have revolution, when you have new things popping up all the time and changing all the time, that is alien to the Christian faith. It's not something that should be a part of our church. It should not be part of a Christian nation, of a Christian civilization. When we had Christendom, none of this existed. Christendom ended with the Enlightenment, to be explicit. Christendom died in the Enlightenment. This has all been dancing in the ashes of a Christendom that would have been our inheritance if our grandfathers had preserved it. But instead they failed. They betrayed us, they defied God, they've handed us a pile of

1:44:40 evil. And that's why we're talking weird. That's why we're talking about stuff that people don't want to talk about. That's why we're talking about history, ancient history from 250 and 300 years ago. That's not relevant to your life today, is it? Like those those those matters are long settled. Why would anyone care today? It's because this is the genesis of these modern heresies. These are teachings of demons. I've pointed many times to 1 Timothy 4. Teachings of demons is a very low threshold. Anything that is contrary to scripture is a teaching of demon. These are all things from hell. The illumination that we have today from the enlightenment, I frequently in text it doesn't work as well verbally.

1:45:24 Ventex I call the enluciferment. It's harder to say, but that's really what it is. Lucifer the lightbringer in Lucifered the seventeenth century. He brought the light of hell to illuminate the world, and Christendom ceased to be Christendom when it bought it gobbled it up. All those things that appeal to our natural vanity, just as Satan appealed to Eve's vanity in the garden when God he said, You can be like God. And she said, Wow, it's a really pretty fruit. that sounds like a good deal. I won't surely die. God wouldn't kill me. God loves me. He's the God of love. This is gonna be great. That refrain has echoed through the ages in different ways. Our problem today in the West is that the final version of

1:46:09 that that is all not only has it ended Christendom, but it's going to end Christianity if our churches are not reclaimed in the name of Scripture and the name of Scripture's God, the last three hundred years have left us with virtually nothing. And our churches and our pews are filled with people who when they hear these enlightenment teachings, teachings of feminism, teachings of abolition, all of these things that are opposed to God fundamentally, and you can demonstrate clearly from scripture as we have. People hear those things from the world, from Satan's mouth, and they hear the voice of God. They hear the voice of God in Satan's words. What does that mean for their salvation? I don't know, but I can tell you that God promises that

1:46:55 his sheep recognize his voice. And when men like Corey and I speak with the words of God, like we're not prophets, we're quoting scripture and making simple arguments arguments from scripture. This is not fancy. We could be fancy, but that we I don't want to. I want to be as simple as possible with this stuff. I want to be as simple as they were 300 years ago when they believed it still. When Christians still believed these things, we had Christendom, and then we threw it away when we picked up what Satan was selling instead. When you have churches today where Christians hear the scriptural words and they don't recognize them and they hate them, that means that Christianity is going to die.

1:47:37 It's going to die in this century unless something turns around. Because Christianity can only be propagated and perpetuated by Christians and there are vanishingly few of those left. When you look at the surveys of Christians of their beliefs, most Christian beliefs on the very most basic things, forget feminism and slavery and these hot button issues on whether or not Jesus is God, on whether or not Scripture is the word of God. Most Christians disagree with those statements. They're not Christian. Even in our churches, which themselves are largely not Christian anymore, most of the pews and the pews of those non Christian churches are themselves not Christians. The teachers are ceasing to be Christian.

1:48:16 No one hears the word of God. They don't hear the voice of God. They hear the voice of Satan and they think that's my God, I'm going to follow him. This is an existential battle, which is why we b chose these things, these hot button issues, as subjects for the Stone Choir podcast. Because as hard as it is to hear, and as angry as it may make some of you to hear these things, we're not telling you anything that we would have s told anyone four hundred years ago 'cause there would have been no point. I they they would call us radical liberals for the things that we that we don't agree with them about. And I'd I would happily receive that reprimand. I wish there were someone to tell me I'm not going hard

1:48:53 enough because I'm sure I'm missing something. And it's not going hard enough for the sake of earning salvation. I want to be faithful to God. I want you to be faithful to God. How do you do that? You hear his word and you obey it. Jesus died on the cross for you. You're already saved. There's nothing you can do to earn your salvation. There is something you can do to reject your salvation. You can You can put those, you can take those sins down off the cross and take them back to your own heart and say, I don't think these are sins anymore. I'm I'm gonna, that's not a sin. So Jesus didn't need to pay for that. If that is your belief, if that's your confession, God will decide on the last day whether he's going to credit Christ's righteousness to

1:49:34 you or whether he's going to believe your confession that these things are not sins, because they are. He knows they are. He declared them from before eternity to be evil because they're contrary to his eternal will. If things that are contrary to God's will are part of your religion, I hope and pray that you'll change. Because time is running short for every one of us. And these matters, while they don't seem on their face to be principal matters of salvation, when we get down to the nitty gritty of people despising God's word, they absolutely are. Because when someone shows you in scripture that the man is the head of his wife is Christ is the head of the church, and you have Christians who've literally never heard the man is the

1:50:13 head of his wife, and they demand to know where's that in scripture. Time is short for all of us. This is stuff that we have to get right. Not for our salvation, not to earn salvation, because if we deny God and he stand before the judgment throne, how is he going to receive us? I know how he's going to receive me. He's going to receive me covered in Christ's blood because that is the only thing that can cover my sins. But I confess everything that Christ says, not just the stuff that I like, not just the stuff that makes me look good, the stuff that makes me look the worse, and the stuff that makes me the most ashamed. That is what I confess. These controversial matters are matters of confession for all of us.

1:50:56 We were born in a demonic society that does not view God and it hears the words of Satan and believes that they're the voice of God, we must reject that if we are to have salvation. Because although Christ earned it on the cross for every one of us, if you reject him, you reject the salvation that he was given to each of us.