American Family Radio thanks sponsor, Preborn for supporting pro life advocacy
Jenna Ellis: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, PreBorn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection. And the majority of the time she will choose life. But she can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside her. One ultrasound is just $28, and to donate, dial £250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you. And God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.
Three Lindsay Clancy jurors have now sat for interviews to describe what happened
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Wednesday, September 9, and the Lindsay Clancy jurors, a few of them, three of them specifically, have now sat for interviews to describe what happened in the jury room. And they are allowed to do that, of course. And this can only be described as absolutely wild. I mean, we, we speculated what they were probably thinking. We knew a little bit from the notes that they passed, to the judge and the, the described holdout and frustration with the single lone male juror. That's all that we know, about his identity now, thankfully, I think for his own protection and security. But, what these jurors, these three women actually described and the language that they used to describe their own feelings and thought processes is just so disturbingly evil. That's the only way that it can be described. And I want to play just a couple of these clips so that you can hear for yourself. But the thing that really struck me is that if we are going to have a jury system that works as a part of a justice system, this is all predicated on the fact that we have actually reasonable, competent, moral, upright citizens who are willing to sit on the jury and actually render a judgment, not try to empathize with the defendant, not try to excuse evil conduct like murdering your children, not try to look for, you know, a medical version of a way out. I mean, this is where we get as a society if we have people who are so full of toxic empathy that they refuse to actually look at the facts and render a verdict without just total bizarre feminist emotion. So this is what the foreperson said in part. This is cut to he had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt. After we watched that video of the interview, I think that's when it was. He admitted he had reasonable doubt. And I started filling out the forms. I was so excited. I actually. There were three forms I had to fill out, and I started filling them out. I wrote my signature on each one. And then he said, but I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity. She was so excited to fill out the forms for not guilty. That should never be a contemplation in the context of a criminal jury. I mean, how unserious can you possibly be to say that you were so excited that you were going to find this woman not guilty for the murder of her three children? And then this is another female juror who is upset again at the. The holdout, male juror. And listen to how she characterizes this. This is cut three. We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said one day, in the end, well, why don't we have the judge come in and read it again? And we were like, no, we have it in front of us. We don't need that. And we would highlight it. And, you know, so. And so this is the definition of reason of doubt. But he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.
Jenna Ellis: Did you hear that? He had the hardest time getting over the fact that she viciously killed her children. She's admitting this was a vicious kill, not accidental, not, unintended, not even tragic. I mean, this is being characterized, rightly, as a vicious killing. And somehow this woman in Massachusetts is perplexed and shocked maybe, that an actual human being can't get over the fact that these were vicious killing. I mean, this is where we are at as a society with the lack of humanity, the lack of a measurable difference between right and wrong, good and evil. I mean, this is telling you the worldview of where these jurors are coming from. So let's welcome in our good friend Steve Dace, who, of course, is, host of the Steve Day show over at the Blaze. And, Steve, this literally made me sick to my stomach last night as I was watching these juror interviews and just these two clips alone. And I'd encourage everyone to go actually listen to the full, interview with these jurors. But this is exactly what every conservative commentator was talking about even before we had the words themselves from these jurors to know that they are not in the same realm of worldview as I believe our founders intended when we created this process of a right to a jury of your peers. I mean, this has gone so far off the rails. Can we even recover as a society?
Steve Deace: Well, you set that up beautifully, Jenna You know, our founders intended juries to be kind of the fourth, unofficial fourth branch of government. The last place to go for justice for people with God given individual rights to go for justice when. If and when the system should collectively fail would be to have a jury of your peers. And I think that we need to understand that this is a jury of our peers. It is a microcosm of where America is that you essentially, the only thing worse than the patriarchy was always going to be the matriarchy, and that's where we are. All right, Whether you want to call it the longhouse is kind of the slang of the day. That's really what we're talking about. Pagan, matriarchal religions. All pagan religions are matriarchal in nature. And that's where we are. Ah, we are overrun with godlessness and paganism. we're overrun with a generation of women unrepentant for the murder of their own children. And all of that collective guilt has to go somewhere. we will have redemption as a species. We demand it. We know there's something deep within us that desires it. And so it's going to be real redemption that comes only through Christ, or it's going to be a pseudo fake form. And in our day and age, you know, sometimes that form of redemption is found within a pagan deity. But often in our day and age, that form of redemption is found from where people view as the most powerful force of human will on the planet. Government. Government will just affirm my sins. Government will tell me I'm okay, and promote my sinfulness so that I never have to face my conscience before a holy and righteous God. And therefore, I just bury all of that residual shame and guilt. You know, the Bible says that Jesus went to the cross disguising the shame. Why does he use that word? Because it's the same word that we see in the scriptures before sin enters the world. They were naked in the garden, and they had no shame. All right? And so all that shame has to go somewhere. It's supposed to point you to the cross. But for people that don't want to admit what they did was wrong, it'll point them to something more sinister. And you're watching that play out. I'll guarantee every one of those Female jurors has had an abortion. I'll guarantee it. I'll guarantee they all watch the View. I'll guarantee it. And it's always folks in this day and age, it's always the ones you most suspect. Every single time. It's all obvious, it's all being laid bare for the timing of this to occur.
One man said no to a king, and justice still has a chance
as we're on the eve of the one year anniversary of the murder of my friend Charlie Kirk, I find to be providential. And here's why. Because I want to give. Here's the good news for audiences like yours and like mine, the reason why this woman was not given the affirmation for, quote, viciously killing her children that these, that the jury wanted was because one man said no. You go all the way back to the garden. One man given power and dominion by the creator universe. Adam steps in and just simply says, no, no, we're not doing this whole thing is over. But he didn't. All throughout history, greatness has happened. Typically one man or a small group of men have stepped forward and said, and that's going to be a no for me dog. No, we're not doing that. Right? And so 56 men said no to a king, most powerful human being on the planet. And here we are 250 years later. It all starts with one man or a single man saying no. And the reason Charlie was martyred is because he looked at the spirit of the age and he said, no. No, you're not taking another generation of our young people, particularly our young men, no, you're not going to do this. No, I'm gonna go to, I'm gonna take the fight directly to you. And out of that came another came a group of other men that mostly men that surrounded him to help him with this mission. So here's the good news, right? The good news is there was one man. Stop and think about who this gentleman is in the face of the entire spirit of the age, the entirety of the zeitgeist of this culture, all of the media knowing what was likely awaiting him when he did this, and then internally up against all of that emotion in that room, knowing that the other two guys that sit there were total simps and punk and we're going to punk him out. One guy said no. And justice still has a chance here in the, even in the bluest of commonwealths of Massachusetts, because one guy said no. And I want every man within the sound of my voice to go and do likewise. Take something terrible today, something wrong today, and just simply say, no, no, no. You're not going to teach that to my kid in the school. No. No, you're not going to tell that lie. No, we're not going to watch that show. No, we're not going to go to that movie. No, I'm not going to keep my mouth shut. No. The answer is no. No is a magical word. It's a powerful word. When God first introduces his law to the world, you know, this last era of Tim Keller wannabe Third Wayeth. yeah, we have to tell Kimberley. Wait, wait. Ah, that's what we're against. Which is very odd because the first time, and really the only time I'm aware of that, with his literal hand, God wrote words, physical words we could read. He wrote them on two stone tablets, and they're almost all no statements, Jenna. No, don't do that. No, don't do this. No, can't do that. You absolutely should not do that. They're all nos. They're all nos. So I kind of think no matters a lot, actually. What? Telling people what we're against, I think is actually pretty profound. I mean, Don Wildmon built an entire culturally impactful ministry off of what we're against. So no is bring no. We need to make no great again, bring no back. Instead of bringing sexy back, we're making. We're bringing no back. No, no, no. And this era where we're just going to anoint women, to internally deal with women is over. It failed. We have the headship, right? The headship is given to us. The men are, to say, no, we are not doing that. And that's where it starts. And one guy in Massachusetts did. And so justice there has. It's not. It's not in great shape. It might be on life support, but it's still got a heartbeat.
Jenna Ellis: Amen. Amen. And no absolutely is a powerful word. And why is it no? Because we live in a fallen world. We know that we go from order to chaos. We. That we are driven towards sin. Even, even Christians still can. Still are tempted, still can, give in to the evil. We have to stand firm against the cultural oppression, the demonic oppression, the spirit of the age, to all of the things that would compel us to just say yes, and it's easier. I mean, and that's the principle, right, is that it's easier. It would be far easier for this juror to have simply said, okay, fine. It would have been far easier for all of the examples of the heroes throughout history, the men that have stood firm who have said no, it would have been far easier to just say, you know, it's, what. What difference is gonna. Is it gonna make? Or, you know, what, I don't want to put my family through that, or I don't want to, you know, to stand up and say, And say no. And. And yet those are the heroes that we go back through the moments that. The pivotal moments in civilization that have really changed the world. It hasn't been easy. I mean, everybody, you know, when I was in college and, you know, going through, church and, you know, all of these things growing up, the whole focus was, you need to be a world changer. You want to be a world changer. That isn't easy. And it comes with self sacrifice.
Steve: We used to laud heroes not because their personal character is perfect
And one of the things, Steve, as I was. As I was just watching all of the demonic hatred toward this juror and how, you know, from all the people online, but then how all of these female jurors were just railing against him. We used to laud heroes not because their personal character is perfect, but because they chose to say no, but they chose to serve, protect and sacrifice in the most extreme of circumstances. And self sacrifice is something we have largely abandoned in favor of self promotion, self affirmation, you know, self, self, self. And we justify it under the rationale that of this toxic empathy. You know, we have all of these villain backstories, right? Like, everybody's just misunderstood. Lindsay Clancy wasn't evil. She just suffered postpartum psychosis. You know, it's like, Maleficent wasn't evil. She was just misunderstood. So now the villains of the story, the actual evil actions, are sympathetic, and the heroes are deconstructed, and their motives are questions questioned because the lines are blurred intentionally. So as a culture, we don't rightly even identify good versus evil or the heroes versus the villains anymore.
Steve Deace: 10,000%. I mean, they made that very Maleficent movie like, 15 years ago with Angelina Jolie, if you recall.
Jenna Ellis: I do, yes. and I ranted to my cousin about it as we watched it together, for that exact reason.
Steve Deace: Yeah, I mean, that was beautifully said. And what you just described is, again, the word I used earlier. Paganism. Utilitarian ethics. To whom much is given. or, I'm sorry, to each according to his abilities, for each according to his needs. The good of the many outweigh the good of the few, or the one. Whatever avoids the most amount of suffering is what is good. Whatever brings the most amount of pleasure is what is good. This is utilitarian ethics. It Comes right out of Darwinism. it's the descent of man. This is the pagan realm in which we live. And so our job now is to go and invade that realm with the light of the gospel. That's how the gospel has. That's what the gospel has always done, is invade these kinds of pagan realms, offered up truly countercultural moralities, ethics, ways of living, behaving, performing, and, you know, D. James Kennedy used to always say the two things you won't see in any Bible. An evangelism plan or self esteem. Okay? And so our job is just to go and live the gospel and share it and hold the world accountable to it. Because this isn't just a moral standard. It's about redemption from the fact we've all violated that moral standard. And we've just taken a generation of this off collectively in the church. We've had too many men in pulpits with skinny jeans and sweater vests and furrowed brows who are more interested in, building brands, getting acceptance for acknowledging the tranny CIA, operatives in their offices by Dannah Bash ten years later. All right, live, from Ukraine. That's essentially a poster for what the last generation of the Christian man has been. And that has to end. And the longhouse in the matriarchy will not end itself. It requires headship to end it. And, that will require men that are worthy of carrying that mantle first and foremost.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, and it's no, it's no shock, and it's no surprise that when you say the word paganism, that historically has meant a matriarchy and the priestesses and the leadership by women and pagan women. And the Bible throughout speaks of male headship and that society works when there are strong male leaders. I mean, in fact, in Isaiah, when it's talking about punishment, children will oppress my people. Women will rule them. You know, this isn't saying this is against women, but this is saying this is where m. Men need to step up and actually be the leaders. And that, I'm convinced, convinced is the only way that we truly save America and Western civilization. If the men will stand up to all of these, you know, feminist boss babes who want to rule over men and who have made them beta and, and basically silenced. The men need to be like this juror and stand up and, and not be, you know, mean or go the whole other direction and say we want to oppress women and, you know, we want to subjugate them. And, you know, your, your place is barefoot in the kitchen and you can't speak at all. I mean, we're not talking about. But to just stand up and say male headship matters and that m men are supposed to be the leaders. And what that means is to serve, provide and protect and actually be the men in society.
Steve Deace: Totally agree. And one of the things I'm concerned about is we've seen, I think the enemy knows that this is what is needed and what is coming. And so there's been like this counterfeit group of, kind of just nerd soy boys, and, you know, who sit around on podcasts and drop big words and degrade women fundamentally to kind of almost hijack this entire conversation before it gets started and take it to such extremes that when we introduce this. Let me try that again. We reintroduce this into the lexicon. People are reflexively now recoiled against it. And I've done my best to try to confront that at times as well. That's not what we're talking about here. But ultimately, why, When I say the only thing worse than patriarchy is matriarchy, what does that mean? Men are flawed and imperfect, but there are certain traits God has put within them that give us the ability to say no more easily in situations like this. And you just watch that play out in front of this jury, in this case right here.
Jenna Ellis: And we've got to continue talking about this. Steve, thank you for talking about this. Thank you for pushing the biblical worldview. This is what is going to save America. We will be right back with more.
A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio
Hi, I'm Jenna Ellis. Did you know that this content is listener supported? Without people like you, this podcast would not exist. And that's why we need you. A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio and specifically this podcast podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.netforward/give. That's afr.netgive. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
M for not only the family government, but also the church government
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, as we're talking about the need for men to rise up and to, be the leaders and to ensure that as we continue, continue, trying to build a moral and upright society, we need men who actually understand the biblical worldview and what that means. M for not only the family government, but also the church government and the civil government and how that all, plays out under God's divine authority and what limited, delegation of his authority he has provided to each of these institutions and how they interact. And so, as we continue to talk about some of the dangers and, the the pervasive theories that have come into the church. This is why it's important. Because if we are going to impact the civil government and to create good policy that ensures that we have things like competent juries, that we have a culture that is, that is pointed toward the truth, that then we have to make sure that the theology that comes from the church and is being taught in the church is accurate. And so, we've been talking about Christian nationalism and the dangers and, going along with that same theory. Now, there's been a Christian Post piece that asks this question. Did Al Mueller really propose a religious test for political office? And, you all know Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Society Seminary. he hosts, the Briefing, his podcast, and has, become, you know, one of those prolific voices within, the, the Baptist community, the Southern Baptist community, and is in, in my view, and, and a lot of people who I respect, Mohler is now getting more into the, the dangerous and false ideas of Christian nationalism.
Bill Roach: Al Mohler proposes requiring Christian acknowledgment in public office
So for this conversation, let's welcome in Bill Roach. And, and I really appreciate. Ah, Bill, you have been an advocate of this, of really saying the truth of what Christian nationalism is teaching, what it isn't teaching, and the vagary around it. for those who haven't listened to some of the interviews that I've had with Bill Roach, please go back and listen to them. They're [email protected], but Bill, describe for us what Al Mohler is actually proposing and why this is of such serious concern to the church.
Dr. Bill Roach: Well, good morning, Jenna. It's great to be on here. And I agree with you. You know, these are big topics. And in the context of this, Al Mohler is one voice who for many years has rightly diagnosed our culture. And by that I mean that we see the shift that's taken place where individuals are giving up a biblical worldview and really they're starting to not legislate morality, but they're legislating immorality. And what you find here is, is that in this particular article that Richard Land put out, you know, on Did Al Mohler propose a religious test? The answer is yes, he did. And you know, I have tremendous respect for both Al Mohler and Richard Land. I know both of them, and I agree with Richard Land's central criticism, but I also agree with the cultural diagnosis that we find ourselves in. And you know, the American political order did not emerge from nowhere. It understands human dignity and natural rights and moral Responsibility that rests upon an objective moral order, which ultimately rests upon God. So the disagreement is over what government may do with those various truths. So the question is not whether Christianity is true or whether it's benefited America. The question is whether civil government has the authority to require citizens and office holders to have a formal acknowledgement of Christianity. So the key thing that we find here is, and this is where the distinction is, and this is where people are going to have to really pay attention, is that Mueller does not propose an established, national church or require a profession of personal conversion, but he does propose that America formally acknowledge its Christian foundations by making a constitutional amendment to talk about those foundations, to make them very explicit. And the larger proposal has significant legal and political consequences. Namely, it's going to require a religious test to serve in office. And that's why Richard Land, writing this article is such a big deal, is because he argues that requiring this acknowledgment from office holders is a religious test, even if we avoid that specific label. Sort of like the old saying, a rose by any other name is still a rose. So if refusing to affirm Christian doctrine disqualifies someone from holding public office, then Christianity has become the civil qualification. The point is this a compulsory acknowledgment backed by a civil disqualification. That is the definition of a religious test. So what we find here is that Mueller gets certain things right and he gets certain things wrong. In this, Mueller is right that government is never neutral and that every law reflects judgments about justice, human dignity, rights, common good, all those kinds of things. And he's also right that the American experiment cannot be explained without Christianity. The declaration speaks of the rights and by the Creator. But here's the mistake. The mistake comes when we assume that just. Or that because Christianity supplies the foundation, that government therefore has the jurisdiction to administer that and require that for someone to serve in political office. So the point is, Christianity can provide the moral foundations of a political order without becoming a confession administered by the state. And that's so much of what the American order was all about. And there's a lot more details to that, but that serves as the basic overview of what's going on right now.
Jenna Ellis: And I so appreciate, that distinction because, there are so many people right now, and I'm sure even a lot of our listeners who are looking at the state of, the state right now and looking even at the midterms coming up and saying, well, there are so many socialists, who have a, you know, very pagan worldview, or you know, are atheist or, you know, basically not Christian. and then you have the people who are overtly Muslims who very much have a different worldview on, on law, on Western civilization, on, men and women, on so many things that they would push back and say, well, really, isn't this better ultimately to have a religious test to at least ensure that Christians are in office than going the way that we are in American society right now? Exactly.
Dr. Bill Roach: You know, I mean, I definitely want to see people who hold the biblical worldview in office because I do believe that it provides the best environment for the flourishing of society. I think it's what gave rise to the liberties that we see here in the United States. And I fear what happens, whether it's at the local level or the state level or even at the federal level, when individuals give up these liberties given for individuals, for collective goods and specifically pagan ideals that are coming about, that's out there. So I think the issue when we look at this, and I think what land is getting at, is that we recognize, when we look at Mueller, he recognizes that a political order requires objective moral and theological foundations. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. And we recognize that in the American experiment, Christianity supplies that true foundation. But here's the hidden premise that's going on here is that if a religious truth provides the foundation of political order, then does that mean government has jurisdiction to require citizens and office holders to acknowledge that? And I think this is where the false premise is coming in, is that the truth or goodness of something does not automatically place it within the civil jurisdiction. There are certain areas that can still be good. They can be great things for society, but it doesn't mean that the government needs to have control over it. For example, I think churches are great for society and they're good for society. I don't want the government running my church. I don't want the government running the good of baptism. I don't want the government running the good of evangelism. I don't want the government telling me what sound doctrine is. I don't want the government telling me what saving faith is, because government does not acquire authority over these goods merely because they contribute to human flourishing. And I think this is where the nature of the debate is going down to. The goodness of an inn does not establish the jurisdiction of the savings state over that end. And we see that all the time. I don't want the government having jurisdiction over decisions that I'm going to make in ministry on what's true and False doctrine. And that's what Land was pointing back to so much, is that when you look at the history of what it means to really be a Southern Baptist, if you read his article the Baptist faith and Message 2000, of which both land and molar were on there, it's clear on this, is that there's not only a distinction between, you know, church and state, but we need to recognize that the church has its role and the state has its role. And when the state encroaches on these things, that it's overstepped its jurisdiction. And we shouldn't require these religious tests because of what we've seen happen just in the history of these particular debates. Whenever there's a religious test, if you don't fit that particular religious mold, well, then you fall under the jurisdiction of that particular government. And we've seen individuals like, in this context, Baptist be killed over it. And that's one of the key distinctions that you find in the American experiment is that the further people moved away from sort of European ideals where you had a, mixture of the church and state known as sacralism or integralism. You see a free state with a free church. You see that in the London Baptist Confession of Faith, it drops the things that were within sort of an Anglican and Presbyterian understanding, like the Westminster Confession. You also start to see those things coming about with the early Congregationalists dropping it from the Savoy Declaration. And you see it with figures like William Penn, another early Baptist at this point, who recognize that just because the government has control over particular things doesn't mean that the government should have control over everything. So specifically religion and a religious test for office. And that's really what Land was trying to get at and push back against in Mueller's article.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and this is such an important point, and I'm, speaking with Bill Roach, who's the dean of the Norm Geisler School of Apologetics at Veritas International University. You can follow him on X. I'd encourage you to do that. And, also some really great lectures, that you have on Christian nationalism online. because we have to understand that throughout world history, when there's been attempts to conform civil government to force those in power, whether it's elected offices, kings, you know, parliaments, all of this, when there has been this force from the civil government to conform those individuals to profess a Christian faith, they can't do that substantively. I mean, the church is the province where, and the institution that God ordained to teach the truth of the gospel of Christ. And if the state has some sort of ah, test, it isn't substantive and it's not going to ultimately be effective. You'll get a lot of imposters and you'll get a lot of people that maybe have Christian in name only, but don't actually understand the substantive doctrines. And then when they say, well, we're the Christians and then they try to go and as the state dictate to the church what its doctrine must be, then you end up in a lot of these different clashes that ultimately has a negative effect on the church and the family and individual freedom. And our founders understood that, which is why they, they relegated the state to the, the smallest possible. I mean this is why we have very limited specific powers that are given to civil government. And no more. We don't want to continue to add to that. The best religious test we can possibly have is the voters ourselves. If we would as Christians simply go to the ballot box and we would also run for the offices and you know, make these kinds of sacrifices in society that require us to engage as citizens, that's the best religious test possible. If we would simply say no, and as a, as a voting block, we would say absolutely not. We are not voting for pagan socialists. We're not voting for these populists, even if they're under the MAGA banner, we're not voting for Muslims, then that's the best religious test that we could possibly have. Because it's not coerced, it's of our own volition. And it's a government then still, of the people, by the people, for the people. And we the people are the ones who are Christians, who are under the authority of the Church.
Dr. Bill Roach: That's exactly what it is. And you know, when you look at
Dr. Bill Roach: the American experiment and you look at religious liberty in the United States of America, it has provided the best context for individuals to share the Gospel, to see individuals come to true and saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And it radically changed society.
Bill Roach says changing the Constitution would undermine Christian religious freedom
So when you think about figures like Whitfield and DL Moody and Billy Graham, they were able to do their ministry because of religious freedom. And the context that it provided is that it created millions of converts who did exactly what you were talking about. And the second thing is that we always talk about the ills of large government and what government can do and what government cannot do. And the old adage of Obamacare, was you'll be able to keep your doctors and all the rest of the. But you know, just as Obamacare has been an absolute train wreck because whenever the government touches it, it tends to break. Think what's going to happen if we allow that kind of control with the government over our local churches, and what actually qualifies as a credible profession of the Christian faith to serve in office? It's going to be a religious train wreck. And we've seen it throughout history. We recognize that when we look back at the history, it should inform what we do now in the present and what we should continue doing going forward. And that's why, you know, the framers in this sense, they weren't, you know, just having to assume society believed these things. They knew what they were doing when they wrote the Constitution. And even when we look at the Constitution, Article 6 prohibits a religious test for federal office. So not only would it have to be an amendment to acknowledge Christianity, it's going to have to be, an amendment to, to Article 6 of the Constitution on the religious test, federal office. And my biggest fear is when you start changing the Constitution, specifically with the context in the world that we live in, I don't think we're going to improve the Constitution. I don't think it's going to be a step up. I think it's going to be a step down. And it's actually going to push us not towards the Christian foundations that figures like Mueller want. I think it's going to actually end up being towards a secular progressivism, exactly what he doesn't want. Because let's be honest, who's in office today? So I think we as Christians need to do our job, evangelize our neighbors, vote in our local elections, let the people do what the people need to do in the American experiment and trust God for the results.
Jenna Ellis: Amen. Well, Bill Roach, good word. And absolutely, I mean, we've seen, you know, we have the 16th, 17th amendment, you know, because we messed with some of those original things that the founders put in. So, yeah, I mean, we have to ensure that we make sure we are involved as citizens, but understand all of these important points. We'll be right back. We're living in a defining moment in history. Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online, often before anyone has had the chance to tell her she is loved, that she's not alone, or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At preborn network clinics, mothers are welcomed with compassion, practical support, and a free ultrasound. And when she sees her baby and hears that tiny heartbeat for the Very first time. Fear often gives way to hope. In fact, more than 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on an ultrasound at a PreBorn Network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand. For those who cannot speak for themselves, just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound. $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 baby or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Republicans are gathering for the Florida first ever midterm convention this weekend
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, speaking of doing our job and voting and ensuring that we are engaged citizens in the upcoming election, Republicans are gathering for the Florida first ever midterm convention. It's being dubbed, dubbed Trump a palooza. And the president, isn't on the ballot in November, but will still be at the center of the GOP's big kickoff event to its final midterms push. That coming. This is coming from Yahoo News and of course, ah, the, the left is trying to frame this as Trump just wants, you know, one more big spotlight stage. Well, he's going to keep doing rallies and all of this. I think this is actually a good idea that he is trying to, spur some of this momentum and get people engaged before the midterms, which historically, if history, continues, would not go well for Republicans. And he is trying to turn that around and say, you know, we have to keep these, socialists and Muslims and extreme pagan leftists out of office and make sure that we vote for the best possible candidate on the ballot and of course all of the important ballot issues, that will be on the various state ballots. So to talk more on this, let's welcome in Krish Ekstrom, who is a board member of US Term Limits.
Chris Anderson: The purpose of the midterm convention is clearly to unify Republicans
So, Krish, what, what can we expect in Dallas from the midterm convention?
Chris Ekstrom: Good morning, Jenna. I think the purpose of the midterm convention is clearly to unify the Republican Party nationwide and to send a message that Texas is the cornerstone of the Republican electoral strategy, which will be coming up in 2028 when we elect another president, God willing. And I think pulling people together under these circumstances where we hear a lot of, news that suggests that, you know, that not out of the norm, that the party in power is going to be heavily contested, is a healthy and a good thing. So I think, the purpose is right. I think the mission is difficult in some ways because, you know, as usual, the Republican Party makes a lot of mistakes. but this is an opportunity to have a clear message and come together, as one force for the last two years of President Trump's term.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And absolutely, I could not agree more that this is a pivotal moment and we can't, as, Christians, as conservatives, just say, well, you know, we have Trump in office, so we're going to wait and engage in 2028. This, all still matters are a lot of state elections, some governor elections, congressional seats. I mean, there are really important positions that are, up for election during the midterms. So do you think that the gop, and Trump specifically, will be successful at, at coordinating and coalescing, and building the enthusiasm for the midterms when, it seems like there's not a lot of cohesion among Republicans right now because of all of the splinters and the fracturing over various issues and. And especially various candidates?
Chris Ekstrom: Yeah, you know, I think it remains to be seen, is my honest answer, but I do think it's possible, and I think that just the sheer fact that this was done was an acknowledgment of the reality, as you just pointed out, that there is a significant amount of splintering and some differences of opinion among the factions and that, you know, needed to be an opportunity to pull together and. And, present, you know, present a sort of, solid front.
Chris Ekstrom: Now I think one of our things that Christians really ought to be especially doing is using their discernment and their common sense to see through some of the, fake dichotomies, I think that are being injected into this last two years by our own people, inside, people we largely agree with, but who have chosen to look ahead to 28 and try to undermine one particular candidate for president and a ticket that, in my view, which would be Vance Rubio, that would be a pretty strong, statement of unity going into that next election with two people that have proven they are capable of doing the job. And I think we just have a lot of dissension, about fake things, frankly, when it comes to, say, Vice President Vance, and I'm perfectly willing to fight that one out if we need to.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, and I think we're going to, for sure. I think that there are, you know, that's one of those big differences of opinion where, you know, who is going to helm, the. What should be the Conservative Party? I'm not sure that we can rightly, characterize the GOP as conservative, generally, I mean, compared to the Democrats. Absolutely. But, you know, overall, what should be the Conservative Party? there's going to be that battle, and I think it, it's a necessary one, and it actually may be a good one. I don't think that we should go into this the same way that, that we did the 2024 primary, where, you know, for president, where it was just, you know, Trump and nobody else can, can even have a say, and basically this type of coronation, I'm sure that Trump, if he makes a choice early on in the primary, is going to push for that. But I think in order to have kind of a coalescing, we need to have that fight up front. And that's what primaries are for, so that everyone can be heard. And then when collectively, you know, we choose our fighter, so to speak, then people can say, okay, I've, I've had my say. This is the candidate that won, and so we're going to go ahead and support him. I think that this whole notion under Trump that, you know, the primaries basically should be canceled and just whomever he endorses need to be the candidate that really undercuts, the whole conservative idea of consent of the governed and involvement and participation in the party.
Chris Ekstrom: I agree. And you know that I believe in, candor and bringing these things out in the open, in the primaries and being, you know, real clear about where people stand. I personally don't think the most important endorsement for the next president is going to be President Trump. I mean, I mentioned both the vice president and Marco Rubio because I think the fact that if they were to pull together, that would be the most important endorsement that either of them could get, which is each other's, and the willingness to work together, which is the one that's being discussed a lot now. That doesn't mean that that would happen. And as a matter of fact, looking at it objectively, could very well be that Marco Rubio decides to go for it and be president. So, that that's not by any means off the table. He has shown, that he's, he's willing, to, to do that. And, you know, he went into 2016 against Jeb Bush, who was essentially the guy who made his whole career. He went from being an obscure state senator in Florida, to, pretty rapidly Becoming a United States Senator in Florida, which is a big move, and then he decided to get into that race. Ted, ah, Cruz here in Texas. He is going to be at the convention. He's going to be talking a lot about what his ideas are. I was a very partisan Ted Cruz, person in 2016, and to some degree that was a humbling experience. So I certainly don't claim to have the answer as to who it's going to be, but I will say this. The Trump era has created a different Republican Party. We have a working class, America first Republican Party that is not for DEI and is not for reverse discrimination. It is not for a whole list of things that have been pretty important issues that the Republican Party was, frankly not clear about in the past. I think we've clarified those things. If somebody wants to go back to the Republican party prior to 2016, I think they are sailing into oblivion.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So well said. And I could not agree more that, you know, one of the, the really great things that has come, because of the Trump era is, the involvement of so many more citizens who I think were politically apathetic, prior to Trump, and they, they were awakened to their civic responsibilities and, and were actually excited about engaging because of Trump. And you know, whether they followed him because of, you know, the personality, the rallies, whatever, I think they actually saw him as someone who finally was standing up for the working man and for the working class. It wasn't just you two, establishment elitist parties that really didn't care and had nothing to do with the average American. And so hopefully, the good things about the MAGA era we can bring through, into 2028 and beyond. And then maybe some of the, the other things that, that weren't so great, or some of the things that didn't get done. You know, we can, we can move the ball forward and we can also clarify, okay, where exactly does the GOP stand? And I think that the midterms are going to be a really, a key part of that, because when we look at some of these people, you know, like in Texas, you know, there's been a lot of controversy about Ken Paxton, but, overall, is he better than James Talarico in terms of what he stands for, his worldview? I mean, no question. And so I don't think that Republicans should even have this debate of like, well, you know, we could have gotten somebody better, blah, blah. Well, he's, he's the nominee and it's a closed universe situation. And when you look at the worldviews and the policy and what Paxton has gotten done compared to Talarico, the choice is just absolutely obvious. And so we need to carry forward that momentum, I think, in the midterms, make sure that we're not handing over the country to any of these socialists or, or Muslim or just, you know, crazy candidates. And we need to take that momentum forward. So, Krish Ekstrom, we're already out of time. Really appreciate it, but you can follow on X. And as always, you can reach me and my team. Jennaafr.net. PreBorn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion. And every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives. Will you join PreBorn in loving and supporting young moms in crisis? Save a life today. Go to preborn.com afr.
American Family Radio thanks sponsor, Preborn for supporting pro life advocacy
Jenna Ellis: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, PreBorn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection. And the majority of the time she will choose life. But she can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside her. One ultrasound is just $28, and to donate, dial £250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you. And God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.
Three Lindsay Clancy jurors have now sat for interviews to describe what happened
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Wednesday, September 9, and the Lindsay Clancy jurors, a few of them, three of them specifically, have now sat for interviews to describe what happened in the jury room. And they are allowed to do that, of course. And this can only be described as absolutely wild. I mean, we, we speculated what they were probably thinking. We knew a little bit from the notes that they passed, to the judge and the, the described holdout and frustration with the single lone male juror. That's all that we know, about his identity now, thankfully, I think for his own protection and security. But, what these jurors, these three women actually described and the language that they used to describe their own feelings and thought processes is just so disturbingly evil. That's the only way that it can be described. And I want to play just a couple of these clips so that you can hear for yourself. But the thing that really struck me is that if we are going to have a jury system that works as a part of a justice system, this is all predicated on the fact that we have actually reasonable, competent, moral, upright citizens who are willing to sit on the jury and actually render a judgment, not try to empathize with the defendant, not try to excuse evil conduct like murdering your children, not try to look for, you know, a medical version of a way out. I mean, this is where we get as a society if we have people who are so full of toxic empathy that they refuse to actually look at the facts and render a verdict without just total bizarre feminist emotion. So this is what the foreperson said in part. This is cut to he had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt. After we watched that video of the interview, I think that's when it was. He admitted he had reasonable doubt. And I started filling out the forms. I was so excited. I actually. There were three forms I had to fill out, and I started filling them out. I wrote my signature on each one. And then he said, but I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity. She was so excited to fill out the forms for not guilty. That should never be a contemplation in the context of a criminal jury. I mean, how unserious can you possibly be to say that you were so excited that you were going to find this woman not guilty for the murder of her three children? And then this is another female juror who is upset again at the. The holdout, male juror. And listen to how she characterizes this. This is cut three. We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said one day, in the end, well, why don't we have the judge come in and read it again? And we were like, no, we have it in front of us. We don't need that. And we would highlight it. And, you know, so. And so this is the definition of reason of doubt. But he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.
Jenna Ellis: Did you hear that? He had the hardest time getting over the fact that she viciously killed her children. She's admitting this was a vicious kill, not accidental, not, unintended, not even tragic. I mean, this is being characterized, rightly, as a vicious killing. And somehow this woman in Massachusetts is perplexed and shocked maybe, that an actual human being can't get over the fact that these were vicious killing. I mean, this is where we are at as a society with the lack of humanity, the lack of a measurable difference between right and wrong, good and evil. I mean, this is telling you the worldview of where these jurors are coming from. So let's welcome in our good friend Steve Dace, who, of course, is, host of the Steve Day show over at the Blaze. And, Steve, this literally made me sick to my stomach last night as I was watching these juror interviews and just these two clips alone. And I'd encourage everyone to go actually listen to the full, interview with these jurors. But this is exactly what every conservative commentator was talking about even before we had the words themselves from these jurors to know that they are not in the same realm of worldview as I believe our founders intended when we created this process of a right to a jury of your peers. I mean, this has gone so far off the rails. Can we even recover as a society?
Steve Deace: Well, you set that up beautifully, Jenna You know, our founders intended juries to be kind of the fourth, unofficial fourth branch of government. The last place to go for justice for people with God given individual rights to go for justice when. If and when the system should collectively fail would be to have a jury of your peers. And I think that we need to understand that this is a jury of our peers. It is a microcosm of where America is that you essentially, the only thing worse than the patriarchy was always going to be the matriarchy, and that's where we are. All right, Whether you want to call it the longhouse is kind of the slang of the day. That's really what we're talking about. Pagan, matriarchal religions. All pagan religions are matriarchal in nature. And that's where we are. Ah, we are overrun with godlessness and paganism. we're overrun with a generation of women unrepentant for the murder of their own children. And all of that collective guilt has to go somewhere. we will have redemption as a species. We demand it. We know there's something deep within us that desires it. And so it's going to be real redemption that comes only through Christ, or it's going to be a pseudo fake form. And in our day and age, you know, sometimes that form of redemption is found within a pagan deity. But often in our day and age, that form of redemption is found from where people view as the most powerful force of human will on the planet. Government. Government will just affirm my sins. Government will tell me I'm okay, and promote my sinfulness so that I never have to face my conscience before a holy and righteous God. And therefore, I just bury all of that residual shame and guilt. You know, the Bible says that Jesus went to the cross disguising the shame. Why does he use that word? Because it's the same word that we see in the scriptures before sin enters the world. They were naked in the garden, and they had no shame. All right? And so all that shame has to go somewhere. It's supposed to point you to the cross. But for people that don't want to admit what they did was wrong, it'll point them to something more sinister. And you're watching that play out. I'll guarantee every one of those Female jurors has had an abortion. I'll guarantee it. I'll guarantee they all watch the View. I'll guarantee it. And it's always folks in this day and age, it's always the ones you most suspect. Every single time. It's all obvious, it's all being laid bare for the timing of this to occur.
One man said no to a king, and justice still has a chance
as we're on the eve of the one year anniversary of the murder of my friend Charlie Kirk, I find to be providential. And here's why. Because I want to give. Here's the good news for audiences like yours and like mine, the reason why this woman was not given the affirmation for, quote, viciously killing her children that these, that the jury wanted was because one man said no. You go all the way back to the garden. One man given power and dominion by the creator universe. Adam steps in and just simply says, no, no, we're not doing this whole thing is over. But he didn't. All throughout history, greatness has happened. Typically one man or a small group of men have stepped forward and said, and that's going to be a no for me dog. No, we're not doing that. Right? And so 56 men said no to a king, most powerful human being on the planet. And here we are 250 years later. It all starts with one man or a single man saying no. And the reason Charlie was martyred is because he looked at the spirit of the age and he said, no. No, you're not taking another generation of our young people, particularly our young men, no, you're not going to do this. No, I'm gonna go to, I'm gonna take the fight directly to you. And out of that came another came a group of other men that mostly men that surrounded him to help him with this mission. So here's the good news, right? The good news is there was one man. Stop and think about who this gentleman is in the face of the entire spirit of the age, the entirety of the zeitgeist of this culture, all of the media knowing what was likely awaiting him when he did this, and then internally up against all of that emotion in that room, knowing that the other two guys that sit there were total simps and punk and we're going to punk him out. One guy said no. And justice still has a chance here in the, even in the bluest of commonwealths of Massachusetts, because one guy said no. And I want every man within the sound of my voice to go and do likewise. Take something terrible today, something wrong today, and just simply say, no, no, no. You're not going to teach that to my kid in the school. No. No, you're not going to tell that lie. No, we're not going to watch that show. No, we're not going to go to that movie. No, I'm not going to keep my mouth shut. No. The answer is no. No is a magical word. It's a powerful word. When God first introduces his law to the world, you know, this last era of Tim Keller wannabe Third Wayeth. yeah, we have to tell Kimberley. Wait, wait. Ah, that's what we're against. Which is very odd because the first time, and really the only time I'm aware of that, with his literal hand, God wrote words, physical words we could read. He wrote them on two stone tablets, and they're almost all no statements, Jenna. No, don't do that. No, don't do this. No, can't do that. You absolutely should not do that. They're all nos. They're all nos. So I kind of think no matters a lot, actually. What? Telling people what we're against, I think is actually pretty profound. I mean, Don Wildmon built an entire culturally impactful ministry off of what we're against. So no is bring no. We need to make no great again, bring no back. Instead of bringing sexy back, we're making. We're bringing no back. No, no, no. And this era where we're just going to anoint women, to internally deal with women is over. It failed. We have the headship, right? The headship is given to us. The men are, to say, no, we are not doing that. And that's where it starts. And one guy in Massachusetts did. And so justice there has. It's not. It's not in great shape. It might be on life support, but it's still got a heartbeat.
Jenna Ellis: Amen. Amen. And no absolutely is a powerful word. And why is it no? Because we live in a fallen world. We know that we go from order to chaos. We. That we are driven towards sin. Even, even Christians still can. Still are tempted, still can, give in to the evil. We have to stand firm against the cultural oppression, the demonic oppression, the spirit of the age, to all of the things that would compel us to just say yes, and it's easier. I mean, and that's the principle, right, is that it's easier. It would be far easier for this juror to have simply said, okay, fine. It would have been far easier for all of the examples of the heroes throughout history, the men that have stood firm who have said no, it would have been far easier to just say, you know, it's, what. What difference is gonna. Is it gonna make? Or, you know, what, I don't want to put my family through that, or I don't want to, you know, to stand up and say, And say no. And. And yet those are the heroes that we go back through the moments that. The pivotal moments in civilization that have really changed the world. It hasn't been easy. I mean, everybody, you know, when I was in college and, you know, going through, church and, you know, all of these things growing up, the whole focus was, you need to be a world changer. You want to be a world changer. That isn't easy. And it comes with self sacrifice.
Steve: We used to laud heroes not because their personal character is perfect
And one of the things, Steve, as I was. As I was just watching all of the demonic hatred toward this juror and how, you know, from all the people online, but then how all of these female jurors were just railing against him. We used to laud heroes not because their personal character is perfect, but because they chose to say no, but they chose to serve, protect and sacrifice in the most extreme of circumstances. And self sacrifice is something we have largely abandoned in favor of self promotion, self affirmation, you know, self, self, self. And we justify it under the rationale that of this toxic empathy. You know, we have all of these villain backstories, right? Like, everybody's just misunderstood. Lindsay Clancy wasn't evil. She just suffered postpartum psychosis. You know, it's like, Maleficent wasn't evil. She was just misunderstood. So now the villains of the story, the actual evil actions, are sympathetic, and the heroes are deconstructed, and their motives are questions questioned because the lines are blurred intentionally. So as a culture, we don't rightly even identify good versus evil or the heroes versus the villains anymore.
Steve Deace: 10,000%. I mean, they made that very Maleficent movie like, 15 years ago with Angelina Jolie, if you recall.
Jenna Ellis: I do, yes. and I ranted to my cousin about it as we watched it together, for that exact reason.
Steve Deace: Yeah, I mean, that was beautifully said. And what you just described is, again, the word I used earlier. Paganism. Utilitarian ethics. To whom much is given. or, I'm sorry, to each according to his abilities, for each according to his needs. The good of the many outweigh the good of the few, or the one. Whatever avoids the most amount of suffering is what is good. Whatever brings the most amount of pleasure is what is good. This is utilitarian ethics. It Comes right out of Darwinism. it's the descent of man. This is the pagan realm in which we live. And so our job now is to go and invade that realm with the light of the gospel. That's how the gospel has. That's what the gospel has always done, is invade these kinds of pagan realms, offered up truly countercultural moralities, ethics, ways of living, behaving, performing, and, you know, D. James Kennedy used to always say the two things you won't see in any Bible. An evangelism plan or self esteem. Okay? And so our job is just to go and live the gospel and share it and hold the world accountable to it. Because this isn't just a moral standard. It's about redemption from the fact we've all violated that moral standard. And we've just taken a generation of this off collectively in the church. We've had too many men in pulpits with skinny jeans and sweater vests and furrowed brows who are more interested in, building brands, getting acceptance for acknowledging the tranny CIA, operatives in their offices by Dannah Bash ten years later. All right, live, from Ukraine. That's essentially a poster for what the last generation of the Christian man has been. And that has to end. And the longhouse in the matriarchy will not end itself. It requires headship to end it. And, that will require men that are worthy of carrying that mantle first and foremost.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, and it's no, it's no shock, and it's no surprise that when you say the word paganism, that historically has meant a matriarchy and the priestesses and the leadership by women and pagan women. And the Bible throughout speaks of male headship and that society works when there are strong male leaders. I mean, in fact, in Isaiah, when it's talking about punishment, children will oppress my people. Women will rule them. You know, this isn't saying this is against women, but this is saying this is where m. Men need to step up and actually be the leaders. And that, I'm convinced, convinced is the only way that we truly save America and Western civilization. If the men will stand up to all of these, you know, feminist boss babes who want to rule over men and who have made them beta and, and basically silenced. The men need to be like this juror and stand up and, and not be, you know, mean or go the whole other direction and say we want to oppress women and, you know, we want to subjugate them. And, you know, your, your place is barefoot in the kitchen and you can't speak at all. I mean, we're not talking about. But to just stand up and say male headship matters and that m men are supposed to be the leaders. And what that means is to serve, provide and protect and actually be the men in society.
Steve Deace: Totally agree. And one of the things I'm concerned about is we've seen, I think the enemy knows that this is what is needed and what is coming. And so there's been like this counterfeit group of, kind of just nerd soy boys, and, you know, who sit around on podcasts and drop big words and degrade women fundamentally to kind of almost hijack this entire conversation before it gets started and take it to such extremes that when we introduce this. Let me try that again. We reintroduce this into the lexicon. People are reflexively now recoiled against it. And I've done my best to try to confront that at times as well. That's not what we're talking about here. But ultimately, why, When I say the only thing worse than patriarchy is matriarchy, what does that mean? Men are flawed and imperfect, but there are certain traits God has put within them that give us the ability to say no more easily in situations like this. And you just watch that play out in front of this jury, in this case right here.
Jenna Ellis: And we've got to continue talking about this. Steve, thank you for talking about this. Thank you for pushing the biblical worldview. This is what is going to save America. We will be right back with more.
A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio
Hi, I'm Jenna Ellis. Did you know that this content is listener supported? Without people like you, this podcast would not exist. And that's why we need you. A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio and specifically this podcast podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.netforward/give. That's afr.netgive. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
M for not only the family government, but also the church government
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, as we're talking about the need for men to rise up and to, be the leaders and to ensure that as we continue, continue, trying to build a moral and upright society, we need men who actually understand the biblical worldview and what that means. M for not only the family government, but also the church government and the civil government and how that all, plays out under God's divine authority and what limited, delegation of his authority he has provided to each of these institutions and how they interact. And so, as we continue to talk about some of the dangers and, the the pervasive theories that have come into the church. This is why it's important. Because if we are going to impact the civil government and to create good policy that ensures that we have things like competent juries, that we have a culture that is, that is pointed toward the truth, that then we have to make sure that the theology that comes from the church and is being taught in the church is accurate. And so, we've been talking about Christian nationalism and the dangers and, going along with that same theory. Now, there's been a Christian Post piece that asks this question. Did Al Mueller really propose a religious test for political office? And, you all know Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Society Seminary. he hosts, the Briefing, his podcast, and has, become, you know, one of those prolific voices within, the, the Baptist community, the Southern Baptist community, and is in, in my view, and, and a lot of people who I respect, Mohler is now getting more into the, the dangerous and false ideas of Christian nationalism.
Bill Roach: Al Mohler proposes requiring Christian acknowledgment in public office
So for this conversation, let's welcome in Bill Roach. And, and I really appreciate. Ah, Bill, you have been an advocate of this, of really saying the truth of what Christian nationalism is teaching, what it isn't teaching, and the vagary around it. for those who haven't listened to some of the interviews that I've had with Bill Roach, please go back and listen to them. They're [email protected], but Bill, describe for us what Al Mohler is actually proposing and why this is of such serious concern to the church.
Dr. Bill Roach: Well, good morning, Jenna. It's great to be on here. And I agree with you. You know, these are big topics. And in the context of this, Al Mohler is one voice who for many years has rightly diagnosed our culture. And by that I mean that we see the shift that's taken place where individuals are giving up a biblical worldview and really they're starting to not legislate morality, but they're legislating immorality. And what you find here is, is that in this particular article that Richard Land put out, you know, on Did Al Mohler propose a religious test? The answer is yes, he did. And you know, I have tremendous respect for both Al Mohler and Richard Land. I know both of them, and I agree with Richard Land's central criticism, but I also agree with the cultural diagnosis that we find ourselves in. And you know, the American political order did not emerge from nowhere. It understands human dignity and natural rights and moral Responsibility that rests upon an objective moral order, which ultimately rests upon God. So the disagreement is over what government may do with those various truths. So the question is not whether Christianity is true or whether it's benefited America. The question is whether civil government has the authority to require citizens and office holders to have a formal acknowledgement of Christianity. So the key thing that we find here is, and this is where the distinction is, and this is where people are going to have to really pay attention, is that Mueller does not propose an established, national church or require a profession of personal conversion, but he does propose that America formally acknowledge its Christian foundations by making a constitutional amendment to talk about those foundations, to make them very explicit. And the larger proposal has significant legal and political consequences. Namely, it's going to require a religious test to serve in office. And that's why Richard Land, writing this article is such a big deal, is because he argues that requiring this acknowledgment from office holders is a religious test, even if we avoid that specific label. Sort of like the old saying, a rose by any other name is still a rose. So if refusing to affirm Christian doctrine disqualifies someone from holding public office, then Christianity has become the civil qualification. The point is this a compulsory acknowledgment backed by a civil disqualification. That is the definition of a religious test. So what we find here is that Mueller gets certain things right and he gets certain things wrong. In this, Mueller is right that government is never neutral and that every law reflects judgments about justice, human dignity, rights, common good, all those kinds of things. And he's also right that the American experiment cannot be explained without Christianity. The declaration speaks of the rights and by the Creator. But here's the mistake. The mistake comes when we assume that just. Or that because Christianity supplies the foundation, that government therefore has the jurisdiction to administer that and require that for someone to serve in political office. So the point is, Christianity can provide the moral foundations of a political order without becoming a confession administered by the state. And that's so much of what the American order was all about. And there's a lot more details to that, but that serves as the basic overview of what's going on right now.
Jenna Ellis: And I so appreciate, that distinction because, there are so many people right now, and I'm sure even a lot of our listeners who are looking at the state of, the state right now and looking even at the midterms coming up and saying, well, there are so many socialists, who have a, you know, very pagan worldview, or you know, are atheist or, you know, basically not Christian. and then you have the people who are overtly Muslims who very much have a different worldview on, on law, on Western civilization, on, men and women, on so many things that they would push back and say, well, really, isn't this better ultimately to have a religious test to at least ensure that Christians are in office than going the way that we are in American society right now? Exactly.
Dr. Bill Roach: You know, I mean, I definitely want to see people who hold the biblical worldview in office because I do believe that it provides the best environment for the flourishing of society. I think it's what gave rise to the liberties that we see here in the United States. And I fear what happens, whether it's at the local level or the state level or even at the federal level, when individuals give up these liberties given for individuals, for collective goods and specifically pagan ideals that are coming about, that's out there. So I think the issue when we look at this, and I think what land is getting at, is that we recognize, when we look at Mueller, he recognizes that a political order requires objective moral and theological foundations. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. And we recognize that in the American experiment, Christianity supplies that true foundation. But here's the hidden premise that's going on here is that if a religious truth provides the foundation of political order, then does that mean government has jurisdiction to require citizens and office holders to acknowledge that? And I think this is where the false premise is coming in, is that the truth or goodness of something does not automatically place it within the civil jurisdiction. There are certain areas that can still be good. They can be great things for society, but it doesn't mean that the government needs to have control over it. For example, I think churches are great for society and they're good for society. I don't want the government running my church. I don't want the government running the good of baptism. I don't want the government running the good of evangelism. I don't want the government telling me what sound doctrine is. I don't want the government telling me what saving faith is, because government does not acquire authority over these goods merely because they contribute to human flourishing. And I think this is where the nature of the debate is going down to. The goodness of an inn does not establish the jurisdiction of the savings state over that end. And we see that all the time. I don't want the government having jurisdiction over decisions that I'm going to make in ministry on what's true and False doctrine. And that's what Land was pointing back to so much, is that when you look at the history of what it means to really be a Southern Baptist, if you read his article the Baptist faith and Message 2000, of which both land and molar were on there, it's clear on this, is that there's not only a distinction between, you know, church and state, but we need to recognize that the church has its role and the state has its role. And when the state encroaches on these things, that it's overstepped its jurisdiction. And we shouldn't require these religious tests because of what we've seen happen just in the history of these particular debates. Whenever there's a religious test, if you don't fit that particular religious mold, well, then you fall under the jurisdiction of that particular government. And we've seen individuals like, in this context, Baptist be killed over it. And that's one of the key distinctions that you find in the American experiment is that the further people moved away from sort of European ideals where you had a, mixture of the church and state known as sacralism or integralism. You see a free state with a free church. You see that in the London Baptist Confession of Faith, it drops the things that were within sort of an Anglican and Presbyterian understanding, like the Westminster Confession. You also start to see those things coming about with the early Congregationalists dropping it from the Savoy Declaration. And you see it with figures like William Penn, another early Baptist at this point, who recognize that just because the government has control over particular things doesn't mean that the government should have control over everything. So specifically religion and a religious test for office. And that's really what Land was trying to get at and push back against in Mueller's article.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and this is such an important point, and I'm, speaking with Bill Roach, who's the dean of the Norm Geisler School of Apologetics at Veritas International University. You can follow him on X. I'd encourage you to do that. And, also some really great lectures, that you have on Christian nationalism online. because we have to understand that throughout world history, when there's been attempts to conform civil government to force those in power, whether it's elected offices, kings, you know, parliaments, all of this, when there has been this force from the civil government to conform those individuals to profess a Christian faith, they can't do that substantively. I mean, the church is the province where, and the institution that God ordained to teach the truth of the gospel of Christ. And if the state has some sort of ah, test, it isn't substantive and it's not going to ultimately be effective. You'll get a lot of imposters and you'll get a lot of people that maybe have Christian in name only, but don't actually understand the substantive doctrines. And then when they say, well, we're the Christians and then they try to go and as the state dictate to the church what its doctrine must be, then you end up in a lot of these different clashes that ultimately has a negative effect on the church and the family and individual freedom. And our founders understood that, which is why they, they relegated the state to the, the smallest possible. I mean this is why we have very limited specific powers that are given to civil government. And no more. We don't want to continue to add to that. The best religious test we can possibly have is the voters ourselves. If we would as Christians simply go to the ballot box and we would also run for the offices and you know, make these kinds of sacrifices in society that require us to engage as citizens, that's the best religious test possible. If we would simply say no, and as a, as a voting block, we would say absolutely not. We are not voting for pagan socialists. We're not voting for these populists, even if they're under the MAGA banner, we're not voting for Muslims, then that's the best religious test that we could possibly have. Because it's not coerced, it's of our own volition. And it's a government then still, of the people, by the people, for the people. And we the people are the ones who are Christians, who are under the authority of the Church.
Dr. Bill Roach: That's exactly what it is. And you know, when you look at
Dr. Bill Roach: the American experiment and you look at religious liberty in the United States of America, it has provided the best context for individuals to share the Gospel, to see individuals come to true and saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And it radically changed society.
Bill Roach says changing the Constitution would undermine Christian religious freedom
So when you think about figures like Whitfield and DL Moody and Billy Graham, they were able to do their ministry because of religious freedom. And the context that it provided is that it created millions of converts who did exactly what you were talking about. And the second thing is that we always talk about the ills of large government and what government can do and what government cannot do. And the old adage of Obamacare, was you'll be able to keep your doctors and all the rest of the. But you know, just as Obamacare has been an absolute train wreck because whenever the government touches it, it tends to break. Think what's going to happen if we allow that kind of control with the government over our local churches, and what actually qualifies as a credible profession of the Christian faith to serve in office? It's going to be a religious train wreck. And we've seen it throughout history. We recognize that when we look back at the history, it should inform what we do now in the present and what we should continue doing going forward. And that's why, you know, the framers in this sense, they weren't, you know, just having to assume society believed these things. They knew what they were doing when they wrote the Constitution. And even when we look at the Constitution, Article 6 prohibits a religious test for federal office. So not only would it have to be an amendment to acknowledge Christianity, it's going to have to be, an amendment to, to Article 6 of the Constitution on the religious test, federal office. And my biggest fear is when you start changing the Constitution, specifically with the context in the world that we live in, I don't think we're going to improve the Constitution. I don't think it's going to be a step up. I think it's going to be a step down. And it's actually going to push us not towards the Christian foundations that figures like Mueller want. I think it's going to actually end up being towards a secular progressivism, exactly what he doesn't want. Because let's be honest, who's in office today? So I think we as Christians need to do our job, evangelize our neighbors, vote in our local elections, let the people do what the people need to do in the American experiment and trust God for the results.
Jenna Ellis: Amen. Well, Bill Roach, good word. And absolutely, I mean, we've seen, you know, we have the 16th, 17th amendment, you know, because we messed with some of those original things that the founders put in. So, yeah, I mean, we have to ensure that we make sure we are involved as citizens, but understand all of these important points. We'll be right back. We're living in a defining moment in history. Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online, often before anyone has had the chance to tell her she is loved, that she's not alone, or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At preborn network clinics, mothers are welcomed with compassion, practical support, and a free ultrasound. And when she sees her baby and hears that tiny heartbeat for the Very first time. Fear often gives way to hope. In fact, more than 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on an ultrasound at a PreBorn Network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand. For those who cannot speak for themselves, just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound. $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 baby or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Republicans are gathering for the Florida first ever midterm convention this weekend
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, speaking of doing our job and voting and ensuring that we are engaged citizens in the upcoming election, Republicans are gathering for the Florida first ever midterm convention. It's being dubbed, dubbed Trump a palooza. And the president, isn't on the ballot in November, but will still be at the center of the GOP's big kickoff event to its final midterms push. That coming. This is coming from Yahoo News and of course, ah, the, the left is trying to frame this as Trump just wants, you know, one more big spotlight stage. Well, he's going to keep doing rallies and all of this. I think this is actually a good idea that he is trying to, spur some of this momentum and get people engaged before the midterms, which historically, if history, continues, would not go well for Republicans. And he is trying to turn that around and say, you know, we have to keep these, socialists and Muslims and extreme pagan leftists out of office and make sure that we vote for the best possible candidate on the ballot and of course all of the important ballot issues, that will be on the various state ballots. So to talk more on this, let's welcome in Krish Ekstrom, who is a board member of US Term Limits.
Chris Anderson: The purpose of the midterm convention is clearly to unify Republicans
So, Krish, what, what can we expect in Dallas from the midterm convention?
Chris Ekstrom: Good morning, Jenna. I think the purpose of the midterm convention is clearly to unify the Republican Party nationwide and to send a message that Texas is the cornerstone of the Republican electoral strategy, which will be coming up in 2028 when we elect another president, God willing. And I think pulling people together under these circumstances where we hear a lot of, news that suggests that, you know, that not out of the norm, that the party in power is going to be heavily contested, is a healthy and a good thing. So I think, the purpose is right. I think the mission is difficult in some ways because, you know, as usual, the Republican Party makes a lot of mistakes. but this is an opportunity to have a clear message and come together, as one force for the last two years of President Trump's term.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And absolutely, I could not agree more that this is a pivotal moment and we can't, as, Christians, as conservatives, just say, well, you know, we have Trump in office, so we're going to wait and engage in 2028. This, all still matters are a lot of state elections, some governor elections, congressional seats. I mean, there are really important positions that are, up for election during the midterms. So do you think that the gop, and Trump specifically, will be successful at, at coordinating and coalescing, and building the enthusiasm for the midterms when, it seems like there's not a lot of cohesion among Republicans right now because of all of the splinters and the fracturing over various issues and. And especially various candidates?
Chris Ekstrom: Yeah, you know, I think it remains to be seen, is my honest answer, but I do think it's possible, and I think that just the sheer fact that this was done was an acknowledgment of the reality, as you just pointed out, that there is a significant amount of splintering and some differences of opinion among the factions and that, you know, needed to be an opportunity to pull together and. And, present, you know, present a sort of, solid front.
Chris Ekstrom: Now I think one of our things that Christians really ought to be especially doing is using their discernment and their common sense to see through some of the, fake dichotomies, I think that are being injected into this last two years by our own people, inside, people we largely agree with, but who have chosen to look ahead to 28 and try to undermine one particular candidate for president and a ticket that, in my view, which would be Vance Rubio, that would be a pretty strong, statement of unity going into that next election with two people that have proven they are capable of doing the job. And I think we just have a lot of dissension, about fake things, frankly, when it comes to, say, Vice President Vance, and I'm perfectly willing to fight that one out if we need to.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, and I think we're going to, for sure. I think that there are, you know, that's one of those big differences of opinion where, you know, who is going to helm, the. What should be the Conservative Party? I'm not sure that we can rightly, characterize the GOP as conservative, generally, I mean, compared to the Democrats. Absolutely. But, you know, overall, what should be the Conservative Party? there's going to be that battle, and I think it, it's a necessary one, and it actually may be a good one. I don't think that we should go into this the same way that, that we did the 2024 primary, where, you know, for president, where it was just, you know, Trump and nobody else can, can even have a say, and basically this type of coronation, I'm sure that Trump, if he makes a choice early on in the primary, is going to push for that. But I think in order to have kind of a coalescing, we need to have that fight up front. And that's what primaries are for, so that everyone can be heard. And then when collectively, you know, we choose our fighter, so to speak, then people can say, okay, I've, I've had my say. This is the candidate that won, and so we're going to go ahead and support him. I think that this whole notion under Trump that, you know, the primaries basically should be canceled and just whomever he endorses need to be the candidate that really undercuts, the whole conservative idea of consent of the governed and involvement and participation in the party.
Chris Ekstrom: I agree. And you know that I believe in, candor and bringing these things out in the open, in the primaries and being, you know, real clear about where people stand. I personally don't think the most important endorsement for the next president is going to be President Trump. I mean, I mentioned both the vice president and Marco Rubio because I think the fact that if they were to pull together, that would be the most important endorsement that either of them could get, which is each other's, and the willingness to work together, which is the one that's being discussed a lot now. That doesn't mean that that would happen. And as a matter of fact, looking at it objectively, could very well be that Marco Rubio decides to go for it and be president. So, that that's not by any means off the table. He has shown, that he's, he's willing, to, to do that. And, you know, he went into 2016 against Jeb Bush, who was essentially the guy who made his whole career. He went from being an obscure state senator in Florida, to, pretty rapidly Becoming a United States Senator in Florida, which is a big move, and then he decided to get into that race. Ted, ah, Cruz here in Texas. He is going to be at the convention. He's going to be talking a lot about what his ideas are. I was a very partisan Ted Cruz, person in 2016, and to some degree that was a humbling experience. So I certainly don't claim to have the answer as to who it's going to be, but I will say this. The Trump era has created a different Republican Party. We have a working class, America first Republican Party that is not for DEI and is not for reverse discrimination. It is not for a whole list of things that have been pretty important issues that the Republican Party was, frankly not clear about in the past. I think we've clarified those things. If somebody wants to go back to the Republican party prior to 2016, I think they are sailing into oblivion.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So well said. And I could not agree more that, you know, one of the, the really great things that has come, because of the Trump era is, the involvement of so many more citizens who I think were politically apathetic, prior to Trump, and they, they were awakened to their civic responsibilities and, and were actually excited about engaging because of Trump. And you know, whether they followed him because of, you know, the personality, the rallies, whatever, I think they actually saw him as someone who finally was standing up for the working man and for the working class. It wasn't just you two, establishment elitist parties that really didn't care and had nothing to do with the average American. And so hopefully, the good things about the MAGA era we can bring through, into 2028 and beyond. And then maybe some of the, the other things that, that weren't so great, or some of the things that didn't get done. You know, we can, we can move the ball forward and we can also clarify, okay, where exactly does the GOP stand? And I think that the midterms are going to be a really, a key part of that, because when we look at some of these people, you know, like in Texas, you know, there's been a lot of controversy about Ken Paxton, but, overall, is he better than James Talarico in terms of what he stands for, his worldview? I mean, no question. And so I don't think that Republicans should even have this debate of like, well, you know, we could have gotten somebody better, blah, blah. Well, he's, he's the nominee and it's a closed universe situation. And when you look at the worldviews and the policy and what Paxton has gotten done compared to Talarico, the choice is just absolutely obvious. And so we need to carry forward that momentum, I think, in the midterms, make sure that we're not handing over the country to any of these socialists or, or Muslim or just, you know, crazy candidates. And we need to take that momentum forward. So, Krish Ekstrom, we're already out of time. Really appreciate it, but you can follow on X. And as always, you can reach me and my team. Jennaafr.net. PreBorn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion. And every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives. Will you join PreBorn in loving and supporting young moms in crisis? Save a life today. Go to preborn.com afr.
Jenna discusses the troubling dynamics of the Lindsay Clancy jury deliberations, highlighting the disturbing mindset of jurors who struggled to reconcile their empathy with the facts of the case. Joined by Steve Deace, they delve into the implications of a jury system that may be swayed by emotion rather than justice.
Live
Did you know American Family Radio is listener-supported? Your monthly financial support will allow us to continue upholding Godly values through our numerous channels, like American Family Radio, One Million Moms, The Stand magazine, and many more.
Become a Great Commission Partner TODAY to help AFR transform culture by rebuilding the family. When you donate today, you’ll get access to:
