Transcript

Jenna Ellis: Rights that our founders recognize come from God our Creator

 : 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.

Frank Pavone : This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.

 : Amen.

Jenna Ellis: Pope and President Trump feud on Twitter over Iran conflict

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Thursday, April 16, and as the conflict in Iran continues, the conflict between, the church or a church and the state is escalating and in kind of a really fascinating way. And I'm talking about the Catholic Church, helmed of course, by the Pope versus President Trump, who is, of course President of the State of the United States. And it's been interesting to see their feud on X. And it's a little bit, fascinating that in, in 2026, we can have, you know, the Pope and the President kind of going at each other on social media. it's, it's a little bit beneath the dignity of both of their offices, in my opinion. But at the same time, you know, both have very strong opinions. And, the Pope has called for a ceasefire in Iran and urged dialogue to resolve the, the, Mideast conflict. And then Trump took a swipe at the Pope saying that it was unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. he said that Pope Leo is weak on crime. And so then just last night, Pope Leo, who is at Pontifex on, on X, which cracked me up when that, that, X account was first created, because I thought, you know, nobody in, you know, Constantine and, you know, the, the early Catholic Church would have ever thought that there would be such a thing as, you know, the X account of the Pope. But, you know, here we are. Anyways, he said, let us reject the logic of violence and war and embrace peace founded on love and justice. An unarmed peace not based on fear, threats or weapons. This piece is disarming because it is capable of resolving conflicts, opening hearts, and generating trust, empathy and hope. I strongly reiterate, the world thirsts for peace. Enough of war, and all the pain it causes through death, destruction and exile. And, you know, basically, he's, he's calling for a peace that requires war to never exist. And, I spent an entire program last Friday, and you should listen to it. If you missed it, you can go to afr.net and, click on the icon for Jenna Ellis in the morning. We have all past episodes that are listed there, but, basically the entire hour talking about just war theory, the justice of, when violence is actually required and that peace is not just the absence of conflict, as the famous saying goes. but, you know, the. So, so we don't want to quite get into that this morning.

Michael Knowles says Pope should not refrain from commenting on politics

But the overall broader, interesting question for this morning is this conflict is really fascinating because, and I agree with my good friend Micah Knowles who said this, that the Pope, of course, is going to engage in politics. Some are saying, you know, you are the Pope, so you should just stay within the, you know, four walls of the Vatican and you shouldn't comment on current events, you shouldn't comment on politics. And we can disagree with his commentary on politics, obviously, but he should be comment. Commenting on politics. He should be commenting on, the view of, of war, and so forth. And I wish actually that more pastors, more evangelical and Protestant pastors, would take an actually biblical tack. I don't think that what the Pope is saying is biblical, but at least he is saying and representing what he thinks, the Catholic Church should follow. But I wish that, evangelical pastors would not shrink back and would actually engage in politics because Christians need to understand just war. We need to understand, what, how we should view the conflict in Iran, not just from a foreign policy perspective, not just from political, whether, you know, Trump's favorables go up or down, but from a biblical consistent worldview of what conflict means, what war means and what justice requires, what, when the state is the actor. Because of course, what is biblical and what is just in terms of provocation and ultimately military conflict, obviously that's different for the state than it would be for the church or for the individual. So we need to understand that. And then for those who are saying, you know, that President Trump should just ignore the Pope and he shouldn't engage this and he shouldn't ever comment on religious things or. Well, the state has, no, no question and no, no other alternative but to be religious in nature in the sense that all law, all policy is inherently either moral or immoral. And we, we do legislate morality. It just depends on whose morality are we legislating. So, Micah, Knowles actually, in a commentary, to, Yaf, he, he articulated this really well. So I want to play this. This is cut to. This is Micah Knowles on the Pope and the President.

 : After the Pope's comments and the President's post on Truth Social, I counted four types of reaction the first group sided entirely with the President, and they lambasted the Pope as a hippie and a commie who sometimes wears a funny hat. That group believes, at least implicitly, that politicians are the only public moral authority that we need. The second group of people sided entirely with the Pope against the President, whom, they insisted should never dare to criticize the pontiff. These are the theocrats. These are the ultra. Ultramontanists. This group, at least implicitly, views political leaders as nothing more than functionaries working for the real guys in charge, who are the clergy. Then there was a third group. And the third group, at least at first glance, seemed like the most normal. The third group wants the Pope and the President not only to stop fighting, but to stop talking, and certainly to stop talking about the same things. This is the group that thinks the President should stick to politics and the Pope should stick to religion, and never the twain shall meet. This group, despite seeming the most normal, is actually the least realistic of all, because that group ignores, by my count, roughly, 1500 years of history. That group misunderstands the nature of politics, the nature of religion, which are not so easily separated as some ideologues would have it. The President cannot avoid talking about religion because he cannot govern without recourse to morality, justice, and even man's ultimate ends. Likewise, the Pope can't avoid talking about politics because he shepherds a flock that lives in the world. Political liberalism sometimes pretends to have resolved once and for all the tension between the temporal power and the spiritual authority, but it hasn't. You know, liberalism claims a lot of things, and like most of liberalism's claims, this one also is nonsense. Political leaders still need religious sanction. Religious leaders, at least the last time I checked, still lived in time and space. If you thought the President's truth social post about Pope Leo was bad, just wait until you hear about what the Holy Roman Emperor Henry iv, did to Pope Gregory vii.

 : It was bad.

 : It was rough.

Michael Knowles: Pope does have to speak about moral and religious issues

Jenna Ellis: Right, and that's Micah Knowles on the Pope and the President. And actually, the entire speech is well worth listening to. But let's welcome in Father Frank Pavone, who's founder of the Priests for Life. And, Frank, I, I really agree with him. And I wish, like I said, that more pastors would understand their obligation to engage in politics and more statesmen would understand their obligation to engage in religion and morality.

Frank Pavone : Yes, Jenna, that's absolutely right. The President does have to speak about moral and religious issues. The Pope does have to speak about political issues. But there's one key distinction that is not adequately being made here and that I've made in my own commentary, and it's simply this, that when the Pope addresses matters of politics and public policy, he's got to make a distinction. And this is especially a duty towards the faithful Catholics who feel like, you know, they are obliged to follow the Pope's, guidance, and teaching. He's got a responsibility to make the distinction between when he is articulating moral principles that should apply to politics and policymaking versus when he is expressing his own opinion on how the current policymakers are applying those moral principles. So, for example, in regard to, let's take immigration, you say, if the principle is, nations should be generous in welcoming people because they are all our brothers and sisters, that is a true moral principle. Both clergy and politicians need to recognize that. But also, a nation has to evaluate the extent to which it can welcome people and set the norms by which they can enter their country. That's the principle. But the politicians then have to make those determinations, and the clergy, the Church has to respect their. Their responsibility, their freedom to set those limits, to make those policies. Now, they might disagree with how they set those limits or how many deportations they engage in, but that's just an opinion. That's not religious teaching that anyone is obliged to agree with. Now, when it comes to war, there's an overarching principle that you can never target the innocent. Now, that's clear. And the only people who are violating that are these radical Islamic, terrorists. So if anything, the Pope's comments condemn, the leaders of Iran and what they've been doing for five decades. So let's be a little bit explicit about that. But when it comes to using. When you say war, you know, you can't just say, oh, we have to avoid war. We shouldn't wage war. You can't just leave it there because it's not distinguishing, are you targeting the innocent by violence or are you using force to defend the innocent? Now, when it comes to the latter, again, it's the politicians that have to determine, based on the facts and circumstances, that they know, whether and how to use force. Now, again, the Pope might disagree with the conclusions they've come to, but then he should identify that as, listen, this is the principle is one thing, the application here, I disagree with how it's being applied, but that's just my opinion. You see, Jenna, how this is getting mixed up, because then the faithful are confused. It's like, oh, if I disagree with the Pope's opinion? Am I a bad Catholic? And the answer is no, not when it's a matter of the. What the Church calls prudential judgments. How do you apply to the current facts and circumstances the specific principle, that you're articulating?

Jenna Ellis: Yes. And I think that is an incredibly important distinction. And I'm really glad that you brought that up because, most, I mean, most Protestants, we have no problem criticizing and critiquing our own pastors or the Pope because that's just part and parcel of our doctrine and our way of understanding that the only authority is Scripture. And obviously, you know, we follow, the church's guidance. We follow the pastor when he's teaching truthfully, and when he's teaching biblically. But there is a distinction and difference. And we do need to have more discernment than just say, well, my pastor preached on this, so therefore it must be biblical. We need to have discernment to say, okay, is that an opinion or is that expressing an application of the principle of Scripture? And we do need to distinguish those. And especially for Catholics, I've seen this a lot on social media. And so particularly for Catholics, I do see a difficulty among some to criticize the Pope even when he's speaking what is clearly an opinion. And I fully agree with you that, that the Pope and also Protestant pastors need to be, more upfront and open with saying, you know, here's the principle of Scripture, here is, the application here is just war theory, you know, all of these things that are, that are biblically based principles. And then if they want to talk about their own personal opinion application, that's fine, but do that in the context of relieving the flock of hearing something that they don't have to think they must agree with it in order to agree with Scripture. And even we have that example in the Apostle Paul. and I'm thinking of, First Corinthians 7, when he talks, you know, to the married, I give this command, not I, but the Lord. And so he's saying, this is what the Lord is saying. But then he goes on to say to the rest, I say this I, not the Lord. And so a lot of, scholars have said, okay, this is then not Christ speaking. This is apostolic counsel. And this was Paul saying, this is my best counsel. And he's making that distinction. So we need to follow that example, example and make that distinction. And so, how do you think that that works practically in the sense that, for the for the pastors, for the spiritual leaders of the church, it sometimes can be very difficult, even if they say, this is my opinion, for their followers, especially in the context of maybe a smaller church, to give parishioners the freedom to disagree with opinion.

Frank Pavone : Yeah, it's difficult because the parishioners, you know, will feel a loyalty, to the pastor. And, you know, that's accentuated and, you know, intensified. Within the Catholic framework of belief and church structure. It's much more hierarchical. There's much more of a sense of obligation to follow what the, you know, the pastor is saying, what the bishop is saying, what the Pope is saying. One of the ways that this could be managed is to use different vehicles of communication. Now we have this like, for example, within the Catholic community, you know, you have different types of documents. There, is an encyclical, a, ah, technical term, which means a document that the Pope issues to the whole world. And that's usually regarded as a pretty high level of authoritative teaching that Catholics need to accept. and then you may have just, ah, you know, a homily that's given, you know, or an address that's given at a prayer service. You know, that's a lesser level of, obligation to agree with what's said there. I mean, just about the lowest level is an off the cuff comment to a journalist. And it's like, so you have to take into account what's the medium, because the medium of transmitting the message, is also part of the substance in as much as it's indicating what level of authority that, pope or bishop is intending to invoke in that moment. but again, that's often implicit rather than explicit. So they could help a lot if they, besides you know, keeping the different methods of communication separate, if they would just be explicit about it. I mean, sometimes the, you know, the Catholic bishops, if you just look at America, I mean, obviously the Pope is speaking to the whole world, but if you just look at America, the Catholic bishops have sometimes made this distinction. They have often commented on very specific public policies in United States governance. And they have sometimes not always made it clear, hey, listen, we're issuing this statement, you know, about this or that policy. And please understand, this is not meant to be dogmatic teaching. This is just our opinion at the current moment. And people are free to engage in debate about this. And that's very helpful when they, when they come out and say it that way. And that's where in this current debate, again, we can use a lot more of that kind of, distinction. And really, the one who's responsible here for making it is. Is the Pope. It's like, come on, just. You're talking to a journalist. Are you. Are you.

Frank Pavone : Are you declaring Catholic dogma? And then. And again, it's. It's that implicit, also that. That implicit vagueness. Oh, well, you can't wage war. I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about.

Some Christians treat politics on almost like a religion, Frank Pavone says

Again, targeting the innocent or using force to defend the innocent. Those are two very different things.

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And this is why I'm so grateful, when you come on, Father, Frank Pavone, because we can engage these topics, and, you know, you look at this as I do, first and foremost from a biblical worldview perspective and what God requires and what is, you know, set as truth, and then what is debatable. And we look at that from that worldview lens as we should as Christians and as we must. And that goes also for President Trump, because there are some that, unfortunately treat politics on almost like a religion. many who are, maybe either nominal Christians, Christians in name only, or maybe they've even rejected, any form of religious faith, and they have substituted the principles of faith for politics. And Trump has, in a sense, to some, genuinely become like a religious leader in not in the sense that they, you know, pray to him, hopefully, you know, or. Or actually intentionally think about it that way. But the way that they behave towards him shows that they're treating politics like a religion. And that's what happens in an overly secularized society if we're not careful to keep religion at the fore. And so that's why I think some are very hesitant to criticize President Trump and go against anything that he says, because they see it as being disloyal. They see it as, perhaps going against, what they perceive as, well, he speaks truth on conservative America first policy. And so if we go against him, then we're rejecting everything that he stands for. And that's also, in the political sphere, just as bad of a reaction as the Catholics who are unwilling to criticize the pope or the Protestants who are unwilling to. To critique and have discernment of their pastors and their spiritual leadership, while still, of course, you know, we remain under the spiritual authority of our church as we should in the Bible. We remain, obviously under the state's authority, regardless whether it's Trump or Biden or, you know, thankfully, it's not Kamala Harris. I mean, we remain under that authority, but we can still critique and have the standard, objectively, the biblical worldview. So, closing thoughts. M. Yes.

Frank Pavone : I'm thinking of someone that we both know and, Dan Bongino, you know, bring the receipts. Bring the receipts. Right. I think that is a key to navigating this whole thing. But people can have, like, a blind loyalty to somebody, but it's, you know, that's not the way it ultimately works. it's like, what are the facts of the situation? So, again, replying it to this Pope and president dispute, it's like, wait a second, you're calling for peace? You should be grateful to President Trump. He's bringing about peace. You want a ceasefire? Well, what do you think he just accomplished? You want negotiation? What in the world do you think he's been doing? You know, why doesn't the Pope sit down in the room with these Iranian leaders and see for himself how absolutely obtuse they are, how absolutely evil they are, how absolutely intent they are at, developing a nuclear weapon? We've got the receipts. We know the facts of what has happened. The discussions have occurred, Nos have been said, offers have been made, and refusals have been made. It's like, let's not talk about this just in the abstract. Let's get into the concrete details, and if you're going to have a position, bring the receipts to back it up.

Jenna Ellis: Well said.

Father Frank Pavone: American Family Radio focuses on biblical worldview and authority

All right, well, we got to take a break here, but, Father Frank Pavone, really appreciate it. Like I said, and the. The biblical emphasis. I mean, I love shows like this. This is exactly why I love being on American Family Radio, because we're not just talking about the headlines. We have to talk about the biblical worldview, biblical truth, the way that we view the world, the way that we view our spiritual leaders, the way that we view our state leaders, the way that we understand authority. I mean, all of these things are so central to understanding the three institutions that God ordained. The church government, the family government, and the civil government, and how we are supposed to engage with them, interact with them, have respect for them. Yet we can also critique. And ultimately, our standard is not America first. Our standard is ultimately Christ. We'll be right back with you.

Jenna Ellis: Viewers should have discernment about controversial viewpoints

 : Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, speaking of having discernment and being willing to critique, those who are. Who are, purporting to have opinions on truth and morality and teaching, we have to address this. You know, the wonderful theologians that are over there on the View, this was just a Wild, hilarious clip, but at the same time in context, when you think about how many people actually watch the View, which is, is crazy to me that, that people do. I mean, I watch the clips just for fun because it's just laughable that people actually, are, are spouting these views. But people actually listen to these ladies, especially, women at home. I mean, it's on during the day, so that's kind of their primary audience. and it's really bizarre that Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg and others, who clearly are not Christians, they don't have any fruit, semblance of anything. I think Joy Behar identifies as a Catholic, but, you know, kind of in the same way Joe Biden does. Right? It's like, okay, he thinks he's a Catholic, but, his, his actual fruit and theology suggests he really doesn't know, what the Christian life requires and he has not submitted himself to the authority of the truth of God. And the same can be said for Joy Behar, but in the context of, President Trump's, Truth Social post and in the context where he had, you know, the garb on and it looked like he was in the image of Christ healing, you know, the, the sick and so forth, they were commenting about this, but then they started getting into theology about Jesus himself. And I just have to play this clip. This is cut one. Jesus himself did not run around saying, I'm the Messiah.

 : I'm the Messiah.

 : Jesus supposed to have a little bit. That's exactly what Jesus said.

 : I am.

 : You know what?

 : No, he did not. It's been a minute.

 : The Pope's got his.

 : He's got God. She just said, I knew Jesus. Jesus was not narcissistic like this guy. And by the way, you are the Messiah. It's not narcissism. M. Just say it. Yes, it is. When you are the Messiah. I'm going to move this along because this is like, it's too much for me. The Pope has God with him. Yes. You know, yeah, this is too much for anybody. But let, I mean, let, let's break this down and let's welcome in Gino Jurassi, who is pastor, ah, emeritus of Calvary Chapel South Denver. My pastor in Colorado. I am now in Florida, but I still consider him, a pastor and of course a mentor and, someone who I do trust for, for biblical counsel.

Joy Behar claims Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah

And so, so Gino, you know, let, let's break this down because this is just. There are so many errors in, I mean, and this was like a 35 second clip. And Joy Behar sang first. Jesus did not run around saying, I'm the Messiah. Then she claims that Jesus was more modest than that. Then she claims that Jesus was not narcissistic like this guy, meaning Trump. And she says that, yes, it is narcissism if Jesus would claim that he is Messiah. I mean, in 30 seconds. I don't know how much more terrible theology and false premises you can possibly pack into 35 seconds.

Gino Geraci: Well, thanks, Jenna, can you hear me?

Jenna Ellis: Yes, Good morning.

Gino Geraci: Yeah, good morning. You know, there's several ways to just think about this clip and what happened. And I think the first way to think about it is, is what you indicated earlier of Joy Behar's worldview. Her worldview. In her worldview, Jesus can't possibly be the Messiah in the way that historical biblical Christianity teaches. Jesus says, I've come into the world to seek and save that which is lost. in other words, when she's asking and answering the question, well, you know, he didn't go around claiming that he's the Messiah. I actually understand her premise. Her premise is that she hates Trump, that Trump is a messianic pretender, and that if Trump wants to be seen as a doctor, he should have probably had a lab coat and a stethoscope so that people go, oh, he's pretending to be a doctor instead of a messianic figure. But to the other issue of did Jesus actually claim to be the Messiah? That's a whole other thing. And what I would do is I would, you know, like Father Pavone said in the earlier, segment, bring the receipts. Well, what, what are the receipts? Biblically, that Jesus actually did claim to be the Messiah. And so it's, it's, it's totally interesting. I'm not trying to be sympathetic towards Joy Behar. What I'm trying to do is point out her worldview that, to bring Jesus in as a messianic figure, she actually believes what she said. Jesus isn't the Messiah the way that, the way we think. So to the earlier thing that you were talking about. How do we get the past that noise? Well, you know, if, if I were there, I would have said, hey, Joy, that was an interesting assertion that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah. what, what would you say that Jesus actually claimed to be? And what's your source? And, and why would you make that statement? So imagine you are going to the NewSong Testament as the primary source of what Jesus said about himself. And so Jesus, ah, affirms Peter's confession. As a matter of fact, in Matthew 16, you'll remember Jesus did say, but who do you say that I am? The reason why I bring that up is, can you imagine Jesus saying to Joy Behar, hey, Joy, who do you think I am? And then you're going around the little, view table and people are giving their opinion. And then Simon Peter says, you are the Christ, the son of the living God. And he says, blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. In other words, Jesus is affirming Peter's confession rather than correcting it. He accepts the title Christ. And of course, we know that's the Greek word Christos, meaning Messiah, or the anointed one. And so, the way that I would begin is, is this Jesus denying he's the m. Messiah? No, it's Jesus affirming that he's the Messiah. And then you think about where he openly declares his Messianic identity to the Samaritan woman in John, chapter four, verse 25. remember, he's having that conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4. And she says to Jesus, you know, I know the Messiah is coming, who's called the Christ. When he comes, he will tell us all things. And then in John 4, Jesus said to her, I, who speak to you am he. That's. That's a pretty clear declaration that I'm the Messiah. And so I think part of what I might have done with Joy is I would have said in Matthew 16, he doesn't deny that he's the Messiah. He, actually affirms Peter's statement in John 4. He basically comes right out and says, I'm the Messiah. And then, of course, Jesus claims to fulfill Messianic prophecy. You'll remember he quotes Isaiah, chapter six, the Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he's anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. When he comes to the end of the statement, he says, today the Scripture's fulfilled in your hearing. In other words, Jesus is actually claiming to be the fulfillment of the. Of Isaiah's prophecy. And then he claims roles unique to the Messiah, and he confirms his Messianic claims. And, of course, Jesus controlled the revelation of his identity. There's a. There's a spark of truth in what Joy Behar said. Did he go around claiming to be the Messiah? Well, there's often passages where Jesus tells people, please don't publicize my identity. The Way that I interpret that, it isn't because he's denying being the Messiah. He wants to avoid a premature political revolt. Remember, the Jews are expecting a political liberator, not a suffering savior. And so Jesus reveals his identity fully only when the time comes to lay down his life. And so I think that those are some of the things that we think about when we're, when we're looking at these kinds of things and talking about these kinds of things.

Mhm. And I think that's a, um, wonderful explanation

Jenna Ellis: And I think that's a, wonderful explanation, especially of understanding, if we can, you know, where Joy Behar is coming from in terms of her worldview. Because as we have been talking about throughout this program, but also as we talk about very frequently, you know, everybody comes from a perspective and from a base worldview of what they believe about, what truth is, what what the reality is to which we're presented, what the purpose of man is. is there a God? Who is he? All of those things are basic assumptions that are implicit and baked into our opinions that we ultimately offer, like Joy does when she's commenting on some of these things. And you know, the one thing that was, that was accurate that I think that she said was Jesus was not narcissistic like this guy, meaning Trump, like okay, you know, I can give you that one. But at the same time when she said, you know, Jesus was more modest than that, it evokes kind of this this false understanding that the left often has about the historical literal person of Jesus and his public ministry, that he was a pacifist, that because he didn't come as this political liberator, but the suffering savior, that he was a socialist. He was ah, for zero conflict. He was just, you know, love and affirm everyone, regardless of their beliefs. Like, you know, that whole false view of Jesus is also baked in I think, to what she is expressing as well.

Gino Geraci: Yeah, and that's, that's the challenge. The challenge is imagine she's looking at Jesus and she's, she's fabricating a Jesus. This is the Jesus who is, I'm going to use the term, he is the product of her imagination. He isn't the person who's revealed in the NewSong Testament. And so we're back to, well, if you look at the Jesus who's revealed in the NewSong Testament, what kind of a Jesus is he? He comes into the world. You know, we often use that term. Jenna. We live in a broken world. And I've come to the realization that when I use the term we live in a broken world, I have to immediately say, but we also live in a redeemed world. Yes, it's broken, but it's also been redeemed by what Jesus has done. And so, saying that it's broken is an explanation of why there's sin and suffering, but it isn't the whole story that we believe. And so I think again, we are left with how do we engage this culture in a winsome way, you, you know, talking truth, but doing it with charity and clarity and civility. Amen.

Jenna Ellis: M. And that's what we need to do. We need to take a break here. Gina Geraci is going to, stay on with me it over into the next segment and really appreciate that the pastor emeritus of Calvary Chapel South Denver and also is part of Got Questions. you can go to that website if you have, you know, some of these questions about how should we view the world, in, in and through a biblical lens. It's a great, great resource. And we do need to always break down, you know, some of these things where obviously we can, look at the view and say this is so ridiculous that they're even purporting to have theological opinions. But everybody does. I mean, that's the thing. Even if you don't claim to be a Christian, you still have opinions on, who God is. Is there a God purpose of man? Where are we going in eternity, what's. Who created the world, or are we just here by chance? I mean, all of these things and we need to recognize what worldview so that we can answer it with truth. We'll be right back with you.

Jenna Ellis welcomes back Pastor Gino Geraci on American Family Radio

 : Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And I'm still here with my special guest this morning, Gino Geraci, who is the, former pastor of Calvary Chapel South Denver. And has been my pastor for years and a mentor and spiritual leader in my and my family's life. And we just so love and appreciate you, Pastor Gino. And you know, I wanted to get your thoughts as well on another topic because, you know, right now we, we've seen in the headlines over the past week, two resignations in Congress of Swalwell and Gonzalez, the, the Democrat and the Republican both over kind of the, the me too category, different scenarios, but basically the same kind of sexual sin. And they have, they have now resigned from Congress and Swalwell has resigned his California gubernatorial campaign as well, there are two potentially other members, of Congress who are facing expulsion. Corrie Mills from Florida, will have some of the similar allegations in addition to, others. But the question that I have for you is that, you know, when. When things like this happen, and kind of collectively, all sides of the. Of the political spectrum say, yes, this is inappropriate. And we agree that, sexual assault, of course, is wrong. It is, immoral. And we use those, those terms that designate certain acts as measurably wrong compared to things that are measurably good. And we invoke a standard, a common standard of moral. Is. Is this society actually acknowledging that we do have a moral standard, and maybe, just maybe, Christians have the opportunity to point out that we still do have a universal standard of morality? Or is this in perhaps more of a, just utilitarian view? I do think that the Democrats wanted to just get rid of Swalwell in, In the governor's campaign, so they kind of. Me too. And so there is definitely a political component. but is this maybe, just. Maybe more about morality than just politics?

Gino Geraci: You know, it's an interesting thing, and you've actually written on this subject because when we ask and we answer the question, what makes something moral? according to the scripture and Christian theology, something is moral when it aligns with God's character and commands, because God himself is the ultimate standard of goodness and truth. So imagine you're living in a world where you believe that God is the source of moral truth. But imagine you're living in a world where God is not the source of moral truth, but what is then what becomes the source of moral truth? So just like you intimated, it becomes a kind of a collective agreement, that's either social or cultural. And so imagine you're living in a world where you're trying to distance yourself from, the belief that God is the source of moral truth. Os Guinness talks about the cut flower, where you cut the flower and it looks beautiful and it smells wonderful. And to your point, is that the world we're living in right now, is it a civilization that has cut the flower, that it still sees the beauty and smells the fragrance, but that flower is getting ready to wilt. It's getting ready to die. And so, I think that there is a growing group even among the left, where we go, hey, guess what? Making it up as we go along is not sustainable. And, so it's an interesting question, but if, from my perspective, it's the scripture itself that defines morality, God's moral law, his will for how humans ought to live. Now, there's some. There's a remnant, isn't there, Jenna, that we somehow know that sexual assault is wrong. sexually manipulating children is wrong. Mutilating children is wrong. We know that that's wrong. but how do we know that that's wrong? And of course, in Micah 6, 8, he's shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you, but to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. But it's the Lord in his revelation that God has shown you. in Romans 12:9, Paul says, abhor what is evil, cling to what is good, and remember, we are the beneficiaries of, of that Judeo, Christian, inheritance. But again, what happens when, like you talked about the radical secularization, where it continues to become more and more. I'm going to use the word hostile. So, so that it refuses to acknowledge goodness, beauty, morality, and the human conscience reflects God's moral law. This is the thing that is. Is so difficult for the unbeliever. For when gentiles who do not have the law, it says in Romans 2:14, by nature do the things in the law, they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness. So there's something that's been permanently planted in human beings because they're made in the image of God.

Jenna Ellis: Oh, absolutely. And I just, I love coming back to the truth of all things. And to look at this current headline, not just from the outflow of how it impacts politics, and to say, okay, you know, what are the majority numbers now? And how does this affect the midterms and all of those very, very important things to discuss. And we do. But to also ask and answer the question, okay, if we're all agreeing that this behavior is wrong, it's bad, it necessitates a resignation from Congress, which is kind of a big deal. then how do we extend that principle to cover other things that are maybe not so universally agreed upon as the objective standard, or maybe not so obvious, and to try to not force. But, but basically, you know, through, through logic, show the left and even some who are more of the secular populace on the right to say, you have to be consistent in moral truth.

Gino Geraci: I think one of the ways that I think about it is moral judgments collapse into personal preference when it's not connected to an absolute standard. Moral preference collapses if it's disconnected. So imagine, a person says, well, that's not, you know, personal preference is not an absolute standard. So where can we find an absolute standard? And so again, you know, we're left with the reality of what the Bible says. God's unchanging nature and command. And so when we think about why it's so heinous, why it's so wrong, why it's so troubling, you know, for whatever reason, Epstein remains in the news, doesn't he? Sexual assault remains in the news, perversion remains in the news. because there are, there is that, that sensitivity where people go, there's something really wrong here. But we don't want to adopt a standard that might include God. Because if we do that, if we actually begin to believe what the Bible says about love and justice and truth and holiness, what if we have to also come to grips with what it says about our own sin and the need for a savior? And so I'm constantly, always trying to bring the gospel back into the discussion.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And it's so true that, even Christians sometimes will say, you know, I don't want the state to impose a moral standard on, on others, because even when it's so clearly obvious, because I don't want the state then to impose a moral standard on me. And somehow we still prefer what we have almost, elevated over the biblical standard, which is individual liberty. And we can't have so much liberty that we say, my preferences are of more value than the moral standard. And affirming that moral standard through the authority of the state that God has ordained. And this is why biblical conservatism is the, the truthful worldview of a legitimate state government rather than libertarianism or some of those factions of libertarianism that elevate the view of individual liberty over the objective standard of morality that must be enforced by a legitimate state. And so we do need to say, okay, there are, some ways that the government actually could impose and infringe upon my liberty, my individual rights, that it shouldn't. But just because we are, ensuring that that doesn't happen, doesn't mean then that the state should not otherwise enforce, moral law on the community as a whole.

Gino Geraci: You know, Jeff Myers, I think I've told you this, Jenna, he came up with a three word definition of politics that I love. He says, politics is truth in community. And now obviously politics isn't truth and community to everybody. But if, for whatever reason you said, well, what if that's true? I mean, in the sense of it's the way we're trying to tell the truth with each other. And then I just taught Genesis chapter nine last night, where this is the Bible's beginning of human government, where God says about, you know, he's establishing not just a moral order, but a governmental order where human beings have to act righteously instead of wickedly. And so the Bible teaches that government exists to promote that which is righteous and then to prevent that which is wicked. And so imagine everybody, everywhere, will say, it all depends on who gets to determine what constitutes righteousness and what constitutes wickedness. So we're back to that reality that if your moral order doesn't align with God's unchanging nature and command, you are headed down a road of confusion and chaos.

Jenna Ellis: This is why, Gino, we must select and prefer Christians as our leaders. So appreciate it. You can reach me and my team jennafr.net.