Transcript

The rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government

Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio. 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.

Former Congressman Bob Good: President Trump strikes Iran as ceasefire collapses

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Thursday, June 11, and the headlines are coming in Fast and Furious. Almost as much as, the Fast and Furious nature that Trump is now striking Iran. So, breaking news, all of my updates from Fox News, latest rounds of airstrikes against Iran has begun, yesterday at 5:49pm and then as of, just 41 minutes ago, Trump tells Fox News that US hit Iran, quote, very hard in overnight strikes as ceasefire collapse collapses. And then just 26 minutes ago, Trump reveals Iran called him with a request after U.S. strikes. And, there's a lot going on. this is also coming from Fox News that US Strikes Iran in retaliation for the Apache shoot down and Axios, saying that US Bombs ran for a second straight night. And Tehran says, that the overnight strikes render ceasefire meaningless. So let's welcome in former Congressman Bob Good. you know, it seems like the ceasefire was, nobody ever really anticipated that to hold for very long. But, what's the rationale here from President Trump?

Bob Good: It's hard to know, you know, Jenna, everybody should be grateful for it. I think overwhelming number of Americans are 80, 90% or what have you, that President Trump has been willing to confront Iran in his first term and his second term and the appeasement policies and the giving them money policies of the Obama Biden administration and of course the weakness of the more recent Biden Harris administration that he's been willing to confront, not to appease, to eliminate the threat to the United States, to put America first in terms of our military policy, in terms of our national security and so forth. And we should all be obviously celebrating or grateful for our incredible military and how President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have put the focus on lethality and readiness and effectiveness. And we're seeing that on display in the world stage where seemingly no one can challenge us or thwart the will of the American military. That is a wonderful thing. Last summer when we came in and helped Israel in the 12 Day War and we overwhelmed Iran in just hours and had air superiority supremacy right away, they couldn't fight back they were embarrassed, they were humiliated, they were emasculated. they were defeated. And they didn't respond. They really didn't respond. This was supposed to be one of the more powerful militaries in the world, the bully of the Middle East. And again, they were just decimated last summer. We should all be supportive of that. But the president is often so often his own worst enemy, whether it's ego, whether it's pride, whether it's legacy building. And he kind of suffers from this syndrome where he thinks he can just declare his own reality. And whatever he says, that's what is. He can say down is up and up is down. And 60% of Republicans, will believe him and accept that. And he can say, hey, there's, there is, we're at war, or there is no war or there's a deal. There is no deal. Iran's totally defeated yet, but they're still fighting. The nuclear capabilities been obliterated. It's gone, it's eliminated. Oh, they were going to attack us in a week. They're about to attack us now. Gas prices are way down. Hey, we don't care that gas prices are up. And so he can be his own worst enemy. And he seems to not be able to resist saying, there is a deal, a deal with him. And a deal, I mean, how long have we been hearing a deal is days away. So he would help himself if he would be honest with the American people. And, okay, last summer, did we eliminate and obliterate their nuclear capability or didn't we? If we didn't, then make that case to the American people and tell the American people, hey, we thought we got it all, but we didn't. We need to go in again. but so I think, unfortunately, he hurts his credibility and he hurts the deal making capability. Of course he's blaming others that, hey, he can't make a deal because he gets criticism. but what we should be focused on, Jenna, is hit them like we did last summer, threaten them if they rebuild their capability, or if they threaten us, get in, get out, and if you have to go back in, you do it again. But right now, to your question, sorry for the long rant here, but I think the only choices the President really has with a country like Iran is either make a bad deal, will make a fake deal. That's not really a deal because they would never keep a deal. They're showing they would never keep a deal. And neither one of those are good. So I think again, once you've eliminated the threat to Us, you've decimated them, their capability, you've set them back. You try to create a climate for the natural overthrow or the natural ascension of a more reasonable regime. You hope, right, that happens. But you can't pick the leader. You can't pick the regime because it's unsustainable. If we pick it, not only is it not supported by the sufficient number of the people, number one, but number two, you have to have a presence there to keep it. So I think the quicker we can just get out and declare we've eliminated threat really is probably the best possible scenario.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, I fully agree with you, and, I appreciate a good rant. I love ranting and I love listening to your rants. So, always great. but that it makes sense that President Trump, I think, does need to communicate more clearly to the American people. And it's not something that would be a negative to him if he said, listen, we thought, you know, we got everything, but this is why we're staying in longer. And that's not a negative. but in Trump's world of communication, it's like he can never admit anything that is slightly perceived as a weakness, unfortunately. And it seems to me, especially, you know, heading into, November, that it would be a really good idea to try to figure out a way to say, okay, now, finally, everything's been satisfied. We're keeping an eye on this, but, we're going to. We'll definitely return if we need to, but kind of pull out of, the conflict now so that this isn't an ongoing issue and a voter issue.

David Brody: Where is Israel in all of this?

But, where is Israel in all of this? Because, you know, I've been talking for the last week or so about how it seems like the interests of the US And Israel may not be as aligned at the moment.

Bob Good: Well, that's a great question and very important question as it relates to Israel and as I think, you know, I think it's a very important ally of the United States on many levels and for many reasons. And I respect Israel ought to be operating in Israel's best interest. I think it is aligned with our interests. I think their enemies are our enemies. I think they are a great resource to us from an intelligence security standpoint. A friend in the Middle East. We don't have many friends in the Middle East. Heck, we don't have many friends on the world stage. And I think they're a true friend. and, so I think Israel needs to do. Continue to do what's in their best interest. To protect themselves. It's incredible. By the way, we're saying Iran is totally defeated and, you know, has no cards, if you will, but yet we're negotiating with them. Why are we negotiating with them? We're allowing Iran to say, okay, Israel can't respond to Hezbollah when they attack Israel. Israel has to stop and take it. Why wouldn't Iran have that negotiating peace, if you will, if they're a defeated country, if they have no military, as the President says, they have no navy, they have no Airbus, they have no capability. and I also think it's very concerning. I would suggest dangerous on many levels. The loud voices across the country who blame Israel for everything related to the United States and the suggestion that somehow President Trump, is a pawn or a puppet of Netanyahu or Israel. We're operating at Israel's behalf, we're doing what they tell us to do. Israel's controlling everything. That is not true. there's no evidence to that effect. And it's a very harmful thing that's very damaging to the United States, quite frankly, into the administration and to our relationship. What is a key ally?

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And it's. So it's really fascinating to see all of this, you know, continue to play out and the strikes that, you know, just seem to happen kind of, you know, right in the middle of when, the last headline we heard was, okay, there's an attempted cease fire and all of this. And so you, you know, overall, do you think that the, the base at least is still trusting President Trump with, with the entire effort, or are we getting to the point where there's a little bit of fatigue in saying, okay, wait a minute, we're asking more questions now.

Bob Good: You know, it's hard to quantify to know how much certainly he has hurt himself. He hurts himself again with his credibility. I think he's desperate for some grand history making deal that he can put his name on. And look what President Trump brought a, you know, a, I'll say democratic Iran, a new regime in Iran and brought peace with Iran and what a great deal. And Iran has laid down their arms and they went from being, you know, lions to being lambs and so forth. But they're defeated lions, they're toothless lions. We've done that. That's not permanent. You probably have to do it again sometime in the future. So he sets these tremendous expectations that, and that are just, impossible to live up to with a country like Iran. And so he has hurt his credibility with the American people. And even with the Republican base, again, I think there are some 60% of Republicans who believe anything that he says and accept anything that he does. and that's, you know, that helps you win primaries, but it doesn't help you in the general election, in a competitive race when just because you can win with 60% of the vote in the Republican primary or have 60% of support of loyal, allegiant, obedient, subservient Republican voters or members of Congress for that matter.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, to your point that it seems like Trump wants to have something that's sort of a grandiose kind of peacemaking deal to put his name on. I mean very famously, and historically he had the Abrahamic Accords in his first term and you know, others who have, known him well, such as yourself, but and you know, have interviewed him on all of these things, like David Brody, the reporter from cbn. You know, he's been on this show saying that same thing, that Trump wants to be known as the peacemaking president. And ironically, you know, he's now engaged in this kind of long term conflict that may not end up that way. But you know, we'll continue to see how this plays out.

Bob Good gives his take on South Carolina's primaries

But speaking of the primaries, I also wanted to get your take, Bob Good on the South Carolina primary results. We saw two big elections there that Lindsey Graham, is running for another term and he won by a significant margin, 56.8%. And that frustrated I think a lot of Republicans. But he got the Trump endorsement and then Nancy Mace of course lost her race, for governor and and conceded I think very well. and that was, I don't think a surprise to anyone. But your take on South Carolina.

Bob Good: You know, South Carolina is a picture of the country in that respect and you unfortunately, unfortunately continue to have the President. he is endorsing, instead of eliminating the swamp or fighting the swamp, he's endorsing the swamp and he's filling our Senate, our governor seats, our congressional seats with establishment moderate rhino types. he seems more concerned. obviously number one is absolute loyalty to him, irrespective of qualifications or position or voting record or conservatism versus liberal or moderate. Used to be the way to win a Republican primary was to be the most conservative candidate. That was a significant advantage. That doesn't matter anymore. And if anything represents the swamp, it's Lindsey Graham who I guess wants to die in the Senate, wants to be there forever. Now running for a fifth term to be there 30 years. And in a state like South Carolina, we can't mount a serious channel challenge to a moderate rhino like Lindsey Graham. but you continue to see President Trump populating Congress. He seems concerned about his endorsement record. He endorses who he thinks will win, which means who's the establishment behind, who's the money behind, who's the party system behind so that he can have his voting record. Now he's got one loss, I guess with the Randy Feenster, the liberal Republican in Iowa who thankfully lost his race, for running for governor there in the primary. But, you know, Ralph Norman was the clear best choice for governor in South Carolina. A strong conservative with a incredible record. He's got, you know, leadership experience and all. And unfortunately he finished third. And now we'll have a runoff between, you know, two establishment candidates and Wilson and the vet. Not a good choice for South Carolina.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, the Trump endorsement, ah, factor has been an interesting phenomenon through I think the entire Trump era. And it seems like to me that Trump is choosing who he wants to primary not based on the principle of an actual conservative record, but more, just with loyalty to himself and his own agenda, which advocates of that are saying, okay, well if you want to be on the Republican ticket, then you've got to get on the agenda. But, Lindsey Graham, in my opinion, isn't on, you know, really on the conservative agenda. But is he on the Trump agenda sufficiently that that rationale makes sense?

Bob Good: That is an odd endorsement. Lindsey is on the Lindsey agenda. Lindsey does what's best for Lindsey. He's big friends with the Democrats. He is a moderate. Any scorecard, any, any voting analysis, record analysis demonstrates he's a moderate and he's had a checkered history with President Trump. But for whatever reason, President Trump likes him. He's in big golfing, buddy. But it's interesting with the Trump endorsement on the governor's race, the governor's primary, Trump endorsed this Pamela Yvette, the lieutenant governor, and she only got 29%. So 71% of the Republican voters in that primary did not vote for the Trump endorsed candidate. Now, I don't honestly know which is better between the two, Allen Wilson AG or Pamela, that Lieutenant Governor. I'm not a fan of either one in particular, but it's certainly not a foregone conclusion that Yvette will win. Once you only got 29% in the initial before now, what would be the runoff? But Lindsey Graham, if anything, Typifies what's wrong with these endorsements. And you're putting people in Congress or keeping people in Congress for the worst possible qualifying reason, their willingness to at least express or feign or pretend to be Trump first Trump only, all about Trump. that is not a governing unifying principle. what will they do in two years by the way? How will they know how to vote? What will be the basis for keeping them in Congress two years from now if the only reason to put them in Congress is because they're allegiant and loyal to Trump and what into the Trump agenda, whatever that is. The Trump agenda that changes by the day that no one can really define what the Trump agenda is except for doing whatever President Trump says.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And then where does that go when President ah, Trump leaves office? I mean ostensibly the thinking is okay, well that will continue with whoever is the heir apparent. And I have absolutely no reason to believe that Trump won't be heavily involved in 2028 and want to be kind of the Chancellor over the Republican Party. I've said for a while, I think that the the GOP is the new Trump organization. I mean he's, he's gone from real estate to now politics and you know this is he considers the gop, basically the, the Trump gold stamp over it and that he runs it and owns it. And I don't see that that happening or that changing any differently. even when he is term limited and leaves office, he will still want to have total control over the party over endorsements and how the weight and the value of his endorsement. It's going to be interesting to see how that holds once someone else inevitably is, is elected. And whether a Democrat succeeds him versus a Republican of course can change potentially that metric.

Bob Good: I'm tired of MAGA trying to cancel primaries

But overall, heading into the general elections, you know, as we're, we're past a lot of the primaries, there's still some like my home state of Florida, we have our primary coming up on August 18th. But even in, in that, in that case it's, it's fascinating to see that the Trump endorsed candidate for governor here, Byron Donalds, just yesterday the the, the Republican, the Florida GOP here is saying that no other candidate besides Byron qualified for the debate parameters that apparently they didn't even publish and so they're not going to hold a debate. And now there's a lot of calls among the MAGA crowd that all the other candidates should just withdraw and support Byron. And I'm personally tired of basically the attempt of MAGA to try to cancel primaries. I mean, the whole entire point of a primary is to freely select your candidate, but they just want to appoint the nominee. And we saw how well that went for Democrats in 2024. So, you know, overall I think there's still going to be that, that, that kind of push from those of us who don't want to go back to the establishment, but also don't want to just be fully on board with whoever Trump endorses is the candidate. We still would like an option as

Bob Good: voters agreed it is very unhealthy to have coronations instead of competitions to determine who would represent us. We get the government we deserve, we get the candidates that we deserve. In terms of the collectively, all of us together, you or I may vote right, but collectively we're allowing this to happen to us. We do still have the power if we will execute it or exercise it, I should say. but I make a prediction for you. President Trump will not care about the SAVE act after the midterms. He wants to say back now because he's concerned about losing the House in the midterms. But once he's no longer on the ballot, I predict he really won't care about the SAVE act anymore. Because this is a one way street, this loyalty, you know, demand for total loyalty. And you look at that with the presidential race from 24, we had an open seat, we had an open nomination process, at least theoretically anyway. But if you endorsed any candidate other than President Trump or supported any president, any candidate other than President Trump, didn't mean you were against President Trump, but if you were more for someone else then you were an enemy of, the Trump regime, the Trump machine, the Trump administration. Just because you had the audacity to support another candidate in an open primary, in an open seat and open competition.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, which you and I both experienced. And you suffered in that respect even more than I did with with Trump targeting you for for your seat. But you know, I experienced the vitriol from MAGA just simply because, you know, I supported a different candidate in an open primary, which is the point of primaries. I mean, it's just, it's such ridiculous thinking. But I think you're absolutely correct and so spot on though, that as soon as Trump himself isn't on the ballot, he's not going to care as much about election integrity. I hope that that still remains a big issue, at least among conservatives in Congress. But it's absolutely Ridiculous that that has not passed and that that was not attached to the the reconciliation bill in the Senate and that they can't get that through with a Republican majority. But former Congressman Bob Good, always appreciate it. Follow him on X and also listen to his podcast. We will be right back with more. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Thousands of Southern Baptists overwhelmingly voted to advance a formal ban on women pastors

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, this week thousands of Southern Baptists overwhelmingly voted to advise advance a formal ban on women pastors in the nation's largest Protestant denomination. So the Southern Baptist, convention met this week actually in Orlando, Florida. So I was I was happy to be able to get up there and ah, see my good friends Eric Metaxas and ah, Rhyen Helfenbein and also Pastor Jeff Schrieve, who was there, who actually invited me to a lunch there. Very kind of him. So got to see you know, a lot of good friends, friends there. but the Southern Baptist, voted on that formal ban, elected a new president and had some other business to take care of. So Rhyen Helfenbein, who is the Vice President of Communications and Public Engagement at Liberty University and the founding director of the Standing for Freedom center, joins me now.

Southern Baptists have voted to advance a formal ban on churches with women pastors

So Rhyen, let's start with kind of that, that more. I mean it's not really controversial to to those of us who follow scripture, but it's been controversial to places and outlets like CN reporting this, that the Southern Baptists have voted to advance a formal ban on churches with women pastors. This is a very good thing.

Ryan Helfenbein: Yeah, it really does. What it is is it's about amending our Baptist faith and message. To be abundantly clear that a pastor as defined all the way back to the year 2000, is reserved for men. It means men. It's always meant men. pastor, elder, overseer, somebody who's acting with authority, who's preaching before the assembled congregation, that's a man. And that comes right out of First Timothy, Chapter two. And it's always been the case. But I would say, Jenna, in the present context you do have some churches who have kind of either gotten cued or creative with language. they might have a children's director, let's say, and they might rather innocently call that children's director, a pastor. and so this is to clarify, this language is meant to clarify. It's meant to make sure and certain in 2026 that Southern Baptist churches are churches that are affiliated with the convention, which is Completely voluntary, are using the same nomenclature throughout, that it's ubiquitous, it's universal, it's clear, and there's no confusion on that. And so it's weird, that it's necessary, but it's become necessary to make an amendment.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And that's a really important point that This kind of, I would say sleight of hand that some churches that I've seen, within the evangelical and Protestant circles have used pastor to delineate, some form of leadership in the church. Including you, maybe a worship pastor, that's a woman or a children's pastor, as you mentioned, that a woman. That. That the activity or the leadership position itself isn't actually, unscriptural. I mean, obviously women can serve in children's ministry and on the worship team and so forth. But to designate that term as a pastor is trying to, I think purposefully, categorize women in leadership in a way that undermines the principle that is in scripture.

Ryan Helfenbein: Yes, 100% right. And what this amendment to, the Baptist faith and message essentially says is it. It clarifies by saying that this pastor, this elder or overseer that specifically is preaching, that is, you know, essentially holding biblical authority over the assembled congregation. That must be, reserved for men. And that has always been the case. But more recently, there have been some churches within the Southern Baptist denomination that have, used that term pastor more broadly. And some it's been intentional because, they do in fact have women pastors. But, many others, have just been using that name widely. So headlines are going to say things like there's a ban on churches or this or that. but the truth be told, we're just basically amending the language to be abundantly clear at a time when, it's not been clear. And I don't think this applies actually to quite as many as, Some might think, to quite as many churches, that is, But I think in 2026 this kind of thing is necessary. And something that has concerned Southern Baptists, is when you look historically at egalitarian denominations, denominations or churches that kind of have muddled, this issue on leadership, again, going back to Scripture, what you see over time is a downgrade controversy. What you see over time is it is a slippery slope. if you have churches that have, women preachers, typically those churches go the way of egalitarianism. Yes.

Ryan Helfenbein: But they also, they become much more open, much more ecumenical. And on issues like homosexuality, gay marriage, LGBT Those types of things, in time, I'm not talking about months or years, but in decades, those churches invariably, become liberal, on a whole variety of social issues that happens. That is historical, it's well documented. It's like gravity.

Jenna Ellis: And it's a really good thing for the SBC to hold the line on this and, and hold the line on, you know, some. The basic, fundamental tenets of the faith. I mean, this is. This is something I would say, is. Is probably a secondary, issue. It's, it's more of a. Of a process and leadership and church administration issue. I mean, it's not a core, central tenet to soteriology or salvation, but it is something that should, be kept very closely. I mean, this isn't something that. That church administration and functions, can look differently. there's no prescription in Scripture, for example, that a church has to meet on Sunday morning versus, a different day. I mean, that's been tradition, of course, to celebrate the resurrection. But if you happen to go to church on, you know, Saturday night, that's okay. It's, It's. Do not forsake the gathering of yourselves together. but there are certain other prescriptions in Scripture for ah, church administration, and leadership and even church discipline is supposed to function. And it seems like there is, especially among, evangelical churches, there is more of a diversity and an appetite to run churches the way that anyone sees fit rather than looking to Scripture. And this is one area, Rhyen, that I think, the Catholics rightly criticize evangelicals for because they say, you know, we have, a process and a hierarchy and you know, you guys don't have a Pope. And we say no, but we, you know, we could because we look to Scripture and each individual pastor is responsible, you know, for his flock and for that individual church. But that doesn't mean that they can be run just however they want. There are still, those church administration, procedures in Scripture. And so this is, again, in my opinion, this is a very good thing. That sbc, at least is the largest Protestant, denomination in America, is still holding that line.

Southern Baptists voted overwhelmingly for new president Willie Rice on seven pillars

So, what were some of the other issues that came up in, the SBC convention this time?

Ryan Helfenbein: Well, I mean, I think one of the big, things, of course, is the election itself. And you know, we did have a new president, Willie, Rice, who won, and he won on seven pillars. This is, something that he talked about a lot. One of them being denominational accountability. And, this was the Emphasis of local churches having, you know, oversight, having the ability, to hold, you know, executive authorities over our entities accountable. And so one of those things is, you know, financial transparency. That was a big discussion we have in this other convention. We've got six major entities, you know, that are the seminaries, plus the mission board, the International Mission Board, one of the largest missionary sending agencies in the world. And that comes through the Southern Baptist Convention is the North American and the International Mission Board. and so really, Willie Rice is trying to, in a way, kind of hit the reset button. M. Which is to say, you know, over the years, so much of what has happened at the entity level in Nashville, Alpharetta, Georgia, Richmond, Virginia, the place where these things are located, these, you know, our executive heads, mostly doing good work, but have kind of operated in a way as though they are almost independent of the Southern Baptist churches and the messengers at the convention themselves. And they don't have to give all the details. They don't have to disclose all of those things. I'll just tell you, for my part at Liberty University, every year our financials are disclosed. We have a Form 990. You know, how much our president makes, you know, how much our university takes in, in revenue and how much it spends and what it spends money on. We have to be transparent about that. interestingly enough, the SBC has not made that its practice. yes.

Ryan Helfenbein: you know, it files tax returns. Yes. You know, it's accountable to, the IRS and all of that. But the vast majority of Southern Baptists don't get to see or view that information. They don't, what contracts exist and what they exist for. And then the other thing is just the trustee system itself. It's. It's kind of functioned in a way in the past like a patronage system, meaning that certain, trustees get invited, they get picked, they get selected. but really they be kind of. They kind of become cheerleaders, for the heads of these entities. And, and it becomes one of those things where, you know, it's at least seen or perceived, that these trustees are really just kind of cheering on whatever the head of the entity might be doing. rather than being in a position of true, real, fiduciary accountability sometimes. So that's at least one pillar of that. That's one thing that will. By 57%. and I think a lot of Southern Baptist messages are resonating with that message. you know, the other thing I Would say, in answer to your question, in certain things that transpired this year, of course, are on the resolutions Committee. I was, I served on that this year. you know, I was one of, several dozen, guys on that committee, men and actually women who served on that committee. and we had several things that had passed. One on anti Semitism, just to make a clear, comprehensive statement on how Southern Baptists feel about what is happening on social media and on college campuses. and what you're seeing, you know, in the FBI crime statistics, it is very, very clear that hatred towards Jewish people is on the rise. And it has been since October 7, 2023. But it's not just Islam. interestingly enough, we've got people on the left and even on the fake right that are kind of promoting this anti Jewish bias and even hatred. and it's unbiblical. And so there's a statement on that. we did one on immigration. Southern Baptist made it very clear this year that we reject, amnesty. And I think that's a first when you think about where Southern Baptists were a few years ago with the evangelical immigration table. there were some that were caught up in that, Jenna, and that was being funded by George Soros and it was being utilized, the evangelical immigration table, I think to steer Christian, organizations and even denominations. And that's something that we got caught up in. And it was compassion driven heart being in the right place. But I think many of us, our head was not in understanding the policy, that was taking place. yeah.

Jenna Ellis: And we got to take a break here. Rhyen, real quick and sorry to interrupt. We're going to take a break here, but Rhyen is going to stick with us through, this break and come back to talk more about the Southern Baptist Convention. And you know, it's a really good thing, in my opinion, that the Southern Baptists are standing up, and actually speaking out on resolutions that touch policy because that does concern biblical doctrine. I mean, if we have a biblical worldview at our foundation, then necessarily that will drive our perspective, and it should on issues of policy legitimacy in government. What, is the government's role versus the church's role in society and also how God's limited, God's authority, God's full authority in, how he. He delegates that in a limited fashion to those different jurisdictions. And all of that the church needs to comment on instead of saying, oh, you know, this isn't doctrinal, so we don't want to comment on this, so this is a good thing. We will be right back with more

Ryan Helfenbein: foreign.

Ryan Helfenbein speaks on legitimacy in government 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, Rhyen Helfenbein, who's the Vice President of Communications and Public Engagement at Liberty University and was at the SBC convention which just wrapped up last night. So we're talking about, the largest Protestant denomination, and you know, the, the profound effect that that does have on churches across the nation. And Rhyen, one of the other things, you know, speaking of, churches and Christians engaging and making public statements on issues of policy, and issues of legitimacy in government, it was really fascinating to me to hear Governor DeSantis speak at, the luncheon that you and I and our good friend Eric Metaxas, and others were there, this past week and to hear Governor DeSantis speak and articulate the, the principles of liberty in the context of how, how much faith, and a faith specifically in the God of the Bible is at the foundation of of the founding of America. And without a biblical understanding of the legitimate role of government and how God is the sovereign and all authority, for government, for the civil government, for the family government, for the church, government comes from Him. And without that acknowledgement, our revolution in America would have looked far different because revolutions, in other areas of the world, across world history, have not been premised in a legitimate, and a biblical truthful worldview. And he contrasted this of course with the French Revolution, which just sought to overturn, the elites and institute kind of a different form, ah, of government that's still based on just secular human derived power. And ultimately of course, it failed. And that as we're approaching our 250th anniversary of America, we need to kind of go back to the founding, understand what that revolution actually stands for, and then we can encourage those in civil government, as the SPC is doing with some of these resolutions. And overall what Christians should be doing is encouraging our government to recognize that God ultimately is the sovereign. And it's yes, there are government, legitimate government powers that are derived through the people's consent because we are the ones that hold all the rights that come from God our Creator, not our government. But the powers that government has are limited, but those are derived from God himself and are for the express purpose of preserving and protecting our rights. And if our current civil government at all levels understood that I Think we would have, ah, an even drastically, better America than even what we currently live in.

Ryan Helfenbein: You know, it's interesting, Jenna. So true. And I'm first of all thankful that Governor DeSantis, you know, appeared at one of the meetings. There were many meetings at the sbc, but, you know, he came to a room, where he was able to speak and honestly speak as though he's an evangelical, and I appreciate so much him sharing his faith. And, somebody bumped my shoulder and said, you know, it's so refreshing to see a politician, essentially talk just like one of us about so many important issues, not the least of which is America's founding. he sounds, you know, he sounds like a Southern Baptist. And, he understands, just as you articulated, that God is the ultimate sovereign. Our rights come from Him. They don't pass through government even. They go directly to the people. and the government derives, from the consent of the government, sorry, of the governed, the people, its powers. It's just powers. And it's merely there to secure those rights that are inalienable that come from God himself. And so, only a Christian can think that way. I will just say that when we were framed, when all of this was being framed in the Constitution legally, yes, it does extend to all people. It's, it's, liberty and justice for all. When we take that pledge, that means Christians and non Christians, you know, that means that, people of every, tribe and tongue, if you were to live in the United States and assimilate, here, and naturalize as a citizen, yes, all of these, rights are inalienable and they belong to you. You may not understand the Christian framing of them, but I do believe in the fullest extent, having a Christian worldview helps you, enables you to understand. It makes a lot of sense directly from Scripture. And so you refer to the French Revolution, the Chinese Revolution of Mao Zedong and the Russian Revolution. when you think of Vladimir Lenin, all of them were godless, bloody revolutions. Many, many people died. the French Revolution, they wanted to strangle the last king with the guts of the last priest. Robespierre's reign of terror. there were so many people that were going straight to the guillotine without proper trial. you think about all the horrific things that happened, and ultimately that culminated in Napoleon, the revolutionary incarnate. This was not freedom. This was not the kind of revolution that really was humane, but it was humanist, and it led to a lot of bloodshed. I'm, reminded of what Dr. Osgin has said. He talks about this triangle of freedom. That freedom requires virtue, which requires faith, which requires freedom. And so it's a triangle and they go back and back and forth. And so if you don't have, if you don't really have faith, you can't really have virtue. And if you don't have virtue, you ultimately will not have freedom. So yeah, Charlie Kirk said just a few years ago, famously, when he was on stage with the, with the Kinneckleys, father and son, he said, you know, our Constitution really is a Christian document. and it was written at a time when most in America were Christian. And so we have actually a Christian construction of government. If all of a sudden you have a nation with not so many Christians, it is very, very difficult to run that country under that framing because that framing requires people, ultimately to be virtuous so they can self govern. the reason so many people today are saying, hey, we need a more totalitarian government, we need bigger government to solve these problems is because so many people lack virtue. they have not surrendered their lives to the Lord. these are not people of prayer. They, are not people of the book. That is the word of God. And so I think that is oftentimes where we see morality, virtue, all of those things lacking, of course, the most famous, quote from Jon Adams. Our Constitution was written for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. and that again, is why in America 250, yes, it's an opportunity to rededicate and recommit, but it's also an opportunity, Jenna, to remember. I think so many people, if you say, hey, do you remember America's founding? Most don't and most sadly don't care. It is a call to remembrance. We need to go back and remember what happened in 1776 and in 1783 and in 1788 and 89. we have one of the greatest documents ever written. I, wouldn't say the greatest because I think the Bible, the word of God, is the greatest. But I think the Constitution certainly reflects the teachings that do come from scripture, as one of the best form of government, the best form of government on earth that we've seen so far. we have to remember that. We have to recognize too, upon that remembrance, what is the difference? Why is America so unique? When we talk about American exceptionalism, I think people think that terminology exceptionalism means that we're morally superior to everyone else. That's not what that means. It means the ideas are better. Our way of government is better. Our founding was so unique. that's American exceptionalism. That's America at its best, is recognizing what God had provided and that what we received was ultimately received from Him. so we, you know, we have this moment to rededicate our country, to recommit our lives, but really, if we can't remember or recognize the American difference, this year will make no difference in America. And I think that's. That's the thing that, praying for, is seeing revival. I'm also, you know, seeing. Seeing what happened last year with Charlie Kirk with his murder. it's nine months later, and many have already forgotten what has happened. and it's. It's one of those things where we saw revival. And I still think revival is happening. But, Jenna, I'm praying that it gets bigger than what it is right now.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. Isn't it incredible that, you know, even in less than a year, that that shock and the, the propelling to consider eternity, consider, you know, all of the things that surrounded, Charlie Kirk's murder. It's almost like that has been calloused over with so many other things. And we need to, as Christians, make sure that we still continue, to reflect on how we can continue to make our nation a more moral and upright society as the founders. I mean, that's the whole reason that we have our Constitution and our system of government as a republic, so that we can continue to perfect it. And if we aren't in the business of continuing to perfect it, then we will ultimately lose it. So we've got about a minute left, but, closing thoughts. Rhyen?

Ryan: I encourage listeners to have a Bible reading plan

Ryan Helfenbein: Yeah, I just, you know, I want to encourage anyone, any of your listeners, you know, have, a Bible reading plan. our founders read the Bible. you know, George Washington read the Bible. You know, even Benjamin Franklin would surprise you at the kind of pietism he displayed, especially at the Constitutional Convention, where he called that convention to pray. This is the famous Ben Franklin, the deist. And, you know, he said that if, If a sparrow cannot fall from the tree without the Lord's notice, certainly empires and nations cannot rise without his aid. And so we need to pray for this nation, pray for America. Read your Bible, of course, but read some American history. Maybe pick up Eric's book, the Revolution. I'm going to be reading that to my kids this summer. I think that's a great tool. Remember, recognize and rededicate. That's the moment we have before us. Don't waste this opportunity.

Jenna Ellis: Amen. Rhyen, thanks so much. And as always, you can reach me and my team, [email protected].