In the Market with Janet ParshallIt is easy to approach those who disagree with our faith from a position of contention, but is that they best way to share the love of God with those who need Him the most? On In The Market with Janet Parshall this week we shared strategies on how to lovingly engage the doubters in our lives without creating tension or compromise on what we know is true. Who is God to Americans today? We spoke to a highly respected chronicler of societal trends who explained the drastic changes in how Americans think of God from past generations, why He is being minimized in their daily lives and why believers must grasp these seismic changes in thought and understanding to better fight for their faith. Depression has many faces and presents many challenges to the lives of those who live with it and those who love them. We opened our phones and allowed one of our favorite experts on family health and well-being to answer your questions and provide some practical, biblically based guidance for dealing with this condition. How do we invite Jesus into our financial lives? Our guest shared practical, bible-based strategies for managing our money better that will allow us to honor Him in how we spend, save and invest the resources He has entrusted to us. It is time once again to pull out God’s straight stick of truth and use it to reveal the bent and crooked ideas that continue to inundate us through the news and social media we consume daily.
Hi friend, thank you so much for downloading this podcast of In the Market with Janet Parshall, and I sincerely hope you hear something that will encourage you, edify you, enlighten you, equip you, and then we'll get you out the door into the marketplace of ideas. But before you go, let me tell you a little bit about this month's truth tool. It's written by a man who was a chronic doubter. Doctor Bobby Conway was a Christian, and after years, he began doubting his own faith. As a result of that, he's come out now stronger, fully committed to the validity and the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but keenly aware of the kinds of questions that chronic doubters ask. So in his book, Does Christianity Still Make sense? Doctor Conway does a superb job of telling us how we can answer 20 of the most difficult questions you and I will ever be asked about Christianity. Questions like why are there so many scandals in the church? And aren't Christians just a bunch of hypocrites? And why does God allow evil in the world? Is there really reliable evidence for the existence of God? This is a must read for everyone who wants to know how to contend for the faith when they get out there in the marketplace of ideas. This is this month's truth tool, and it's my way of saying thank you. When you give a gift of any amount to in the market with Janet Parshall, just call 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58 and ask for your copy of Does Christianity Still Make sense? And I'll gladly send it off to you as my way of saying thank you for financially supporting this program. You can also give online just go to in the market with Janet Parshall. Scroll to the bottom of the page. There's the cover of the book. Click on Make Your Donation online and likewise you'll also get a copy of Does Christianity Still make Sense? While you're there, consider becoming a partial partner. Those are my group of friends who give every single month at a level of their own choosing. They always get the truth tool of the month every month, as long as they're a partial partner. And they will also get a weekly newsletter from me that includes some of my writing and an audio piece just for my partial partners. So pray about it. Consider a one time gift or an ongoing contributor to the program by becoming a partial partner. 877. Janet 58. That's 877. Janet 58. Or online at In the Market with Janet Parshall. Thanks so much. And now please enjoy the broadcast.
Welcome to In the Market with Janet Parshall. Today's program is where Janet and her husband, Craig, take some of the stories making headlines this week and offer their insight and analysis. Before they get started, let's take a quick look back at some of the highlights from the week.
71% says they believe in God. What God do they believe in? We and we look at the God of the Bible that's dropped back in 1995. It was 73%. Today it's dropped to 40%. And so that's why it's important to me. It's like, all right, let's not make any assumptions here that we're all talking apples and apples. It turns out that we're really talking apples and oranges. There are about 17 or more different gods, quote unquote, that Americans say they believe in.
You never want to be in debt on any kind of consumer products, like a car or anything you're buying. And it's okay maybe to, you know, buy a mortgage, have a mortgage for a home that's appreciating. Um, but with credit, you want people to to want to give you credit just to never use it. Just let it grow. Let let everyone think that you have a great reputation, that they can trust you and never use it. And then you'll be able to have more access to some services and products that could be beneficial for your life.
There's a cognitive mirroring effect. When I say, I want to understand you, what's happening is I move from the resistor part of their brain forward and so they're thinking, okay, I want to better understand you as well. So in the doubters club settings, although we talk about really deep issues, the goal is build trust. Build trust with one another. Because when I build trust with them and I understand them, believe it or not, I'm going to pray for them more. I'm actually going to think about them more. I'm going to serve them more. And my life becomes more like Jesus when I intentionally try to understand the people who don't know him.
We know loneliness is one of the key factors in our society that contributes to depression. And I was I was so moved by that topic back in back when we were dealing with Covid. And the former Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy wrote this wonderful book called together, where he went out and he surveyed a bunch of people and asked them, what's the number one thing in your life that you're dealing with? He was thinking people would say, heart disease, you know, um, diabetes, all the big things that people have to deal with health wise. But people said social connection, isolation, loneliness.
Once a country is on that CPC list, country of particular concern, a whole range of options are then opened up to the administration as far as what they can do to sort of put teeth to that designation, including up to the point of sanctions. And so once somebody is on that list, then the administration has a toolbox that they can sort of bring to the table to say, okay, we we can use carrots, we can use sticks, but we want to see improvement on how religious minorities are treated.
To hear the full interviews from any of those guests go to in the market with Janet Parshall and click on past programs. Here's some other stories making headlines this week.
US and Russian negotiators have set down for talks in Saudi Arabia in a push to secure a partial ceasefire in Ukraine.
Wildfires raging in South Korea doubled in size on Thursday from a day earlier, with authorities now calling the blazes the worst natural fire disaster in the nation's history.
Donald Trump says China could get a discount on tariffs if it agrees to a US takeover of TikTok.
Apple could be about to fight off a possible fine and an EU order over browser options on iPhones.
Janet and Craig have lots to share, and they'll put the first story on the table when we return. To get more information or to download the podcast of any of the interviews, go to. In the market with Janet Parshall.
How to answer questions about why there is evil in the world, or is there evidence for the existence of God? That's why I've chosen. Does Christianity still make sense as this month's truth tool? Read how a chronic doubter responded to 20 of the most difficult questions about Christianity. As for your copy of Does Christianity still make sense when you give a gift of any amount to in the market, call 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58 or go to in the market with Janet Parshall. Happy Friday to you, friends. And I do want to point out because you just heard about the book Does Christianity Still Make Sense by Doctor Bobby Conway? April 1st is Tuesday of next week, and when that happens, we put away this truth tool and we have a different one for the month of April. So if you do not yet have your copy of this Christianity still make sense, I encourage you to get it. It's our way of saying thank you for becoming a financial supporter of In the Market with Janet Parshall. Just call 877 Janet 58 877 Janet 58 or go online to in the market with Janet Parshall. Give a gift of any amount. And my way of saying thank you for supporting the program is to offer you whatever the truth tool is for that current month. And this is a wonderful book. This was a man who's a pastor, but he went through a period of skepticism in his relationship with the Lord. Why so many hypocrites? Uh, why does Christianity used to beat people up, etc.? The kind of things you hear all the time when you're talking out there in the marketplace of ideas and the book wonderfully, not only tells you about Bobby Conway's journey, but teaches you how to respond to those kinds of questions in a wonderfully grace filled, winsome way. So get your copy of this Christianity still makes sense by giving a gift of any amount to in the market. 877 Janet 58 877 Janet 58 or online at in the market with Janet Parshall. Mr. Craig Parshall is with me Friday as we put on those glasses with the lens of Scripture, and we take a look at what's being bought and sold in the marketplace of ideas. And it really is a wonderful way to learn applied Christianity. The whole truth of the whole gospel is the whole world around us. And the stuff that's being talked about in the marketplace is a great way for us to understand the principles and precepts of God's Word. So if you didn't know when we turned the corner, we're not only going to change the truth tool, but it's going to be the end of Women's History Month, right? The month of March. And so the president of the United States marked Women's History Month at the white House, and he said some very commonsensical things. Have a listen.
One day, one, I made the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female. Is there anybody, seriously, is there anybody that disagrees with that in this room? I was thinking maybe somebody from the press might raise their hand. I don't think so. There aren't too many people. You know, it's amazing. It's got to be like a 98% issue, right? So what are they doing, Marjorie? What are they doing? They're fighting for a 2% issue. That's good. Let them keep doing it. No matter how many surgeries you have or chemicals you inject, if you're born with male DNA in every cell of your body, you can never become a woman. You're not going to be a woman. And that's why last month, I proudly signed a historic executive order to ban men from competing in women's sports. And it was very popular. And very. Very popular. We had a track meet and it was so disparaging to great women athletes. I've known so many great women athletes. I gave Annika Sorenstam the Medal of Freedom here not so long ago, and these are unbelievable athletes, but it's so ridiculous. They had a track meet and you heard me talking about long, long distance track. Meet the man won by five hours and 14 minutes and 12 seconds. And I said, this is not good and you want to see worse. Take a look at the weightlifting records. Take a look at the boxing. Take a look at this. The whole thing is ridiculous. And frankly, it's demeaning to women. And you are superior to men in my opinion.
Well, there it is. Who would have thought that common sense, sound science, and biblical truth would be so controversial? And yet there it is. So Women's History Month. And I'm very grateful that the president says this because, um, you know, he's absolutely right. It's overwhelmingly understood by the human race that we are two sexes, male and female, which echoes the reality of God's world that he created male and female. He created them both. So that takes us to our first story, which is, remember, the president signed an executive order that basically said that we're going to keep boys out of the locker room, that there's going to be two sex, that if you're going to continue to promote this stuff, we're just going to turn off the financial spigot up here in Washington, D.C.. And so Texas A&M University, by the way, uh, they canceled a show called drag. Leland, you can't make this up. Okay? Drag Leland at Texas A&M. It was a drag show on campus, and they canceled it because they wanted to, uh, comply with the president's executive order to keep pro LGBTQ propaganda out of education. But a district judge stepped in and said something else. Nowhere is free speech more important than in our leading institutions of higher learning. Colleges and universities serve as the fonts of and the testing grounds for new ideas. Their chief mission is to equip students to examine arguments critically, and perhaps even more importantly, to prepare young children to participate in the civic and political life of our democratic republic. And so the board couldn't decide, could not be given the liberty to decide to cancel dragland in accordance with the president of the United States. The judge stepped in and said, I don't care. You're going to be forced to go ahead and have Dragland. And her defense of her position was this was in fact a free speech issue. But I find her lofty terms falling flat when she talks about equipping students to examine arguments critically, and, more importantly, to prepare young citizens to participate in the civic and political life in our democratic republic. How does a guy putting on fat pads and mascara do any of that? I'm just asking.
Well, um, highfalutin terms, but if you really look at the judge's decision, I think it is, critically flawed in so many ways. Bottom line is this particular judge said, well, wait a minute. They created something called a public forum. In other words, they allowed all kinds of groups to rent the auditorium and have all kinds of productions, from Shakespeare to other kinds of venues. And therefore you have a public forum, and then it has to be all comers. And if you discriminate against one group because of their viewpoint, then that violates the First Amendment regarding public forums. But there's an exception to that law, to that ruling of the Supreme Court about public forums. And that is, if you have what's called a limited public forum. That is to say, if a government agency like a public university says this is open not to all comers, but to those who, let's say, put on Shakespeare plays or those who talk about current events or foreign policy or have a musical event. Um, so you can limit the forum in that way, or you can limit it in a negative way. All comers except the following. Now, interestingly, two years ago, another federal judge in Texas involving the West Texas A&M campus, same kind of issue about banning, uh, drag shows held that the university was fully within its constitutional rights and it didn't violate the First Amendment rights, so-called of the dragsters by being banned a car.
You realize that?
Yeah, it did. And I was a big fan, by the way, when I was in high school, uh, I wanted to, uh, you know, be like Craig Breedlove and, uh, you know, race the world's fastest car.
Cha-Cha muldowney. Wasn't she a female?
Yeah. Yeah, but she didn't go to Bonneville Salt Flats. She just simply did drag racing. But yeah, she was, in fact, the first really well-known, uh, female drag racer.
This is how we think in the partial household. Okay, spider thinking and back to the subject.
But but going back to the point. So this federal judge, the other federal judge involved with the case against West Texas A&M, same kind of issue, said, you know, sexualized content. And by the way, a little hint here. Drag shows are all about sexualized content. Okay. That's the whole point of this, is to exploit the idea that I can be any gender I want to in both dress action and sexual activity.
So let me pause for a minute, because this this is the ludicrous decision by the judge, okay? And you can wear a black robe and still be ludicrous in your thinking. So the judge says the drag shows don't promote radical transgender ideology, and they're totally innocent.
Wait a minute.
Exactly, exactly. Totally innocent gatherings are meant in any way to promote the LGBTQ plus lifestyle.
Right. This isn't a lecture. Okay. About the ideology of gender transition by physicians or some organization. This is the kind of drag show you and I are well acquainted with, and it, frankly, is being put on in most cases. I can't say all because I've never seen all of them. I've never seen news reports about all of them, but the majority of them, I have concluded, are a political ploy. It's going to be an in-your-face until you accept us. Yeah. And then once you've been forced coerced to accept us, you, the American public, you American universities, you, all the cultural institutions we want to influence, then we'll say, good. We're not only tolerated, we're accepted, and you've been forced to do it, and we've won. I got to tell you, that's part of, I believe, what the agenda is. but the West Texas federal judge had it right. Sexualized content can be regulated in ways that other First Amendment otherwise protected speech can't. And this is all sexualized. It's the whole point is to make a sexual comment in in the course of these.
So two important points on this. And number one, she categorized this as as a free speech issue. So hang on to that. I'm going to go back to in a minute. Number two Texas A&M wasn't saying you can't perform. You just can't perform on campus because they didn't want to make it look like an endorsement. Exactly. They didn't want it to look like an endorsement. And by the way, that executive order says we'll cut off the funding and the school rightly said, okay, we don't want to lose the funding, so let's do it some other place. So they weren't saying, you know, ipso facto go away. They were saying you just can't do it on the college campus. Well, so and I'm going to ask the question and I want to get the answer on the other side, because I'm really so tired of sloppy thinking, as exemplified by this judge, that this is a free speech issue. If it is, let's say, Texas A&M. Instead of hosting. Aggieland wanted to hold, I don't know, neo-Nazi land. And they all came with their little skinheads and their Nazi flags. Now, would the judge be as vociferous in her protection and defense of that free speech issue and say to Texas A&M, no, you can't stop this because this is a free speech issue. Hang on. To the question. We'll get the answer on the other side of this. So to recap this story, because there really are some interesting subset ideas that need to be fleshed out a bit on this story. The president signs an executive order, basically says, hey, we're not going to give you federal dollars if you're going to promote this ideology. Texas A&M says you got it. There was scheduled to have something called Drag Leland, a drag show, by the way. And Texas A&M said, no, we're going to cancel it. Now. They were saying, you can't do it on campus. You can go someplace else and do it. You just can't do it on campus in steps. A female judge who says, no, no, it's a question of free speech. And you can't, um, you can't censor free speech. And so she's now forcing Texas A&M to have to go ahead and have this drag show, which is very interesting because pull out this drag queen idea and plug in another idea, something that someone else, some other group of people might find obnoxious. I do like neo-Nazis. And so she says now they're going to have neo-Nazi land and said, drag you land at Texas A&M. And would the judge come and defend as vigorously the free speech expression of an idea that maybe she doesn't agree with, maybe she subtexts agrees with Dragonland? I don't know, but if you're going to do free speech, Greg, you'd have to have, it seems to me at least some semblance of an all comers policy. Where does this break down?
Well, if I were to rewind the timeline on this, I'd say that the Texas A&M folks should have crafted their policy with reasonable exceptions, making it a limited public forum rather than supposedly what looks like a public forum where they let all comers come in and specifically say, um, sexual content, um, is not going to be allowed, uh, or they could even say, um, if if the university is threatened with financial deprivation as a result of a certain kind of a performance in terms of federal funding, than it has the option to be able to say, um, no, we can't open our theater, uh, to groups that will then penalize us, cause us to be penalized by federal support. Those avenues weren't used. What happened is they initially approved it. And then when the OEO came down from the white House, they unapproved it. And that kind of change of mind is all. It sounds like a procedural matter, but, you know, in the law. Procedure is the tail that wags the dog and courts. If they're looking for an excuse or justification to make a free speech ruling in favor of dragila. And there it is. Oh. You're duplicitous. First you said yes, you could do it. Then suddenly, now the EO comes out and you don't like the viewpoint, and therefore you're saying, no, we're imposing a ban. So that kind of duplicity creates a procedural problem. And as I said, that often results in a substantive finding that's wrong. I mentioned the West Texas US District Court that I think ruled the right way. And and by the way, uh, federal courts in Florida, uh, Montana and Tennessee have disagreed with this particular federal judge in drag show cases in those states, federal courts. So this is not a national consensus about the First Amendment. I think it is a poorly reasoned decision from a US district court who opine quite a bit about lofty First Amendment principles, but didn't apply the details. The details, meaning if they're sexual content, that's usually an area that can be more regulated than non sexual content in terms of the First Amendment.
So let's linger with the ridiculous a little bit longer. Let's talk about San Diego. Used to be a conservative part of California. Parents there are upset because apparently the local school districts are now installing feminine hygiene products in the boys bathroom in elementary schools. The school is defending this, saying it's a fulfillment of a recent state law, and the parents say that it's a misuse of public funds. It's only going to cause problems. And what we're hearing is that apparently now the boys take the feminine products and they.
As boys.
Were, would.
Do.
Yeah.
And there was one.
There soaking and seeing if they can get them to stick on the ceiling. And also it's causing major plumbing problems. So I can see that it's really meeting a need. But somehow, apparently the school just thinks that this is absolutely important to do it. First of all, boys don't need feminine hygiene products, so we the segue here is not to be missed. From Doggyland at Texas A&M to female hygiene products in an elementary school bathroom for boys, this is when there is. The Bible talks about spiritual blindness, common sense, the human experience. Even if you don't believe in the validity of Scripture and the transcendence of God's truth, even though it is all around us. So as Romans one tells us, you are without excuse. We come in two forms, male and female. And I'm not, you know, don't segue off the anomalies that are a result of a birth defect. We're talking about making male and female God makes. There's no assigning. It's a discovery. When you have either your gender reveal or the baby is born in the delivery room.
So based based on the genetics of the child. And that's the way God and I.
Played from the president. Right. Your DNA is going to tell you, even if you externally, even if there was some semblance of external confusion.
Doesn't this tell you something? And you and I do end up being hit with this issue? Not that we're searching for it.
No mercy.
No just lands on your front door. If you're watching the news constantly, whether it's lawsuits or whether it's, um, just delusional thinking on the part of school administrators or the the gender transition industry, which is an industry, by the way.
Multimillion.
Making huge amounts of money under the delusion that you can really change gender by changing anatomy. Uh, you can you can't do that by simply restructuring parts of the human anatomy, because ultimately genetics And by the way, those who are the the loudest advocates for Follow the Science have suddenly now decided to abandon science.
They took a detour. That's exactly right. Well, again, it's I the again. As much as this topic is worrisome because it is unrelenting at its core, it is a spiritual issue. The question of identity is in every one of our hearts, not by accident, but by a God imprint, because God wants us to find our identity in him. If you seek him, you will find him. If you seek him with all your heart, he will be found back after this. As a Christian, how do you digest the cultural issues of our day and in the market? We believe that understanding happens when we bring biblical truth to expose the darkness in our world. That's what we do every day and in the market. May I ask you to join us? When you become a partial partner, your monthly gift ensures this daily program continues. Become a partial partner today by calling 877 Janet 58 or go to. In the market with Janet Parshall. Well, we certainly are living in a world where good is called evil. Evil is called good, and man is doing what is right in its own eyes. And the core of all of that really is a form of rebellion against God. A really and truly. And that's why this transgender issue is very, very germane to the church. It isn't about us accommodating and what pronouns we're going to use for somebody because we're told not to lie. So the most unkind thing you can do is to lie to somebody by saying that they're a boy when they're a girl, or they're a girl if they're a boy. And it also it turns our back on God's truth. So there is a winsome way to be courageous and truthful, and sometimes we'll make mistakes. You know, we understand that. But we think we need to strive for telling the truth without blush, embarrassment or hesitation. Not accommodating, um, delusion, fantasy and really demonic activity. So now I want to tell you about a Christian school teacher, a Christian school teacher in the UK who's been found guilty of, quote, unacceptable professional conduct by a High Court for telling students about her biblical beliefs on gender and sexuality, all while teaching at a Christian school. Yeah, the great falling away. Apparently this person was a modern foreign language teacher for 12 years before she was suspended from a Church of England school in February of 2022. 43 year old refused. This is what I mean about Winsome Warriors and she's one of them. Refused to promote the gay agenda to her seventh grade students, which included introducing them to, quote, gender identity, such as I'm a grown up and I don't know half these pansexuality, asexual, intersex, transgender, plus Stonewall inspired films and Animal Farm esque slogans. Equality is a strength. Diversity is our power. Inclusion is a necessity. All of this information coming from the Christian Legal Center, which Craig is like the aclj only it's in the UK. Instead, she told students that Christians believe sex outside of marriage is a sin. Score one spot. Absolutely correct. Spot on. And that as a Christian, you need to live your life for God. Spot on two. This is. Now remember a quote Christian school. She also said, and I quote, there is no place to hurt or exclude anyone because they are homosexual. Christians should pray for people who are. And that she spoke that and and that she spoke about God's love and how we are loved and precious. Now, according to a professional conduct panel, the teacher's comments were recorded by one of the students who complained that the teachers that the teacher was being LGBT, uh, opponent, uh, in opposition. In fact, she said that being gay was a sin and that transgender people were just confused. So in December of 2023. This professional conduct panel removed her from her position, deemed her conduct to be unprofessional. And then the Aquinas Church of England Education Trust reported to the teacher. Reported the teacher to the Teaching Regulation Agency because, quote, she upset one pupil by sharing her views on homosexuality, and she went on to share many more in our investigation and subsequent hearings, such that we were not certain whether she would continue to share those views with young people. So they found her guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, labeled the expression of her beliefs as inappropriate. Remember, this is in a church school. The group then considered recommending to the Secretary of State to have her banned from teaching altogether for her comments, but notified the teacher and her lawyers that it could not be proved that she lacked tolerance. What do you think? And found that she had no intentions of causing distress or harm to pupils. So in other words, we don't like your views. We're going to make you pay for them. But we can't really prove that your conduct is in any way, shape or form out of bounds. So her lack of professional conduct wasn't really a conduct issue, it was a belief issue. And so she has now challenged the allegations. Good for her. In a UK High Court arguing that the school's duty to provide a balanced curriculum did, arguing that the school's duty to provide a balanced curriculum did not apply to her personal beliefs as an individual teacher. But the High Court found her guilty. And, um, I think she's going to end up having to continue to challenge this legally. Craig, there's there's more to the nuances of the legal battle of this, but the essence is she's in a Church of England. We were talking before about this inexorable connection between church and state in the UK that is a distinctive from the United States. And so she is sharing her personal beliefs in a Christian school. And again, it's that torch topic of homosexuality. Somebody records it and they go after her for her beliefs. It makes you. But again, let's let's just pull back wide angle lens okay. Big picture here. This is the Church of England who wants to question the gender of God and wants gender neutral language in their Bibles, and wants blessings for same sex marriages. We won't affirm them, but we'll bless them. What's the distinction? I don't know. So you got the Church of England who's completely messed up and lost on this, and then it trickles down into the local schools. And so what this woman is espousing, not the Church of England's position, but biblical truth, and she pays for it.
I read this and I kept thinking, the poor woman. Good for her, by the way, for for standing up for truth and her beliefs as a follower of Christ. But she she had to go through a professional conduct panel who reviewed her conduct, and then she had to go through another tribunal called the Teaching Regulatory Agency. Right. And then from there to the UK Secretary of State, and then from there to the court system. And all I could think about.
Was at any point she could have recanted. By the way.
All I could think about was this follower of Christ being exposed and mistreated through a hellish system of bureaucracy. And then I thought, you know, we are in England, and one of my favorite and your favorite authors and apologist is C.S. Lewis. And I remember some of the things he said about hell and bureaucracies. I as a new believer, I read C.S. Lewis and I got this picture of Earth and all of its inhabitants hanging in suspension between heaven and hell and God wooing us and trying to entice us and presenting the gospel to us and chasing us and following us and seeking us. If we seek him to choose heaven rather than hell. And C.S. Lewis said he chose the picture of hell as a bureaucracy, the kind of bureaucracy this Christian teacher had to go through, he said. My symbol for hell is something like a bureaucracy of a police state, or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern. And Lewis went on to say, we must picture hell as a state where everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement. In other words, substitute the word identity. Here's a follower of Christ simply saying, this is what the Bible says. This is what I believe it. And doesn't that settle it? Apparently not to the Church of England and its various Christian so-called Christian schools. So she's dragged through this hellish bureaucracy. Her fidelity is to Christ. And yet what a picture of the difference between the kingdom of God where we think of the other, we think of standing for truth and the hellish bureaucracies that are influenced by the master of hell who says, let's use rules and regulation of bureaucracies to crush the truth spoken from this simple follower of Christ.
Yeah, exactly. And remember a couple of the statements that she made that sex outside of marriage is a sin. That's not an opinion. It is a biblical fact, by the way.
Black and white, it seems to me in the word 100%.
And so if the Church of England, by the way, takes umbrage with that. Well, God help the Church of England because again, they're they're doing what's right in their own eyes. But again, this is a church that was founded so that Henry the Eighth could dissolve his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and he could get a male heir through Anne Boleyn. And the rest is church history.
And God used that. But it was wicked. And the whole thing was a mess.
Yes, exactly.
But God is God, and he ends up doing allowing, uh, positives out of very negative human sin.
And the other thing she says is you need to live your life for Christ. The Bible says to live is Christ, to die is gain. Again, Church of England Christian school, quote unquote.
Don't you remember your history?
Well, more importantly, what part of that declaration is wrong? So again, the the the idea of advancing sin and decorating it in the cheap costume of, uh, compassion, inclusivity, diversity, etc. it's sin. And when you decide to take off those lens of scripture and you decide, I'm going to do what makes me feel comfortable, I'm going to do what's popular, I'm going to do what I think is the majority opinion. Well, you know, then you're going to find yourself at a dead alley very shortly because you're not going to be able to continue to live your life with the protective parameters of God's principles. You know, the if you just take apart the idea of don't have sex outside of marriage, do you think it's because God's a bully? He did it to protect us. When you have sex outside of marriage, what happens? Well, your marriage can dissolve. You can have an unplanned pregnancy. You could pick up a sexually transmitted disease. It is the deepest wound. I was talking with Doctor Gary Chapman earlier this week about marriages and how you can have a better marriage. Unbelievable. So stop me when I get to the part that this makes God a cosmic bully, as opposed to a lover who loves us so much that he gives us these parameters of protection. But it goes back to what happened in the garden. The core of sin is rebellion, is it not?
Yeah. In fact, I think of, uh, John Milton's Paradise Lost, uh, that we studied in college. And, uh, what he did, in poetic terms is give us the whole panorama of biblical history about the fall of Lucifer, who then became Satan. And it was about pride. It was about I will, I will, I am, I'm worth it. I am to be exalted. And that led to his downfall. And then it led to the downfall in the garden which led to our, human race downfall. And if God were a bully, he would have said, well, you're all condemned. I've got better things to do. Exactly. Instead, he said, I will show you a way by showing my son to be the sacrifice for all the sin that has occurred or will occur in the future. All you need to do is accept by faith what I have done and who he is, and make it a personal and genuine choice. That choice is still open. The problem is the gospel's ceasing to be preached with that kind of clarity.
We'll be right back. So there was a hearing on Capitol Hill this week. It was a subcommittee hearing, and it had to do with whether or not we should continue federal funding of NPR and PBS because they are, quote, in the words of some on the Hill, chronically biased. Now, just to give you a little bit of an evidence, this is past audio. This wasn't from the hearing this week, but this is the CEO of NPR. And I think it's important that you have a listen to exactly what she has to say about truth.
One of the most significant differences critical for moving from polarization to productivity is that the Wikipedians who write these articles aren't actually focused on finding the truth. They're working for something that's a little bit more attainable, which is the best of what we can know right now. And after seven years there, I actually believe that they're on to something that, for our most tricky disagreements, seeking the truth and seeking to convince others of the truth isn't necessarily the best place to start. In fact, I think our reverence for the truth might become might have become a bit of a distraction that is preventing us from finding consensus in getting important things done.
Wow, that's just such vacuous thinking. So in other words, truth isn't truth transcendent. Immutable applies to all people, all times, on places, knowable, objective. It has to be the best of us, a kind of collective group. Think. And so when you're not interested in the truth that has drastic consequences, if you're in charge of a media outlet because you don't care about truth, you care about propaganda. Which is the reason why this hearing was held on Capitol Hill. And I want you to hear a little bit of the back and forth that took place this week at that subcommittee hearing. Have a listen.
It was said that we're.
Attacking free speech. This is paid. This is state sponsored speech. And the very reason why we have have, you know, these witnesses before us today isn't because they're totally being funded or completely being funded. We're not bringing in Disney Channel in here, right? We're not bringing in, uh, National Geographic, right, for their content. The reason why we're having this conversation is because you're you're we are funding you. And and because we're funding you, the taxpayers get to have an opportunity to ask, why are we funding some of these, this content that they might disagree with. Right.
Yeah. No, I completely that's completely right. In fact, I think that PBS and NPR, but especially PBS will thrive on the membership model. They keep saying it's such a small percentage. Well, if it's the public funding, if it's such a small percentage, then no problem.
Mike Gonzalez from the Heritage Foundation responding to that response. And that's the issue, by the way, that they do get federal funding. It's not all of their federal funding, but it's certainly in part. And so I think what's happening is that as they're doing housekeeping in Washington, D.C., they're basically saying you have members, your members should be able to pay for your viewing for your broadcasting. You shouldn't have to get federal funding, particularly when you really don't have an all comers policy in the newsroom and you don't. And one of the points that was brought up is that of the 87 people who work in NPR, in the newsroom, all of them belong to one political party. And I'll leave you to guess which one that is. So Ronny Jackson of Texas has introduced a bill. He just did this yesterday to pull government funding from, again, what he calls the chronically biased outlets of NPR and PBS. And the bill is titled the No Partisan Radio and Partisan Broadcasting Services Act, or simply the NPR and PBS act. And it would fully cut off direct and indirect government funding for both outlets, forcing them to compete in the marketplace of ideas. Craig, I got to tell you, I if you if you do good radio, if you do good broadcasting, they will come. And when the government is funding, it's like Voice of America. Now Voice of America used to be just value neutral. And it was Americans values that they were talking about. And then it got kidnapped. And then it was people who were supposed to be transmitting American values, doing anti-American conversations all the time. Well, there's a lot of people that are saying, why are taxpayers paying you when you have one worldview and one worldview only? That doesn't seem right.
Your thoughts? Well, except during fundraising week.
Well, then I get. Then I get the Four Tenors and the Celtic.
Exactly right. And look, we've seen that. And their, their, their quality of their production quality is superb. Their ideas. Well, let me just go back to what the public broadcasting witness said under oath that we just heard. Seeking the truth is really the wrong place to start. Now, how antithetical can that be to in thousands of years of Western civilization, of the biblical founding of those that, uh, traveled the oceans in small ships and harrowed those journeys to start a new continent. All of those ideas. Now they're wrong. You don't start with seeking truth. Well, I'll tell you what. If you start with the idea that you need to avoid seeking the truth, I think of Jesus's words. He is the way, the truth and the life. And if you don't care about the truth, you just may miss the greatest truth of all. So seeking the truth is where you ought to start. And as a broadcaster, particularly a public broadcaster, which means you have a public trust, you are representing to America the fact that you have been funded in part by Congress, which means tax dollar payer dollars now. And even if it's a small percentage, well, then you can live without it. And even if it was a large percentage, irrelevant. The United States government doesn't need to and should not fund a broadcast entity that says the worst place to start is to seek the truth.
Right. Not only that, I want you to know that same person called Donald Trump a fascist and a deranged racist sociopath. Pretty sure when you're the CEO of an organization, you have a worldview.
You've chosen your worldview. You're you're absolutely free to choose those things, but.
Not the taxpayer dollars.
Not have me pay.
For it. Exactly. And that's the thing, because they aren't taxpayers from a particular political party or a particular demographic, it's all taxpayers. And I don't care whether the amount is large or small. You're not feeding the alphabet soup networks everywhere else. There are nonprofit networks like we're on that do not take any government funding at all. So why this little sliver? Those were back in the days when we wanted to foster communication, right. Because we didn't have the variety. Now it's it's the whole idea of why we don't have a fairness act right now. If you don't like it, you can change the channel. That's the marketplace of ideas. But the marketplace has decided they're only going to throw their coins at two entities, NPR and PBS. That raises a very important question of are you having a wide panoply of worldviews? No you don't. From the CEO down into the newsroom.
From politics to religion to culture, it is slanted in one direction.
100%. And therefore it raises a legitimate question. And by the way, I would have the same conversation if the newsroom was filled with 87 representatives of another party. I think there needs to be balance in that when you're going to be report, but you've taken balance out the door because you have a CEO who says truth isn't important. We're just working for the greater good. However, that might be to find fascinating days in which we live. I tell you, we've got more stories. We ran out of time. Thank you for joining us on today's edition of In the Market with Janet Parshall. Don't forget, our truth tool expires Monday night at midnight. So if you do not yet have does Christianity still make sense? I want to encourage you to give a gift of any amount so I can send it to you. 877 Janet 58 877 Janet 58 or online at in the market with Janet parshall.org. Have a great weekend.
