Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 21 | Puttin' Up with Putin

Episode Date: July 19, 2018

I break down Trump's comments on Putin and why people are mad about them. Then, I answer questions about the reconciliation between predestination and evangelism and Ariana Grande's new "God Is a Woman." Copyright CRTV. All rights reserved.

Hey guys, welcome to the podcast. It's Allie with CRTV's Relatable. So a bunch of you guys have been asking me to break down what's really going on with Trump and his relationship with Russian President Putin. So I'm going to do my best to explain everything that's going on in a really simple way. And also to give my take on it, we did a topical podcast on the unbiblical nature of the modern self-love movement earlier this week. And so today we're going to cover some news. As you guys know, I like to keep you all well-rounded in this information and the information that you take in on this podcast. Okay, after we covered Trump Putin, I'm going to answer two questions that I received from listeners on Instagram, one regarding predestination and evangelism, and then one regarding Arianna Grande's

new song, God is Woman. Let me issue a word of warning to die-hard Trump's supporters who are listening to this right now. I love you, but we're probably going to disagree if you liked how President Trump handled the conversation or seems to have handled the conversation with Putin and the subsequent press conference. As you guys know, I voted for Trump, but I am always willing and ready to call him out when needed. And in my opinion, this is one of those times. So everyone just take a deep breath, know that we can still love each other and be friends, even if we happen to disagree on this. So after NATO, Trump met with President Putin in Helsinki, where they reportedly discussed a whole host of things.

Then they held a press conference, and that is the point at which stuff hit the fan, if you want to say that. People were most upset about President Trump saying that he and Putin had discussed the whole Russian meddling thing. Putin denied it, and Trump believes him apparently. Trump said, I don't see any reason why Russia would have meddled in the election. All right. He also said, I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. Okay. So let's back up just a little bit. Let's get some context. Our intelligence agencies have confirmed to us that Russia did, in fact, medal in our election. That's really not up for debate on either side of the aisle. Bob Mueller indicted

12 Russian intelligence officers last week for their part in election tampering. And in that indictment is detailed how Russian intelligence hacked the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee, at least partly in an effort to stop Hillary Clinton from getting elected. So that's not just some leftist theory to delegitimize President Trump. That is, as far as we can tell a proven fact by special counsel Bob Miller and his team. They attempted to interfere in the election through hacking the DNC server and leaking harmful information. All of that, we know.

So for Trump to say that he believes Putin that Russia did not hack our election is for Trump to say that he does not believe in his own intelligence community. He doesn't believe in the people under his own authority. He got a ton of backlash for this, I think rightfully so. which is probably why he kind of has tried to now cover his tracks by saying, oh, you know, I have a ton of faith in the intelligence community, but I also have faith in Putin. The reason why Trump is so soft, at least rhetorically on Putin regarding the Russians

hacking the election, is because Trump feels that if he acknowledges that the Russians are guilty in this, then his whole presidency is discredited. He doesn't want to admit that because he doesn't want to admit, or give any credence whatsoever to this idea that he didn't win fair and square. But what Trump needs to realize and what some Trump supporters need to realize is that in recognizing what the intelligence community has proven that Russia did, in fact, hack the election in an attempt to at least impart hurt Hillary Clinton, that he is not actually supporting the theories that are propagated on the left by those who wish to delegitimize him.

those theories being that A, he didn't actually legitimately win the presidency, and the second theory is B, that he actually colluded with the Russians to win the presidency. Neither of those things have actually been proven. So we know that Russia hacked, but we have no idea if they were successful in influencing voters to actually vote for Trump. We probably won't ever know that. And just a side note, I mean, Russia didn't do that great of a job of helping Trump win because he didn't even win the popular vote.

So if they were actually trying to get Trump to win, they might need to up their strategies just a little bit. And it also has not been proven that Trump's campaign in any way colluded with Russia. All we know is that Russia hacked, probably to hurt Hillary Clinton. We don't know if they were successful and we don't know that Trump was in on it. And it's likely almost 100% sure guaranteed that Trump's campaign was not involved in any way, considering it has been months and months of investigating into this. that matter and no proof of collusion has been presented. So Trump could have been tough on Putin.

He could have said, look, I stand by my intelligence community and whether Putin admits it or not, his officers are responsible for hacking our election and they need to know that we're not going to tolerate that. Putin is an evil dictator who kills political dissidents. I think that he would have respected a little bit of toughness coming from Trump, the president of the United States. Russia is not some great global superpower that demands our respect. We could take out Russia in a second if we actually needed to. Now, I'm not saying that we want to purposely aggravate them, but Russia is not our friend. They are not our ally. They do not care about democracy. They don't have shared values. And they actually see democracy as a threat, as all dictatorships do, which is why their goal is to meddle in our democracy and cause chaos in America, the leader of the free world, which they have been successful at doing very successful. And it would be important to know that it's not just Trump that is playing

into Russian's hands right now, but also Democrats who have been running around like chickens with their heads cut off, screaming that the sky is falling for two years accusing Trump of collusion. So Russia is at least in some ways in America winning. They just are. Now, to be fair, Trump has been harsher on Russia when it comes to action than Obama was his entire presidency. I think we can agree on that. He has slapped lots of sanctions on Russia. He has upheld some sanctions. He has expelled Russian diplomats.

So in his administration's policy, he has been tough. This is good. But there is no reason, in my humble opinion, to kow in rhetoric to an evil dictator whose power compared to ours is minimal, okay? Especially when you are so critical of our allies. I am okay with Trump being critical of our allies to a degree, like when they're not living up to their end of the deals. But I am not okay with Trump being more critical of our allies than he is of our enemies. Russia is an enemy that is not putting America first

like Trump has promised so many times to do. And here's the thing. The only reason to me Trump is, at least in word soft on Putin and Russia, is a matter of ego. That's really it. I know other commentators have said this as well, and I completely agree. He doesn't really at the end of the see himself as a part of a team or as a representative of anything except for himself. And thank God, thank God that he has surrounded himself with a pretty incredible administration that has been able to get things done that conservatives want done like tax cuts, getting rid of the Obamacare mandate, moving Israel's capital to Jerusalem, defeating ISIS, all these are great things.

I support the steps that President Trump has made to perpetuate liberty and push forward the conservative agenda, whether he is directly doing it, or whether it's his administration. I don't really care. I support America first. I support American exceptionalism and American greatness, the patriotism that I think that he has promoted during his presidency. That's my favorite thing about him. But acting this way with Russia, like I said, is not America first. He's gotten a lot of similar criticism in the past few days, which is probably why he is now walking back some of his comments. He actually just said, oh, I misspoke. I didn't mean to say, I don't see any reason.

why it would be Russia. I'm meant to say, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia. He actually said that. I mean, come on. Come on. No, this is just another example of ego. Instead of apologizing, instead of outright correcting himself, he makes up what I believe is a lie. That correction doesn't even make sense in the context of everything else he said. He's also said since the press conference, how strong Putin is. Why? Why? Why do you need to compliment a dictator? He is trying to play both sides because he wants to be liked by both sides. Donald Trump wants to be liked by everyone. Because like I said, whether you like him or not, it's okay to admit this. Donald Trump is arrogant. He acted the same way towards Kim Jong-un, another evil dictator we could nuke off the face of the planet if we wanted to, whom we have no reason to respect or pay deference to whatsoever. It is pride. He wants to be liked. Even though I voted for Donald Trump, but I'm glad that I did. I'm glad that I did. I do. I'm glad that I do. I'm. I'm, I'm glad that I did. That has always been my biggest critique of him, that he is incredibly self-absorbed, and because of that, he says and does really stupid things. And that self-absorption hinders him from being the great

leader that I think he actually could be if he humbled himself. And that's probably true of all of us. A lot of people compare Trump to Reagan, and while I see where they're coming from, because Reagan was a bit of a political outsider when he became governor of California and was hated by a lot of the establishment. Donald Trump will never be Reagan, probably, because he doesn't have the character of Reagan. Reagan had wisdom. Reagan had discernment. Reagan had an ideology. He had a core principles, a deep belief in capitalism and the free market and hatred towards big government. Reagan had values and a purpose that was bigger than himself. And while, like I said, I like a lot of what Donald Trump has done and I will support him when he does things that I believe are good for

the country. I do not like the things that he says. Specifically, when the things that he says are meant to appease a dictator. And listen, you don't even have to come at me with these criticisms of Obama and Bush in their relationship with Russia because I know I completely agree. Obama was caught on camera in 2012, I believe, telling a Russian leader he'll have, quote, more flexibility after his second election. Bush met with Putin and said that he looked into a his eyes and saw his soul. We have been stupid and naive with Russia in the past. And I don't think it's working out well for us. I don't think it's going to work out well for us with President Trump. You may disagree with me, which is fine. But one thing I think that we can both agree on here,

a little bit of a different direction, is the ridiculous reaction from people on the left about this. Absolute idiots. Accusing President Trump of treason because of this. That's hilarious. I might think he was wrong to handle Putin in this way. But trees. But treasuring. I mean, come on. Their hyperbole is absolutely ridiculous. It completely undermines their case. And their case could actually be good without the ridiculous accusations of treason. They could just say, hey, Mr. President, put in America first, doesn't really seem like it. And I would say, great point, liberals. But treason, absolutely absurd coming from the people who didn't have a thing to say about Obama's milk toast approach to Russia and his promises of, quote, flexibility to a Russian leader.

So I just, I don't really understand conservatives or Trump supporters not being able to call out President Trump on this. Like, you guys do understand that he's a president that will be here for maximum of eight years. And after that, he's going to go away. But hopefully, after he's no longer president, you will still have your conservative principles. And if you are conservative who believes that we should put America first, there is no reason for us to acquiesce to a Russian leader, even. rhetorically. So I just don't understand, and I guess it's in all issues, any person who will

unconditionally support or cheerlead for a politician that they know is going to go away. Politicians are temporary. Principles aren't supposed to be. So I just don't understand the people that are unconditionally supporting him on this who are even saying, oh, maybe Russia is kind of our friend, maybe we should pay some respect to Putin. Why? Why? That's not a conservative position. That's not a patriotic position. The things that people will compromise in order to support their team, it's just really crazy. So those are all of my thoughts on that. And I know I went through that really quickly, but in my opinion, that's basically all you need to know to get the gist of everything. Now I want to transition to something totally different. It has nothing to do with Russia.

but there are questions that I received that you guys were hoping that I would answer. So I'm going to take some time to answer two of them. The first question is about something I said on one of my last podcasts when I quoted Ephesians 1, which says in verses 4 and 5, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him in love. He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ. And the question that I got is, how does the idea of God choose? and predestining us fit with the Great Commission, which is Matthew 2819, go therefore and make

disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. So this is an excellent question. And if you are asking this question, you are in great company. It's a question that people have been asking for centuries, probably millennia. And that question is basically this. If God chose some of us for salvation before we were even born, before he even made the world, Why do we evangelize? What's the point? And there's also the question of, well, how is that even fair? How can people still go to hell be separated from God for all of eternity if God destined

them to reject him? How is that just? And I don't think that we'll have time to get into those last questions on this podcast, but we can address them on the next episode or on a future episode if you want to. Just let me know. The short and kind of frustrating answer is this. No one knows. I'm kind of kidding, but I'm kind of not. Humans have always wrestled with reconciling God's complete and total power and sovereignty with free will. So the longer answer is we know that God is all powerful. If he is all powerful, then he has power even over our salvation. Job 42 says no plan of gods can be thwarted.

We know from that passage in Ephesians that he chooses believers, chose us before he created the world. Romans 9 discusses at length. God's election, which is a fancy word for choosing. Paul uses the example of Jacob and Esau that before Jacob and Esau were even born, before they had done anything. God, quote, loved Jacob, but hated Esau. He destined Esau to serve Jacob, not because of Jacob's merit, but because, quote, God's purpose of election might continue. He also gives the example of God hardening Pharaoh's heart. And Paul even goes right ahead and addresses the question that all of us are are thinking. He says, okay, what do we say about all of this? What shall we say then? Is there

injustice on God's part? By no means. For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy. Then he goes on to address more of our questions in a few verses. He says, Paul says, you will say to me then, why does he still find fault for who can resist his will. Well, what is molded say to its molder? Why have you made me like this? Has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable? So this is Paul wrestling with this question along with us. These two seemingly conflicting concepts of God's complete power, even over human well, and the reality that we still

have to pay consequences for our sins. If you flip to Romans 10, verse, uh, actually, I don't have the verse written down, sorry. How then will they, those who are not believers, call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? So just a chapter after saying God chooses people without any merit of their own, Paul says we must preach to people in order that they may hear the gospel. Romanson also says that we must believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord.

And beyond that, the Bible is full of people making decisions that have real consequences, God being angry at the decisions that people make. The entire book of James is heavy on action, that faith without works is dead. So what we know is that, like we said, A, God is in complete control and he is all-powerful, absolutely sovereign, and that, B, humans have free will to make real choices. that have real consequences. That means that God gives us actual commands that we are to choose to obey. And if we don't obey them, actual things happen.

One of those commands is the Great Commission, that we are called to obey. And as Romans 9 says, not obeying the Great Commission of going out and sharing the gospel, the consequence of that will be that people will not hear. And I'm going to be honest with you, that's really hard for my tiny, brain to understand. And that's why I do think that this concept takes an amount of faith to grasp. There is something called concurrence, which means two things are existing or are true at once. And that is how I have to settle with God's sovereignty and our human well. He is in control. And also, we have real freedom to make choices, even if I don't totally understand that.

The bottom line is this. I have to trust that God is who he says he is, that he is good, that he is in control. Therefore, I have to trust that his word is good and sufficient and is not contradictory if my fallible mind, even if my fallible mind thinks it is. So my only response is to obey, even though he tells me that he chose us before the beginning of the world, even though he clearly says he predestines us, even though he says it has nothing to do with human exertion, he still calls me to go out and share the gospel. And as a follower of Christ, at the end of the day, that's all I need to know. Okay. God is a woman by Ariana Grande.

Someone asked me if I would give my take on it, so I will. If you haven't heard about this and don't know what I'm talking about, God bless you. That's okay. There's really no reason why you should. But this is a new song that Ariana Grande released a few days ago along with a super bizarre and weird music video that I wouldn't watch around your kids if you have kids. But everyone's raving about it, of course. Okay, so first, the girl has an amazing voice. I've always thought that. I usually find myself liking her songs after listening to them a few times. She is genuinely talented, in my opinion. She also is like most celebrities in that she is outspokenly liberal. She calls herself a feminist. She was a Hillary supporter. I'm not even going to hold that against her because she just believes what most celebrities mindlessly believe just because they think that's the right thing to do.

This song, God is woman, is a metaphor, of course. It is not meant to be literal, but it is blasphemous nonetheless, and I'm going to explain why. So it's a metaphor for female empowerment, particularly female sexual empowerment. There's all kinds of symbolism in the music video of Ariana being literally in the center of the universe sitting on top of the world controlling a hurricane, being naked in a pool of paint that also looks like female anatomy. Yeah, pretty creative, right? She's at times being either yelled at by men, which are all white men, by the way, or being suckled by men. Yes, I said suckled. And it's all about female domination and assertiveness and even, I would say, aggression. And there's one point where she shatters this glass ceiling. There's a voiceover by Madonna quoting Ezekiel 2517. So even though it's not literally about God being a woman, she is in this song putting herself

in a position of God, frivolously using scripture, taking it out of context, and then applying it to female empowerment. So that's my first problem with it, is that in order to build herself up, and I guess other women up, she has to compare herself and other women to God. Even if you're using this as a metaphor, this is, number one, incredibly egotistical. Number two, it's obviously sacrilegious, or maybe that should be number one, and also comes across to me as overcompensating for feeling like she's talked down to or patronized as a woman. Why do you have to compare yourself to God, depict yourself controlling the universe to demonstrate that you're empowered or equal to men? See, this video, I think, is such a good representation

of everything that is wrong with feminism. Feminism, especially the feminism of today, doesn't seek equality with men. It seeks domination over men, control of men, revenge towards men. The Bible first she cites actually talks about revenge. Even though the world is telling you that that is empowering, it's not. It has to be miserable because this whole movement, this whole attitude is fueled by resentment, resentment towards the proverbial patriarchy, resentment towards the men and the systems that have kept you down. It's actually the opposite of confidence. It's insecurity. It's jealousy, in my opinion. Plus, this whole idea that this song represents or seeks to represent as well as other songs and things that I've heard women, women say in Hollywood,

that women are the same as men are sexually. That's just not true. And this is nothing new. Women have been trying to say this to act forever that they can treat sex as casually as men can, that we can compartmentalize sex from the rest of our lives. And then a girl can just hit it and quit it without any emotional repercussions. And even though a woman might get to that point where she's had so many one-night stands that it really just doesn't face her anymore, it's just not reality. That's just not natural for a woman. It's never going to be.

God didn't make us that way. There's a reason why more women tend to get attached easily than men, why they are more heartbroken and damaged long-term than men are when it comes to physical relationships that break apart. There's nothing wrong or weak about that. It is just how we are. It's just female nature. There is a reason why you hear a lot more.

about single mothers whose baby daddy left them than you do about single dads whose baby mama left. Now, in all of that, I'm speaking in the context of sin, of course. God's intention was never for sexual relationships to be temporary in the first place, and therefore they weren't supposed to end in heartache. His intention was for sex to be between a man and a woman in the covenantal bond of marriage. He knows how powerful it is. He made it, which is why there are so many rules and parameters around sex in the Bible. It's not just something that you do. It's supposed to be spiritual. It was never supposed to be about who gets over it faster, who has more power, any of that. And that's the other problem with this song is it's misrepresentation of sex to be about domination rather than a relationship and love. And of course, secular songs have been misrepresenting sex for millennia. So again, this is nothing new. The only difference with this is that instead of a guy talking about controlling a woman through sex, it's a woman controlling.

controlling a man through sex. Obviously, biblically, both are wrong. And even if you don't believe in a biblical worldview, you can kind of see the damaging effects of this. Humans have this tendency to try to correct a problem by swinging the complete opposite direction. And very rarely does that work. Usually the solution is somewhere in between. So in this case, the solution to male sexist manipulating women sexually shouldn't be female sexist manipulating men through sex. It should be no manipulation, no control, no power, domination, but rather love and commitment in marriage. But, you know, the day a non-Christian pop artist starts singing about covenants and marriage

in the Song of Solomon, I will kill over. Okay. Now, one more thing, just for kicks in this little explanation. Even though the phrase, God is a woman, is a metaphor in this case, let's talk about that since you've probably heard people talk about this before. The Episcopalian book of prayer is apparently considering making God gender neutral in their book of prayer. Okay. So, first of all, we should just say that God is not, he's not like an anatomical man in the way that a human is.

We see no indication that God the father has the physical body of a man. He's obviously transcendent. We also know from Genesis that God makes both man and woman in his image, which would mean that we both have attributes that are reflective of God. However, in the Bible, God chooses to refer to himself as a he, as a father, as a Lord, as a king. He doesn't refer to himself as a mother, a lady, or a queen. He just doesn't. And if we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, which we should if we trust God is good and all-powerful, then we have to believe that God's self-referencing in Scripture is not a mistake, that it's purposeful. Think about what we just said a few seconds ago about

fathers typically being the ones who leave, if a parent leaves. Think about also how many people you know, how many, especially girls that you know that have, quote, daddy issues. Think about how much hurt people go through who were either abandoned by a father or unloved by their father. Think about the unique devastation that ensues when a father doesn't play his proper role of leader, of provider, of protector, of supporter. Families fall apart. And while there are definitely consequences in pain that happen when a mother doesn't do her job or when she abandons her family, You hear way fewer stories of long-lasting hurt and devastation from motherlessness than from fatherlessness. I say all this to say that there seems to be this unique longing in all of us to be protected and approved of by a father in a way that differs from the comfort and the closeness that we want from a mother.

There seems to be a special need that humans have for a dad, a strong defender, a hero. I wrote an article not too long ago about the correlation between fatherlessness and school shootings. a disturbing number of school shooters have been fatherless. Kids who grow up without dads are far more likely than kids without moms to struggle in school, to struggle with self-esteem, to be depressed, be rebellious, get pregnant as a teenager, be suicidal. Dads fulfill a unique need. So I think it is deliberate. I know it's deliberate that God has chosen to refer to himself as a father, having made us with that desire and void that only a father's love can fill, and that so many fathers on earth have failed to fill. And listen, God is completely sufficient. So even though he chooses to call himself

a father and a king, he also has all the good characteristics that we usually ascribe to mothers, like being nurturing, like comfort, communication, empathy, gentleness, kindness. And sure, we can reject God as a father if we want to. We can choose to call him mother. But that, just like every other theological error that we make is based on our own selfishness and on the assumption that we know better than he does and that our interpretation trumps the truth. And, well, that should never be the case. So that's that. As always, please email me if you have any feedback.

My email is Alley at the conservative millennial blog.com. If you like this podcast relatable, please feel free to share it with your friends. And please feel free also to leave a positive review. you on iTunes or wherever you listen to this podcast. You can also follow me on social media, on Facebook, on Instagram, on Twitter. If you would like, if not, that's totally fine too. I will be back here on Tuesday. Please send me messages or emails about what you would like me to talk about or any subjects that have just been burning in your mind that you would like us to address on this podcast. Okay, I hope that you guys have a great weekend.