Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 597 | How 'Inclusion' Destroys Countries, Churches & Communities

Episode Date: April 11, 2022

Today, we're following up on last week's episode about the dangers of toxic empathy; this time we're talking about the dangers of unfettered inclusion. Like with empathy, inclusion seems universally positive, and many Christians embrace it as an important value to have. But, as we discuss, inclusion isn't technically a virtue, and when pursued for its own sake, it can have unintended consequences and lead Christians away from biblical truth. --- Today's Sponsors: A'del Natural Cosmetics - enter promo code 'ALLIE' for 25% off your first order at AdelNaturalCosmetics.com. Heroes of Liberty - a new & beautifully illustrated series of children's books packed with American values. Use promo code 'ALLIE' to get a free book with the $19.95 subscription program at HeroesofLiberty.com. My Patriot Supply — save $150 on a 3-month emergency food kit at PrepareWithAllie.com. StartMail — start securing your email privacy at StartMail.com/ALLIE & you'll save 50% off your first year! --- Previously Mentioned Episodes: Ep 593: Is Empathy Making Us Stupid? https://apple.co/3xeCsPo Ep 595: Disney & the Dark History of Gender Grooming https://apple.co/3LUlh9R --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Hey guys, welcome to relatable. Happy Monday. I hope everyone had a great weekend. This episode is brought to you by our friends at Good Ranchers. Go to good ranchers.com slash alley.

That's good ranchers.com slash alley. All right. Today we are doing our part two of the traits that sound universally positive but can actually be very toxic. not just for you individually, but also for society as a whole, especially politically. So last Monday, we talked about the dangers of toxic empathy. And just to summarize that, what I said was that empathy, putting yourself in someone else's shoes, taking on someone's pain can be a good thing.

But it can also inhibit you from seeing things as they are, from thinking objectively. And when we don't see things as they are, when we refuse to look at a situation, objectively, we aren't able to discern right from wrong or the truth from a lie. Someone's experience or someone's story can be so emotionally captivating to us that we allow that to characterize our understanding of reality as a whole. And that can be very dangerous because data can contradict someone's anecdote or someone's anecdote can be true. And it's not necessarily indicative of a system as a whole.

We used race and stories about race and policing and police brutality and narratives about systemic racism as our primary example of that because, of course, no one wants to be a bigot. No one wants to be a racist and no one wants to disregard someone's story of experiencing prejudice or discrimination. And so we allow people's emotional responses to the news stories that we see or someone's lived experience to then characterize what we think about the system. as a whole or what we think about trends in the United States, they cause us to come to conclusions that aren't necessarily supported by data or by truth. And as people who love justice, as Christians are called to do, Micah 6-8 is a verse that you see talked about a lot by social justice Christians, but if we love justice, it's not just a feeling, it's not empathy, it is actually looking at a situation or a case impartially without showing favoritism

to who we think is the weak person or who we think is the great, more powerful, influential person. We have to be able to see things as they are. We have to be able to look at the truth. And empathy can actually inhibit us from doing that. And so we talked about the balance for Christians, how we balance compassion, which is important and true love while never abandoning the truth for the Christian truth in love are inextricably intertwined. And so go back and listen to that episode if you haven't listened to it already. And I promise that we would do a part two. I thought about including this part that we're going to get into today in the last episode, but it was just going to be too long. So empathy and inclusion, I think, are two traits that we

have been told are some of the highest values that we should try to aspire to as a country, individually and as Christians. We are told in so many words that empathy and inclusion are a fruit of the spirit. And they are not fruit of the spirit because inclusion and empathy are not the same thing as kindness. They're not the same thing as faithfulness or gentleness or self-control. They can be subsets of those things, but again, not when they cause us to abandon the objective standard set in God's word of what is right, what is wrong, what is true, what is false. And so we're going to talk about inclusion today and how inclusion unfettered inclusion, unconditional inclusion, inclusion coupled with the abandonment of the truth is actually

extremely damaging, not just to you as a person individually, but also to our country as a whole. And I'll give you some examples of that. I don't have to tell you who listen to this podcast faithfully, who have been paying attention at all to what's going on in our culture today, that some of the most vulnerable groups in our society are under attack. We talk a lot about how children are under attack in a variety of ways. We often say that children are always the unconsenting subjects of progressive social experiments, whether we're talking about abortion, whether we're talking about gender ideology in transition, whether we're talking about divisive racial indoctrination in schools, whether we're talking about the unscientific

COVID lockdowns and mask mandates. Kids are always the unconsenting and the defenseless subjects of progressive social experiments. And they have always been the subject of the predation of pagan and secular society going almost all the way back to the beginning, as we talked about last week, in the Disney episode where we talked about the dark history of gender grooming, child sacrifice in one way or another has always existed. And when Christianity came around and disrupted the pagan notion that children and women and slaves are less than the adult free male and are just burdens on society,

when Christianity came in and introduced this concept of radical. equality that we are all made in the image of God. Of course, universalizing in Old Testament's value of people being made in the image of God and then taking it to the next level, that we are all equally dead in sin apart from Christ. And we are all equally heirs once we are in Christ by grace through faith. That was a radical countercultural notion. And we can't even begin to quantify how it has changed the course of history. and it has shaped cultures, especially Western cultures. I mean, the idea of the Amago Day, the idea of all of us needing salvation through Christ,

that is what has laid the foundation of every truly good and truly just movement for the equal rights of people, whether it's the abolition of slavery or whether we are fighting for the abolition of abortion. Let's not try to separate those movements from the gospel because that is what has motivated it. So Christianity has always been radically countercultural in our view of human beings and in particular in our view of women and children. We've talked about before how Ephesians 5, which contains passages that feminists really are angry about, that wives should submit to their husbands as to the Lord. But that wasn't the radical part of Ephesians 5 at the time that Ephesians was written.

The radical part of that passage was not that. wives should submit to their husbands, which was normal at the time in that wives not just had to submit to their husbands, but women had to also just submit to men in general. The radical part, the countercultural part of Ephesians 5 was that husbands were to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. So men, husbands were called to the kind of self-sacrifice, this kind of self-empting, the self-denial that was really only expected of women and children, the elderly, and slaves at the time. Men, the adult free male, which was seen as the center of society in a society that was kind of seen in concentric circles. And as men being the most

important, they were told in scripture that they are to love their wives in a self-sacrificial and humble way, love them so much that it was supposed to emulate how Christ loved his church. Christ died for the church. That was the radical part at the time. There's another part of this segment of Ephesians that says, yes, that children are supposed to obey their parents, which that wasn't the radical part. The radical part back then would have been that fathers were asked, we're told not to provoke their children to anger. We're called through gentleness in love of their child. And so again, we see how this concept of radical equality that all people are dignified

because they are made in the image of God. And then all Christians are equal under Christ. That doesn't do away with all hierarchies as we see as Ephesians 5 describes marriage. But it does introduce new requirements for that hierarchy. It does introduce a demand to love and a demand of self-sacrifice, even for the person who is in charge, even for the person who is the head of the family, which is the husband. And so Christianity has been radical when it comes to how the world views women and children. At her best, the church has been a refuge for women and children, and we are still called to that. We are still called to that today.

And my argument, how this ties in to what we're talking about, is that unfettered and unbiblical empathy and inclusion has actually been harmful to these categories of people, to the most vulnerable. I know that we say we want to be inclusive and we want to be empathetic towards the most vulnerable, but I want to explain to you today, just as I did in the last episode about empathy, how it is actually harming these people and how it is actually inhospitable. and how it is actually inhibiting our ability to carry out justice for the most vulnerable people in our society, specifically, as we'll talk about today, women and children. So I just, I know that was kind of an aside. I wanted to set this up biblically and kind of give us some historical context

for why this stuff matters. Hey, this is Steve Deast. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this Steve Day show right here on Blaze TV

or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. So let's talk specifically about how women are kind of under attack today, actually because of empathy and inclusion. So when it comes to women, we're not just facing our erasure because of inclusion, because you have to include all people by saying things like chest feeding and birthing people.

But also, like we are dealing with women as a whole mistreatment and oppression that comes from that erasure. So what I mean is we're not just getting rid of the word woman and feminine terms in our language, pregnant people, people with uteruses, chest feeding. I mean, that's truly so objectifying and offensive by the same people who say, you can't reduce a woman down to her biological functions or down to her body parts. That's not what makes a woman. Well, those are the same people that are using disgusting terms, like people with a uterus.

Really? I mean, that really is like newspeak. if you have ever read 1984, they expand the language in 1984 while also reducing our concepts down to like the crudest terms. And so your mind is actually limited in what it is able to comprehend and what it actually knows. That's something that happens in 1984 and that's certainly happening now. People with uteruses. There used to be one word for that. And now we've expanded it to actually shrink our consciousness and our understanding of humanity. NPR actually recently announced it's a official editorial position that they will use the term pregnant people instead of pregnant women.

And that in itself is absurd and troubling. But it's worse than rhetorical erasure. It's worse than words. There are tangible real life consequences to this erasure. And NPR said that they were doing this in the name of inclusion. That was the justification that they gave in this long article that said the reason that we're talking about pregnant people and the reason that, you know, we're not going to say pregnant women anymore is because of inclusion. When really like you are excluding people using that language because women don't feel like we are covered by that. Like we have, I mean, women have worked really hard to show that, hey, women give so much value to society.

that burying a child and raising children is not a less than responsibility. It's not a less than role in society. It's really important. And Christianity, like I said, has helped in society's understanding of just how important that is and just how important women are. And now we don't even get our own word. Language changes never happened in a vacuum. And they never happen without consequence.

That's something that the left understands. They are excellent at capital. the culture through changes in language. Abortion is at baby murder. It's just reproductive health. It's just women's rights. And who's against women's rights? Soft on crime policies aren't lawlessness and anarchy and injustice. They're actually criminal justice. And saying pregnant people is an erasure. It's actually inclusion. But here's the deal. Inclusion of one group sometimes means the exclusion of another group or at least the exclusion of the rights or safety of another. not always, but sometimes. And in the case of men and women or men identifying as women and

including them in women's groups, that is the case. So think about this in a non-political sense. If you included your entire neighborhood into your home, your entire community to live there, and you just decided people can come in and out as they please, you would be excluding you and your children's right to a safe home or ability to have a safe home with enough resources for you. You can't have both. You can either have the entire. entire neighborhood or community living in your house or you can have a calm, safe, roomy home for you and your family. You can't have both. You might be able to include some people from your community and still have a safe and roomy home for your family, but you can't include everyone

in your community and still accomplish that. You are excluding the ability of your children to be able to have a safe environment, a comfortable environment in which they can live and grow. This is why inclusion in and of itself is not a virtue. Inclusion by itself, in and of itself, is not a virtue. It is not a goal. It is not a good aim of a country, a company, a team, or anything. Colleges don't include everyone. Athletic teams, Broadway casts, marriages, homes do not include everyone. And if they do, they actually cease to exist because standards and boundaries and definitions is actually what makes them what they are. They cannot be without some kind of exclusion what they were meant to be. They cannot perform their

function. So if a cast of a movie included everyone that tried out, included people that couldn't act, it would be a bad movie. No one would want to see it. And it wouldn't deliver what it was meant to deliver. It wouldn't be able to function the way it's supposed to function. Every entity must exclude because every entity has standards. It has to maintain the integrity of the, of the function and the purpose of the entity. That means that every entity must discriminate. That is a word that we are told is universally negative, that you never want to be discriminatory,

but no one actually believes that. You have to be discriminatory. There are people that you can't hire for your company. You can't choose everyone. There are people that you can't pick for your team. There are people that you wouldn't choose to come into your house. You discriminate against people by, by excluding them. Exclusion and discrimination have, as I said, negative connotations in our world today,

and inclusion and equality have universally positive connotations. But the truth is, any entity will fail if they are endlessly inclusive and ensure everyone has equal outcomes. So no discrimination. The best entities exclude and discriminate against those that would threaten the function, the safety, and the goals of their organization or their country or whatever it is. teams discriminate against players that aren't good enough by excluding them from the roster. You discriminated against other guys before you met your husband by excluded them from your list of marriage prospects. Businesses discriminate against people outside of their company by excluding them from employment and maybe within their company by excluding them from promotion. Thus, the athletes,

the guys in your life, the potential employees and the employees in your company did not enjoy equality. They didn't enjoy equal outcomes. They were discriminated against. They may have been offered equal opportunity, but they weren't given equal outcomes. Exclusion and discrimination are necessary part of our lives because they protect the form and function of organizations and entities. If you include everyone who wants to come to America into the country, we cease to be a country. We cease to be a sovereign nation. We don't have borders. We don't have citizenship, which means there are no rights that come from citizenship, which means citizens have no voting power, which means we have no legitimate elected, legitimately elected governing body, which means we have no legitimate laws and no legitimate protection.

We become a place of lawlessness ruled by anarchy where no one is protected and the most vulnerable women, children, the elderly, the poor, the disabled are on the chopping block. If you include every faith into Christianity, every doctrine into Christianity, it is no longer Christianity. John 146, Jesus says I'm the way, the truth in the life. No one comes to the father except through me, not through Buddha or Muhammad or yourself or Marianne Williamson through Christ. Christianity is an inclusive religion in that it doesn't matter what you've done, what your nationality is, where you come from, how rich you are, how smart you are, but it's exclusive in the sense that there is one way and one way only to be forgiven of

your sense of reconciled to God, and that is by grace through faith in Christ. If Jesus isn't the only way to God, Christianity ceases to be Christianity. It's just, I don't know, some form of agnosticism or universalism. So it is with almost everything. There must be standards. There must be limits. There must be definitions. There must be boundaries.

And most people seem to understand that. So most people understand what we're talking about in the necessity of exclusion and discrimination. And I'll talk about the different. kinds of exclusion and discrimination in a minute because I know that that might be what you're thinking. Well, you know, some discrimination and exclusion is wrong. And obviously I agree with you. We'll get to that difference in just a second. But when we say that discrimination and exclusion are universally, objectively bad, we're actually employing some cognitive dissonance there because most people understand this when it comes to companies or colleges or casts.

And at one point, not too long ago, we generally agreed that discriminatory. and exclusion is acceptable as long as it is on merit or in the case of religious organizations because of a biological or a theological rather or moral belief. But progressivism, the current left doesn't really seem to believe that anymore. Progressivism has a very, in my opinion, wonky view of inclusion. Progressivism in the United States, as much as they say, therefore, inclusion and equality and anti-discrimination, they're actually not. What they mean by inclusion is greater representation of the people that they deem marginalized to the exclusion of everyone else. And so that's another reason why we should be really careful

to say, oh, yeah, we want to be inclusive because what progressives mean by inclusive is actually not just inclusive. We should include everyone. They don't mean that we should include Christians or we should include conservatives or we should include heterodox viewpoints. they mean they want to include their groups to the exclusion of other groups. And so they actually understand, progressives actually understand that inclusion necessarily typically means the exclusion of other groups. That's why conservatives, Christians can't be tricked by that word because it's not entirely innocuous. For example, affirmative action policies in academia, in the government, or in corporate America discriminate against, exclude whites and Asians in favor of black Americans. In fact,

Every institutionalized form of discrimination today actually cuts in favor of black Americans and against white and Asian Americans. That's a fact. You cannot find me an equity or an inclusion policy or program that does not explicitly seek to elevate black people, even if that means excluding equally qualified or more qualified white and Asian candidates. That's been true for years. That's not just since George Floyd. Like, that's been true for decades in the United States. There's actually a case before the Supreme Court right now about this regarding discrimination, by colleges against whites and Asians, I think it's going to be decided by the Supreme Court this summer. Progressives are also okay with inclusive policies that exclude the rights of those that they deem less important or that they view with hostility.

The Equality Act is a great example of that. Churches and religious schools would be forced to include employees whose sexuality or so-called gender identity is against their faith's teachings to the exclusion of these organizations. rights to practice their religion sincerely. So Christian hospitals would be forced to include abortions and sex change surgeries, probably under the Equality Act. But what is really meant when people say that we should be for inclusion and against discrimination, like in the most truly innocent and sincere way, what most people mean, I'm not talking about a lot of people on the left. I'm not talking about progressive ideal.

but I think, you know, just the average, moderate, center-left, center-right, and conservative American, when they're saying we're for inclusion and against discrimination, typically what we mean is that we should include people of all races in sexual orientations and gender identities and disabilities and so on. Insofar as we are judging everyone. by the same standards of merit. So typically what is meant is that we shouldn't discriminate against them because of things they cannot control. They should all be judged by the same standard, which is the qualifications with the

abilities that they bring to the table. But it's important to understand there are different kinds of discrimination. And Thomas Oll talks about this in his book, discrimination and disparities. There's discrimination one, discrimination two. There's a certain kind of discrimination that we just talked about that. everyone discriminates, every entity has to discriminate against people. You have to exclude people because you have standards. Some people don't meet those standards. And so you don't hire those people. You don't include those people. And then there's the discrimination that most people, most sane people are

against, which is you should not discriminate against someone because of their immutable characteristics. Unless, again, it's a Christian or religious organization that says, well, you don't live in a way that aligns with our faith. And so we are going to exclude you because of that, which actually would be some kind of qualification. So most people are against that kind of discrimination. Like if you polled people on the left and the right, they would agree that you shouldn't discriminate against a person for a job because of their immutable characteristics. Sure, we can exclude people based on you know, merit or qualifications, but we shouldn't exclude someone based on something that they can't control. Most people would probably even say you shouldn't cease to be friends with someone because

of an innate characteristic. Most people would say when it comes to marriage, you shouldn't exclude someone as a prospect because of their race or disability. So Most people, regardless of political affiliation, would agree with this or so it would seem. However, as we've already touched on when we talked about affirmative action and the kind of inclusion exclusion that the left really means when they use these terms, the left and the right do not agree on who should be discriminated against in hell, because progressives are absolutely for racial discrimination, as we just talked about, as long as the discrimination cuts in favor of black Americans and against whites and Asians, which is exactly what every single affirmative

action policy does. Progressives will applaud different lower standards for black people for the sake of inclusion and equity, even if it means that you are excluding other people who reach higher standards. And so it is also. so is this kind of dissonance, this kind of hypocrisy, this kind of duplicitousness from the left when it comes to inclusion. So it is when it comes to the inclusion of so-called transgender people into sex-specific spaces. When a man who calls himself a woman gets to swim against women that is excluding the right of a young woman to a fair competition. Because, as we've talked about,

so many times, men, regardless of. at their hormone therapy, regardless of the length of their hair or the nail polish they wear, or the name they decide to be called by, have a larger heart, they have greater lung capacity, they have greater bone density, more muscle mass than women, which translates into even amateur male athletes being faster and stronger than elite male athletes. Study after study proves this. No amount of propaganda is ever going to change it. As I like to say, human nature, truth in general is like a beach ball. And ideologues, activists, crazy people can keep trying to push that beach ball underwater, it's going to eventually pop back up.

So by including a man in women's sports, you've excluded a woman's ability to compete fairly. When you include a man in a woman's locker room or bathroom, you've excluded a woman's right to not have to see or be a scene by or be next to a naked man. We used to think that a woman had a right not to be sexually harassed. And now apparently women don't have that right. And you hear there are activists. They're anti-trans or I don't know if it's anti-trans. I guess it's more just like pro-sex protected spaces activists who identify as lesbians,

who often call out these pro-transgender LGBTQ groups that say that it is bigotry for a lesbian not to want to date or be with a man who identifies as a woman, that that's some form of bigotry. And so you're not supposed to, that's another, that's another thing. Or let's just use like a person who is attracted to the opposite sex. If you are to include, if it is inclusive to include so-called transgender people in your dating pool, then that means that you are no longer heterosexual because you are forced for the sake of empathy and inclusion or you are being pressured for the sake of empathy and inclusion to date a woman who identifies as a man if you are a woman. And we are told that that is what you have to do in order to be inclusive and empathetic. You are excluding your

right, your ability to actually be with someone that you are attracted to and you cease to be the thing that you are. You see the problem with unconditional and unfettered inclusion that it in itself is not a value. And that's what happens when for the sake of inclusion you are raising the biological distinctions of male and female. When you refuse, for example, to say that only women, exclusively women, have uteruses and can't give birth. And only men, exclusively men, have testicles. And you instead say, well, actually, women can have a penis and men can give birth. Then you no longer have any justification for the separation or the special protection of the sexes. That's a problem. Not just when it comes to female athletics, not just when it comes to female locker rooms and

bathrooms, although those spaces are really important, but also in domestic abuse shelters, where women should be protected against men. Yes, even men who say that they are women. And they need to be protected in prisons. Right now in states like Washington, in Oregon, in California, I'm pretty sure this is true in Canada. I'd be shocked if it weren't. That a man who identifies as a woman, even if he has a history of domestic violence, even if he has a history of pedophilia, the worst kinds of sexual predation and abuse that you can possibly think of, if he says that he is a man, there is no hormone requirement,

there is no kind of scientific requirement or surgery requirement or anything for that man to then be transferred to a woman's prison just because he says he's a woman. That's what postmodernism does, postmodernism, which says there really is no truth, except for your truth, except for what you decide is true. There is no objective reality. There is no science that can be easily comprehended. Everything is something that is kind of intangible and only these activist ideological academics can really tell you what's true.

And these ideological activist academics who have pointless degrees in gender studies, they are saying with their fake authority that for a man to be a woman, all he has to do is say that he's a woman. That's the problem with credentialism. That is the problem with postmodernism. And that is, of course, in essence, a product of godlessness, because God is the source of all truth. And scripture tells us who he made us as, which is male and female. So of course, when you abandon God, you're going to end up abandoning truth, even the most obvious truth, that there is a separation and distinction, an important distinction between men and women. women because we are the weaker sex. I know that some people say this is internalized misogyny or this

is whatever it is. This is some kind of sexism to say women are physically weaker. On average, the vast majority of us are shorter and smaller and weaker. We have smaller bones. We have less muscle mass. We don't have as much aggression because we don't have as much testosterone. We are weaker and we are subject to male predation. That's why the vast majority of domestic abuse victims of rape victims are women. And the vast majority of people who are perpetrating those crimes are men. That's not a coincidence. That's not societal conditioning. That's not some kind of stereotype. That's been true for all of human history. And yet, that is the consequence of unfettered inclusion. Unfetered inclusion means that you are unable to create safe spaces, something that I thought

the left cared about, but they're really only talking about the danger of hurt feelings. They're not talking about the danger of hurt bodies of women who are forced into prisons with men who identify as women. Unfettered inclusion excludes our ability to protect the most vulnerable, to protect women and children. And that is why, once again, once again, the church should be not just a refuge for these women and children, but a beacon of light and of clarity. That's actually why it matters so much, guys,

that our language is clear, that we don't give in on the pronoun stuff, that we refuse to call a man, she or her, that we refuse to call a woman, he or him, even if that is their identity, because we deny that it is possible to identify as something other than what the body that God gave you says that you are. There is no biblical or scientific truly category of gender identity

as something that is a departure or detached from sex. And so because we believe that God is good, because we believe that he is the creator of the universe and he is the authority over right and wrong, what's good and what's bad, what's true, and what's false. Because we believe the first chapter of the Bible that God made us in his image male and female because we believe that and we know that he is love, 1 John 4-8th, therefore everything that he says, everything that he designs, everything that he defines,

everything that he includes or excludes is all done instead from love because we know that and we know therefore that we cannot out love God, we cannot out-truth God, we cannot out-smart God, we cannot out-justice God. it is the most loving thing that we can do to agree with him. Therefore, the most loving thing that we can do is affirm that God made us male and female, not just because of all of the very tangible and physical and psychological consequences that this ideology is placing on young people, but also just because it's obedience. What does Jesus say loving God looks like obeying his commandments? It's not unfettered inclusion. It's not unconditional empathy. It is not the abandonment of

truth because you want to make someone feel comfortable. I'm not saying we should be unnecessarily harsh or brutal in our language. I'm not saying that, but I am saying that the truth cannot be extracted from biblical love. What does 1 Corinthians 13 say? As we talked about last week, love, biblical love, the only true kind of love that exists, rejoices in the truth. It doesn't rejoice in wrongdoing. It rejoices with the truth. And we've also talked about, which we won't get into right now, the dark roots, the demonic history of this gender ideology that I think that if we knew the connections, this ideology and the people who started this ideology, the people that were on the front line to this activism, if we knew the true nefarious motivations and the perversion that is

innate in this ideology, we would realize that the people who are a part of it today, they have actually fallen prey to its predation. And the most loving thing that we can do, We want to be lovers of justice, lovers of true liberation, liberation from sin, is speak the truth clearly in love. The church has always been, at her best, a refuge for the most vulnerable, which throughout history has been mostly women and children. And we're still seeing that today in new ways. We're seeing new forms of child sacrifice.

We're seeing new forms of female subjugation. And so the church needs to take up the torch that has always taken up that it has always been our role to be a beacon of truth, to be a lighthouse in the storm, to be a refuge of clarity. The world is so confusing and chaotic and turbulent. Let us be a refuge of clarity for people who are confused. You cannot do that unless you are speaking clearly. Do not fall into the trap of saying, well, we just have to be inclusive and loving or inclusive and empathetic. We should be loving, truly biblically loving. But don't. buy into the trap that true biblical love means unfettered, unconditional, worldly, inclusion,

and empathy because it doesn't. These things can actually be inhibitors of true biblical love of the most vulnerable. Okay, guys, that's all we've got for today. Thank you so much for listening as usual. We will be back here tomorrow with a fun Q&A that I know that you guys are going to love. If you love this podcast, please leave us a five-star review, subscribe. on YouTube as well, and we will see you guys back here tomorrow. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political.

They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want to be.

want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.