Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - REPLAY | Churches: Beware of the 'After Party' Trojan Horse | Guest: Megan Basham

Episode Date: June 6, 2026

Allie was joined by Megan Basham, culture reporter for the Daily Wire, to discuss her investigation into the After Party, a curriculum written by Curtis Chang, David French, and Russell Moore, which is being pushed onto churches in an effort to bring Christians of different political backgrounds together. Megan shares how this curriculum not only fails at its objective but is funded by secular progressives: Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. We discuss why Rockefeller’s interest in bankrolling Bible studies is a red flag, including the fact that among the other initiatives funded are organizations that are pro-LGBTQ and pro-abortion. What's in the After Party curriculum and what message is it really sending? We also look at the "AND Campaign" and how it is also funded by the Rockefellers. We explain how politics is a way to love our neighbor and why getting it right matters for the church. --- Timecodes: (01:12) What is The After Party? / Rockefeller funding (07:50) What are their motivations? (15:00) What's in the curriculum? (32:28) The AND Campaign / moral equivalence (42:53) X / Twitter exchange about abortion / politics in Christianity (49:20) Can Christians vote Democrat? Links: Megan Basham: "Follow the Money to The After Party" https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2024/01/follow-the-money-to-the-after-party --- Relevant Episodes: Ep 607 | John MacArthur, Hillsong Documentary & SBC Drama | Guest: Megan Basham https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-607-john-macarthur-hillsong-documentary-sbc-drama/id1359249098?i=1000558899144 Ep 920 | Russell Moore, David French & the Fake Threat of Christian Nationalism | Guest: John Cooper https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-920-russell-moore-david-french-the-fake-threat/id1359249098?i=1000638231068 Ep 508 | My Response to John Piper, Tim Keller & Big Eva https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-508-my-response-to-john-piper-tim-keller-big-eva/id1359249098?i=1000539092606 Share the Arrows 2026 is on October 10 in Dallas, Texas! Tickets are on sale now at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://sharethearrows.com⁠⁠⁠Share the Arrows is sponsored by:A'del Natural Cosmetics: AdelNaturalCosmetics.comRange Leather: RangeLeather.com/ALLIEWe Heart Nutrition: WeHeartNutrition.comBuy Allie's book "Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion": ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.toxicempathy.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ---► Buy Allie's book, "You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love": https://alliebethstuckey.com/book► Subscribe to the podcast:iTunes: https://apple.co/2UVssnPSpotify: https://spoti.fi/2FwkXxj► Connect with Allie on Social Media: https://twitter.com/conservmillenhttps://www.instagram.com/alliebstuckey/https://facebook.com/allieBlazeTV/► Relatable merchandise – use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

A new curriculum called After Party is being pushed onto churches, promising to bring Christians of different political backgrounds together and back to the fundamentals that Jesus taught. Unfortunately, this curriculum does not deliver on this promise and actually is funded by secular progressives. Here today to uncover all of this and more is Megan Basham. She is a reporter for The Daily Wire. Fascinating conversation. You are going to learn a lot from this. I know I did. This episode is brought to by our friends at Good Ranchers.

Go to Good Ranchers.com. Use code Alley and check out this good ranchers.com code Alley. Megan, thank you so much for joining us again. I really appreciate it. Thank you. It's always good to be here. Yes. Okay.

Tell me about this. This is right up our alley. I know my audience is going to be really interested in learning about this. Let's start with, okay, what is the after party? What is it? I bet most people listening to this have no idea what that is. Right. And they might find out soon what it is. So the after party, it's a Bible study curriculum that was developed by Curtis Chang, who is a former pastor and a Duke Divinity consulting professor. I believe he's done some work in Silicon Valley, but he really became known for the website, Christians and the vaccine.

So he was working in partnership with the federal government to sort of spread the message that Christians needed to not be afraid of the COVID vaccine, needed to get vaccinated. And he had a fairly viral video that went out that said, if you were concerned about it being derived from aborted cells at one point, you know, way back in its history, you should look at it as the, as like an image of Jesus's redemption of sinners. So the vaccine was a redemption of that sin. It was very bizarre, but it kind of went viral. And so he, in partnership with David French and Russell Moore, developed this Bible study called the after party that is supposed to address political divisiveness and partisanship. So, you know, at the outset, an interesting choice of three people, because I don't think when we think of David French, for instance, we necessarily think of someone who is carrying

the message of turning down. the tone of political divisiveness among Christians. But leaving that aside for the moment, when the Bible study came out, it also came out right about the same time as an Atlantic writer, Tim Alberta's book, Warning About Christian Nationalism Came Out. And in that book, he mentioned interviewing Curtis Chang. And he said they were developing this Bible study curriculum to go to churches, but they could not get any evangelical backers. They couldn't get any Christians who wanted to fund it. So they had to turn to mostly progressive unbelievers. And it didn't offer any more information than that. And, you know, Chang, Moore and French were very much sort of the hero of this

little vignette in the book. Well, you know, naturally your reportedly spidey senses go off and go, well, wait a minute. Who are these secular backers who are funding a Bible study about politics that's going to be going into evangelical churches. So I did some digging. And the first thing that I found was that they were part of a big grant funding round from Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, which, if you're not familiar, is a very secular left foundation. They have given, yeah, big, big dollars, $100 million to an initiative to help transgender

youth, LGBTQ, queer youth, as they put it, get gender affirming care. They are funders of abortion initiatives and things of this nature. And that was way back. Like the Rockefeller's, I know that the Rockefeller name is sometimes the center of a lot of conspiracy theories, but the truth, the verifiable truth is that this family has been a funder of progressive causes like Planned Parenthood, like abortion initiatives, like you said for a very, very long time. So the fact that they're funding, helping to fund a Bible study should raise all the red flags. Right. And just to flesh that out, even a little bit more,

you know, even in this grant funding round, there were other initiatives that were for things like promoting LGBTQ rural leadership, supporting a group who's looking to keep, you know, to keep fossil fuel resources in the ground on behalf of climate justice. So even in just this one grant funding round, it had a lot of other secular left projects that it was funding in the same round as the after party. And when I reached out to the after party and asked them about this, you know, they said, well, we're going to update our website to be more transparent about our funding. And they also happened to reveal at that point that another of their big backers is the Hewlett Foundation,

which is, of course, the second largest funder of Planned Parenthood. So these are not great partners to have. Yeah. And, you know, so then from there, I go to the website. I look at, okay, who are there? This is who their financial backers are, but who are they partnering with to sort of get the word out about this curriculum to help support it, maybe just through using social media, spheres of influence.

and one of their, you know, what they say is one of our partners is a group called One America Movement, which is itself. It builds itself as an ecumenical group, meaning people of different religious faiths coming together to address political divisiveness. But you go on their board and you see that one of their board members is a woman at an LGBTQ affirming synagogue. Another one is a man who founded Black Lives Matter in New York. and he has defended rioting as self-defense,

and he has called Jesus a black radical revolutionary. So, yeah, so these are the partners that after party is working with. And, you know, when I saw that, I went, this should be a major red flag for Christian churches that are bringing this in. There was a major pastors conference, very mainstream evangelical pastors conference at a big church in Mesa, and they were hosting Curtis Chang and Russell Moore to speak on this topic of political divisiveness in the church. And I heard from a president of a small Christian college, who is a member of the CCCU,

which is the, I always stumble on their acronym, but the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. And he said they also sent out an email saying, this curriculum is coming. we encourage you to bring it onto your campuses in your student life ministries or in your pastoral classes. So that is a really concerning issue that, you know, they're pushing this everywhere, and these are the people who want to make sure that it's getting into your churches and your Christian colleges. Wow. Okay. So what do you think? I know that we can't read hearts and minds, and so if you don't want to answer this question, that's fine. But just based on what you know, you've probably

watch more closely than anyone, the evolution of people like David French and Russell Moore, like what would be the motivations of people like this who profess to be conservative Christians? And I'm not, you know, I'm not doubting their salvation. But why would they want to partner with not just, okay, we're not just talking about secular forces or secular entities, but we are talking about entities that are and have been for a very long time diametrically opposed to Christ, diametrically opposed to Christian values, who are funding things like abortion, like practices and organizations that conservative Christians have been fighting against for years.

I don't really understand why do Russell Moore and David French want to partner with people like this who, you know, have set themselves as enemies against the cross of Christ for so long? And like you said, I can't read their hearts, but I can see sort of. of what the trajectory has been. And if you look at someone like David French, for example, most people outside of a very niche conservative Christian audience wouldn't really have known who he was a few months ago, or excuse me, a few years ago. But since he became a very prominent Trump critic, there has been a, I will say,

a lot of rewards within the secular media. He is now a columnist at the New York Times, which is, you know, about the pinnacle of secular media career. That's about as high as you can get. So, and you look at that and they're also being given very prestigious fellowships. They're working with Trinity Forum now. And, you know, that was another element of this that I didn't get into. But one of their other partners is Trinity Forum.

And for this curriculum that is supposed to be about how to move beyond partisan politics, while Trinity Forum is participating with never Trump political action committees. So these are things that are very political. And I think that that is probably part of it too. I mean, there's a certain irony in saying, we are going to promote this curriculum about how to not be political when I think you can say that David French and Russell Moore and Curtis Chang, though he's a little less known, are some of the most political voices in evangelicalism. If you look at David, or excuse me, Russell Moore in particular, he was very out front in pushing amnesty immigration bills, bills that a lot of conservatives did not like. So I think that that can be part of it is I think you can say there's probably some political motivation there in that they don't particularly like the candidate who has come to dominate Republican politics.

And I can understand that, but they've been very outspoken in saying that there was a compromise of principle among Christians that they did vote for this candidate, that they did back this candidate. So I think there may be a certain element of saying, we have to be right here and to be right, all of those other people have to be wrong, even though that choice that they made did result in the Dobbs decision. And so I think you can see people just over a trajectory, they just sort of start to dig in because I am not going to admit that maybe I did not have full perspective on what was motivating some other people to make their political choices. So let me try to,

in the best way that I can articulate what I think, would say they are doing and what they would say after party is about the and the reason why I think it's important to do this is because when this curriculum is presented at your church, you are going to hear it in the most unifying and innocuous terms possible. So I think it's important for us to recognize what that message will be and then what is actually lying behind it, which is what you articulated. What they are probably saying is that God is neither Republican nor Democrat and the church does not need to be endlessly divided by the issues of race, the issues of immigration, the issues of abortion, the issues of the vaccine. We need to go back to remembering what is

fundamental, what holds us together. And we don't need to be idolizing politicians or any kind of political partisan position, but we need to go back to just following biblical principles. We need to keep the first thing, the first thing. And we need to unite races. We need to, unite ethnicities and nationalities and people of all different backgrounds to ensure that we are advancing God's kingdom first and foremost. And unfortunately, there has been this scary idolatry of Donald Trump. They might not even say Donald Trump. They would probably just say, you know, a politician or whatever among white evangelicals. And there has been a scary rise of nationalism and a scary rise of isolationism that we really need to guard ourselves against because

you know, our citizenship is in heaven. That's what we'll hear our citizenship is in heaven. It's, it's not America First. America First is an unbiblical position, whether you're looking at immigration or foreign conflict or whatever. That's kind of how they present it. And you could see how someone who's maybe not very politically savvy or someone who has kind of imbibed this holistically pro-life. And I use scare quotes there. Mentality of, okay, to really be pro-life, if you have to be like for, you know, all welfare and open borders and against the death penalty and all these things, you could see how that is appealing, how someone who is tired of partisan politics would hear that message and say, oh, that sounds like a relief. That sounds great.

I don't want to be involved in partisan politics. I'm sick of the news cycle. So that's how it's being presented, right? Right. But tell us, like, what's really going on? Like, what is actually the curriculum? Okay, yes. So I watched through all of this curriculum. And, you know, as I told my husband, about 80% of it is what you just described, just this sort of pablam of, let's not be divisive. This is exhausting. Our kingdom, our citizenship is in the kingdom of heaven. Yes, those things are true. But we also, by God's grace, have been allowed to be citizens of a representative republic. And that comes with certain responsibilities to see to the health of the republic. That

part of our job as citizens to vote, to use our speech in responsible ways that benefit our republic and benefit our states and our communities to freely associate in those same ways for issues that we think are really important, like protecting the lives of innocent people like the unborn. So, you know, it was really interesting. As you watch through the curriculum, it was very, very shallow. It did not deal with any of that. It did not deal with verses like render unto Caesar.

What is Caesar? Well, I would argue that, you know, our political responsibilities, you might say, are Cesar's. And that is something that we as Christians steward for the good of our neighbor and our children and our country. And it didn't get into that at all. It also didn't get into those verses about, you know, working for the good of the place that you live.

And so really, there was so little Bible. And that was really shocking to me that I went there. For a Bible study, there is just. no Bible here. There's just kind of this sloganeering. And one of the most interesting points of the series that came up to me was when they kept emphasizing David French in this one segment in particular said, you have to have humility when you approach complex issues. If anyone tells you that they know how to solve an issue, you need to be on your guard. And as he was saying that, there was someone holding up a pro-life sign in the background. So it seemed

like a very clear message that if you think you have a clear response to a complex issue like abortion, then you need to be on your guard against that person. Well, some issues are complex, and Christians can have different views, but not on abortion. I mean, thou shalt not murder. It is not complex. It's not nuanced. Yeah. Right. That is not nuanced. And I think that that is a strategy to say, gosh, everything's complex. And you can't be sure you have to show humility. Well, to show humility about something that God is very clear on, we're not to be humble on God's behalf. I mean, we may need to be humble on, you know, our approach and how we talk to our neighbors, but when it comes to the truth, we don't have to be humble about knowing what the truth is.

And we certainly know that that's a life. And we certainly know that we should act in defense of that life. So that is one of the clear things to me was that, you know, I was really troubled by how much they continually return to that look, be humble, you don't know, you could be wrong. And then on the flip side, you know, they... Did God really say, Megan? Did God really say, why don't you have some humility, Eve? Why don't you have some humility, Eve? You're telling me that you really know what God said, Eve?

Why don't you have some humility? Right. And let me tell you what God really meant. Because really God's commands, Megan, they were just so nuanced. Yeah, he might have said. Very hard to decipher. Very hard to decipher. I mean, literally, this is a satanic message. You think you know what God said about murder. You think you know what God said about life inside the womb. Did God really say? Wow. Well, and what's odd to me is it's coming from people who have been so very certain on things that truly were issues of conscience where Christians

might differ, like the vaccine, like, you know, COVID mandates and lockdowns. I mean, I kind of want to remind people that David French said Christians who were not willing to get vaccinated for a lot of really good reasons. Maybe you were a woman of childbearing age. Maybe you were trying to get pregnant. Maybe you just wanted to sit back and see like, gosh, you know, this is something new. I just don't feel comfortable in my spirit about this. They accused you of not caring for your neighbors, not loving your neighbors, being willing to see your neighbor die if you didn't want to get this vaccine or you didn't want to not go to church. So, you know, that's a lot. was an interesting element of this to see confusion on something that is extremely clear where they

have taken very hardline positions on things that should have been matters of conscience and and that goes for curtis cheng as well who again had this website that was dedicated to christians on the vaccine telling you to get that and you know there have been other elements with curtis chang who i i think it should be known that is a democrat he has done things like you know encouraged christians who lived in california don't vote to recall Governor Gavin Newsom when that recall vote was up. I mean, that was a public post that he was saying, you know, here's reasons you shouldn't do that. And, you know, and smearing the church, I will say publicly, saying that we own, we,

the church own what happened on January 6th. Oh, yes. Something I categorically reject. That you've talked about that he blames the American church for January 6th. What in the world? Right. And that is the kind of thing. I would say that you saw that same language from more and French, this idea that because

there are some fringe people who claim the name of Christian doing fringy things, this is somehow an indictment of the entire evangelical Christian church in America. And I categorically reject that. You're always going to have fringe groups doing some fringe things. And the church is not to blame for that. Now, we may want to minister to those people. we may want to speak out on it, but the church doesn't own that. And, you know, maybe final point.

The church is never to blame. The church is only to blame when people on the right do something bad. The church is never to blame when people on the left do something bad. Of course, he's not going to call out the quote unquote black church for BLM riots. He's just going to call out the white church, as it were, because of, you know, for January 6th. So it's just a shrouded way to try to continue. condemn people on the right. It's just what it is. And that's personally what I think that this curriculum is. Now, I haven't gone through it. And I'm not saying, and I don't hear you say that

every. I have. So yes. So I don't think that you're saying that everything they say is objectively wrong or everything that they say is untrue. Maybe there are some things in there that are helpful to me. What I've read and what I'm hearing you say is that it is a shrouded attempt to basically say, Christians do not stand up for what you believe in if by doing so you are representing what is considered a politically conservative position. If you stand on the side of life, if you stand for strong borders or whatever, you need to have humility, which means you need to be so confused about your position that you're not actually confident enough to say. I see that all the time among Christian women, by the way. It's not just the empathy shaming that we receive. It's also

the humility shaming. And if you would just be humble, what they really mean is, if you would just be humble, you would agree with me. If you would just be humble, you would be pro-choice. If you would just be humble, you would see that razor wire is not okay on the border. If you would just be humble, you would see that you shouldn't vote Republican. When, well, what about their pride? What about their pride in assuming that if we had humility, we would just agree with them? I don't know. It just doesn't seem to go both ways. Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, it was interesting because there is a moment in the curriculum where you brought up the black church and it was taken for granted that one of the issues that, you know, Christians have to be working on. And this was stated as fact is the

system that represses black people in the United States. Now, it's in the second, either the last or the second to last episode of this series. And I went, okay, so there are some issues that you think are clear and that's one of them, which again, I would say, look, we could all look at the facts and the data of, you know, what has happened in police departments across the country and look at differing reasons why, you know, differing demographics might have different levels of success in different areas. And there is, that is complex. It's incredibly complex when you look at the history of, you know, federal programs that disincentivize marriage in certain communities and things like that. So that was really just interesting to me that that was a point at which they went.

This thing, however, is clear. And, you know, ultimately, I go, there was very little Bible in this. I mean, maybe a couple of mentions of a few verses, but I mean, this was not a Bible study at all. And then the other thing being that the people leading it, you have three guys. If you were really trying to go, let's look at the arc of divisiveness and evangelicalism. Why don't you bring in, say, a David French, but also Dr. Albert Moeller. People who really represent a range of views to wrestle with these issues. And that was very much not what they did. They brought in three like-minded people to tell you why you should be more humble about

the issues they think you should be humble about. Yeah. And it's just so telling to me who funds it that, I mean, I think really the biggest impediment to America being fully progressive is. the evangelical Christian. It just is. We just are the most conservative on most issues. And so if you can convince that group, which is really kind of like the last obstacle there, that sure, you can believe the things that you believe as long as you don't say it, as long as you don't act on it, as long as you don't vote on it. Meanwhile, you're telling everyone else that all the progressives

that in order to be a good person or even in order to be a good Christian, You do have to act upon your progressive worldview. You do have to be a left-wing activist. You do have to take it as fact that America is systemically racist. One of the verses that I guess they mentioned, so classic, Micah 6-8, seek justice, love mercy, which is one of the most misused verses because they say that, but then they define justice as the world defines justice, which is social justice, which is not biblical justice at all.

And so I'm guessing that they take no time to actually define. those things as God defines them. Actually, that was an interesting point. And I jotted it down as soon as I heard it was, you know, Curtis Chang said that we work for justice as Micah tells us. And working for justice is to make sure that everybody gets what is fair and what they need. And I went, that is not justice. Yeah.

That is not the definition of justice. The definition of justice accords with God's law. The Lord tells us in scripture what justice looks like in his law. not making sure that everyone is getting what they need, which is a very, you know, amorphous definition that could mean anything to any person. We know where justice is and where we find the definition of justice. And I did find it pretty fascinating that even though this this Bible study curriculum is not supposed to be about partisanship, it's not supposed to tell you how to vote, what to vote for,

but how you should approach it. When Rockefeller noted the funding, they said, it's going to be unrollable. in the battleground, and they use that word, battleground of Ohio. And none of these people, Curtis Chang, David French, or Russell Moore, live in Ohio. So that was interesting. And then, you know, the big issue, when you look at it, you go, in part of the Bible study, they say, really what Jesus wants for you when you approach politics is, yes, you think about personal relationships, but the relational approach and how you approach it relationally

is what you should prioritize, not policies. And I went, that's what politics is policy. Politics is setting policy by definition. So I don't know what that would mean to say, I'm going to approach politics relationally and not with an eye toward policy. What? Yeah, I couldn't make sense of that.

No, no. If you follow me on Twitter, I posted a screenshot of it, and I went, I am trying to make sense of what this means because that's what politics is, setting policy. And what we often say, politics matter because policy matters, because people matter, because politics affects policy, policy affects people, and people matter. That is, as you mentioned earlier, politics is not, it's not the number one way to love our neighbor,

but it's a way to love our neighbor. And we should be advocating for the policies that align most with our biblical worldview because we believe that God's ways are better. That's not the same thing is scary Christian nationalism, depending on how you define it, or scary theocratic fascism. It's not forcing people to believe what we believe, but we do believe that Christians are called to do what everyone in representative democracy is doing, which is vote in accordance with your worldview. But this curriculum, like so many other of these Christian, nuanced, nonpartisan organizations, they are encouraging Christian conservatives to be the only ones to check our worldview at the door. We are the only ones. We are the

only ones that have to compartmentalize our faith, compartmentalize our beliefs before we vote. We have some Christian obligation, apparently, to vote in a way that opposes what we believe. While everyone else is allowed to influence curriculum, corporate policy, legislation based on their moral worldview, Christian conservatives, can't. I think that's what this curriculum is. It's convincing Christian conservatives that you have to vote in a way that actually opposes your moral worldview. But everyone else doesn't have to do that. Yeah.

I mean, that was essentially what I took away from that, was that you should be somewhat quiet and I don't know if they would have used the word ashamed, but that was how I came away from, you know, from it going, gosh, you should, you know, just be very gentle in how you present your opinions and your worldview. And, you know, to a certain degree, you go, well, yeah, you don't, you don't want to be a jerk. You don't want to be aggressive. But I think you can be confident because confidence.

is persuasive. Confidence often gets you a hearing in a world that seems very confused and doesn't know where they're going, what they're doing, what the answers to life are. So I think this constant counseling to not be confident is designed to do exactly what you're saying, which is mute and suppress the Christian influence on our culture. And I think we need to know that our influence, whether they know it or not for our unbelieving neighbor is good for them as well. That it brings prosperity, it brings well-being to communities, to nations. And when you look at that, you go, that is a really important thing to think about, is that you are doing good by ensuring the good policies are enacted.

And, you know, when I look at this, I try to wrap my head around what they're thinking here. and I really do have trouble with it because if they had not given succor to something like Black Lives Matter, how many, say, communities of color were burned and destroyed? That wasn't good for our neighbor. That wasn't good for other communities. And it would have been better if we had not been so humble about not speaking out against that when it started. Yeah. Ironically, this, what I believe to be a lie, that America is systemically racist and that all

disparities are the evidence of discrimination. That is a very divisive lie that divides the church to this day, unfortunately. And so again, it's like, okay, you're not supposed to be political unless you agree with our politics. You can't advocate for a justice outside of social justice. You can't advocate for policies that are outside of what these people think are acceptable, which is you can kind of be, I think the most that they would accept is Christ-like is like center-right. But beyond that is scary and divisive, whatever. The Anne campaign, do they, are they involved in this? Yeah. So it was funny. Afterwards, you know, the Anne campaign came out and Justin Gibney did an interview where he said, I don't know if they're directly involved,

but he certainly took me to task and said, and I thought this was an interesting admission, hey, this isn't okay to tag them just because they're being funded by these hard left secular organizations because so are we. What? I went, okay. Yeah. So he just gave an interview where he said, yes, we are also funded by Rockefeller. So I did not know that.

Wait, Megan, I did not know this. Okay. Sorry, it just came out. I need you to speak slowly and I need you to say all of this again and how you know this. the Anne campaign is funded by the Rockefellers? Yes. So Justin Gibney. Yes, I've had him on the podcast.

Yes, on his podcast episode, he was taking me to task for this piece where I revealed the funding of the after party curriculum. And he said, you know, we also are funded by Rockefeller in groups like this. And, you know, that's okay because they want to see a, you know, a simmering down. of divisive politics in the U.S. So that's part of why they also fund us. So I thought that was a really surprising admission. And which now that you're, and it's funny because when I heard it, I went, oh, that makes

sense. I guess after I had been marinating in and campaign stuff, you know, knowing that Justin is, you know, a Democrat operative he is. That's his background. And that that wasn't really that surprising to me having. you know, just come out of doing so much research into the Ann campaign. So yeah, I, and I haven't looked into it anymore other than that. So that's really all I can tell you is that, you know, people started sending me, hey, Justin Gibney, he talked about your first things piece. And here's

what he had to say about it. So I went and listened to it. And that's really all the information I can give you is that he said, us too. We are also funded by these groups. Oh my goodness. Gracious. Well, that is very interesting. Now, I've had. had my, you know, I've had my issues with the Anne campaign basically for the same reason. I'm not saying that I disagree with everything that's said and I can't impugn any motives, but I mean, Justin's been open about the fact that he's a Democrat and all of the organizers of the campaign are Democrats. I don't know if they've ever voted Republican, but they are Democrats. And the feeling that I get, whether they intend to do this or not, is that thoughtful Christians,

real thoughtful Christians won't vote Republican. Now maybe if you're moderate, maybe if you're kind of a centrist, but that it is wrong to be like a staunch conservative, that that is divisive, that that's idolatry. And maybe he would disagree with that characterization. I think the purpose either explicitly or implicitly is to convince Christian conservatives that you and you alone

should not vote your conscience. and to make you feel better about voting Democrat. After all, it's nuanced. And what you get is kind of like this morally relative argument that, well, yeah, Republicans might kind of get it right on abortion. They might kind of get it right on some things. But then, well, Democrats get it more right on immigration or Democrats get it more right on racial justice or Democrats get it more right on welfare.

And so it's really just like six in one hand and half dozen in the other, which I completely disagree with that. I don't believe that Democrats get it right on any of those things, by the way. Right. And yeah, it's okay to say, well, abortion is a bigger deal. Like, taking kids from their parents' homes because they're gender confused is a bigger deal to me than this stuff over here. It's like okay to say that. We don't have to pretend to be moral relativists. Yeah, that was going to be my point is that they want to make a moral equivalency between these issues that are not morally equivalent. And part of what was really interesting to me as I was going through this curriculum was that they never got into what I would say are very biblical explanations for why people sometimes back

certain policies that are wicked like abortion, like wanting to trans children or wanting to back gay marriage. The reason that the Bible tells us, for example, in Romans 1, that people want to pursue policies like that is because they want to indulge sexual, sexual immorality, and their minds are being deceived. And so there is a sinful motivation to want to see policies like that enacted. For abortion, I mean, you know, child sacrifice is something that we see all throughout scripture, and it is never something that is soft peddled. And today, our God is convenience or career or, you know, self-actualization or however you want to phrase that, it is the God of

It is sacrificing to your selfishness. And so at no point in this curriculum did they consider the sinful heart that might lead people to back sinful wicked policies. And I thought, if you are not going to confront that, then I don't think you have any sort of Bible study curriculum that is really grounded in God's word that understands the depravity of man and how that depravity leads us to pursue things that are really harmful to our neighbors and harmful to us. Yeah.

Yeah. I agree. And, you know, some people would accuse us of saying, well, you have to vote a Republican in order to be a Christian. And I'm not saying that God is checking your voting records before you get into heaven. I'm not, I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that we should vote in accordance with our conscience. And I don't believe that the policies that the Democrat Party hoists up are policies that Christians can in good faith. vote for not saying that there's not debate on any of those things I'm not saying that there's not discussion but I think it is wrong to tell conservative Christians you have to be neutered in order for us to thrive as a country you have to check your worldview at the door before you you know before you can engage and before you can try to influence how society works I just I think that's

wrong I think it's wicked yeah yeah and you know I it's funny because I agree with you that I go, I am not judging anyone's heart on their voting record, but at the same time, I think if you as a Christian are backing, let's say, a set of policies, because when you choose a candidate, you are choosing a set of policies. And if the set of policies you are choosing is a platform that says, we are full bore for sexual immorality and gender confusion and murdering babies to sacrifice to the God of convenience, I do think that, you know, certainly your discernment is off. and I question your spiritual maturity.

You know, people want to get into the Trump issue a lot. And when you read through Tim Alberta's book, which kicked this whole thing off, he is this sort of reasoned aetra for everything. I mean, he is the ultimate for how we're deciding whether or not people are Christians. And I go, if you're looking at that as a set of policies, which is how I tend to view politics, you know, at each stage of the political process, I am choosing what I think is the best set of policies. So if you are looking at that and you are saying, and they really have, that there is something sick and diseased in the hearts of Christian Trump supporters, I would go where then, what sort of disease do you think is in your heart as a Christian or what lack of discernment, what blind spots if you are choosing a set of policies that is diametrically opposed to God's law, which is not to say that, you know, Republicans are.

great and because to me they are very deficient in many ways also. Totally. And I go, but it's not because they're too conservative. Less efficient. Right. And so I go, I have to choose the less deficient option. So I choose that option. But if it were up to me, I mean, it is, it is very frustrating to me to be in a party that seems to be willing now to say, well, we lost on a Bergerfell. Everybody move forward because I don't want to move forward on that issue. I would love a party that would say, no, that is damaging for children. It is opposed to God's law. It is, you know, it is a sign that our nation is under judgment when we are enshrining things like this into law. So, you know, I would love to be a party that would recognize that. But we don't have that.

So I choose the best thing that I can. So it's certainly not to say, you know, the GOP and the church are the same thing. They are certainly not. But, you know, but looking at a sinful, world and a really disappointing set of options, I will say sometimes, I try to pick the very best one that I can. Yeah. Yeah. And I think that's what we all have to do. Let me give people like an example of kind of what this looks like in real life. You were a part actually of this dialogue. My researcher included it in my notes. I wouldn't have even remembered that this happened. But here's kind of what we're talking about in Christian conservatives kind of getting lambasted by these so-called like nonpartisan people for saying something very strongly about.

abortion. So Barack Obama tweeted it's been a year since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Since then, 14 states have banned most abortions, leaving millions of women and girls with nowhere to turn for the care they need. And yet there are reasons to hope. So, and then he goes on to say that after Roe was overturned, there were other states that helped enshrine abortion rights in their constitution. So if we look past the euphemisms here, we know what he is saying when he says care they need and things like that right to choose. He is talking about the slaughter of image bears. Wow. We're talking about child sacrifice. We're talking about the most one of, I mean, all murder is grotesque. But when you think about what abortion is, the killing of helpless babies. Oh my goodness.

Like that should break all of our hearts. We should never get so cynical in politics that we forget what abortion is and what is being talked about. So I responded to Barack Obama and I said something that I think all Christians should see as non-controversial and non-political, by the way. It's not even political for the Christian. I said, evil man, evil ideology, evil party. Christians have no excuse to ever support these people. There is no both-size argument. I mean, that is where I stand.

Even if you are a single-issue voter, which I think it's fine to be, like abortion is that grotesque. So Justin Gibney of the end campaign, he responds. In other words, he is saying what I say, which I think that everyone should just like, mute that phrase, in other words, because you know that what he's about to follow that is someone who just completely... It's not my words. Yeah, misrepresents what you say. But he says, in other words, we get abortion partially right.

So you must agree with us on everything when our leaders show a lack of concern. He's talking about Republican leaders, show a lack of concern for the lives of immigrants, black men, killed by authorities, pregnant black women, the uninsured poor, and create laws to make it harder to vote. Oh, my goodness. Like, the number of logical fallacies in one tweet alone is just insane. I don't agree with that representation of Republican. at all or the issues at hand.

He goes to say, thou shalt not vote Republican is not in the Bible. I voted for both parties. Okay, so he has voted for both parties. He has plenty of criticisms of democracy, he says, but this narrative is wrong. Extremely disrespectful to millions of faithful black Christians. Interesting. And then Ben Watson, Ben Watson says. Oh, this is, I'm remembering now.

Yes, Ben Watson says, this is not the first time he and I have gotten into it on Twitter. He says the type of Christianity she espouses includes voting records for membership. Never said anything close to that. In her world, my world, she creates the standards for how Christians are to behave. What? Yeah, I think abortion is evil. So do you, by the way, Ben Watson. That's a dangerous role to assume.

She is creating addendums to orthodoxy and tampering with idolatry. Like, let us remember that I said the ideology and the party that advocates for the slaughtering of human beings is evil. And that is idolatrous. It's idolatrous when a Christian conservative talk strongly about things. And you come to my defense and you say that is evil. So this is kind of what I'm talking about here. I had a big contribution there. Yes. No, you did. So I appreciate that. So anyway, I don't know if you have any commentary on that. But that's just an example of kind of like how the dialogue goes when it comes to conservative Christians saying things strongly about that which we would call evil. Yeah. I mean, largely,

what I would see is that, again, you're making an equivalence between something that is a debatable issue. Are we a systemically racist society? I would argue very much no. Are immigration policies that, you know, secure our borders? Are these opposed to biblical Christianity? I would say, no, those are debatable issues. Is it wrong to kill children? Yes. That is not a debatable issue. So it's this sort of little trick of saying, well, but what about this? And it's saying that racism, yes, we all agree that racism is wrong. We all agree that we don't want racism enshrined in our public policy. Do I believe that we've done that?

That's the issue. And so it's sort of skipping over that part of it, you know, begging the question, assuming that racism is enshrined and then saying, well, why don't you condemn it? And I'm like, well, I haven't already agreed that it is enshrined in our policy. and that our system is rife with racism. So I have to agree on that before we can agree that I don't think it's important and I don't think it's important to vote for policies

that address it because I already don't see it the way you see it. Whereas with abortion, I don't see that level of complexity. And it's sort of the same thing with gun control and you'll see them roll gun control into this pro-life argument saying, well, but you care about the lives of children. What about gun control? And I go, look, I believe Christian

of good conscience can have different viewpoints on red flag laws, on all sorts of background check questions and that sort of thing. But we are not talking about bills designed to say it is okay to go into a school under certain circumstances and shoot children. Nobody is backing that policy. And so they're making that the equivalent of the abortion question, which is a policy to say it is okay to kill this very young baby, this child. So that is the issue. It's the same thing with the transgender question that, you know, as we look at these laws that are banning transgender surgery, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones for children, that is what the policy does.

The gun control policy does not say if we don't do this, then we're backing shooting children. So, you know, it's this very sort of slippery thing where you have to look at what is the intention of the policy. And that's what we're arguing about. Yeah. And I mean, just to clarify, as I've said many times, I do, I am open to arguments that Christians, from Christians who don't vote Republican. I'm not open to arguments that Christians can vote Democrat, not the current state of the Democratic Party. It's not anything about the name Democrat. It's not like red versus blue. I'm just looking at the party platform and no, I don't think that any Christian can support that. Now, there are some arguments out there about, I'm not saying I agree with these arguments,

but there are arguments out there about not voting at all, voting third party, writing in your candidate. Now, I think that's really difficult to do in a two-party system, but I'm open to those. I'm certainly not questioning people's salvation. But do I think that it is, that it is possible to in good faith to faithfully align with the current Democrat Party, my position is currently, is currently no. So, but that is not a questioning of salvation or idolatry or anything silly like that. But that's the conversation I think that we get goaded into. And you said it's begging the question. It is absolutely, that's, that's what begging the question is. That is begging the question, the rhetorical kind of devices that were used there. So what, what should Christians be

on the lookout for when it comes to this. A lot of churches, maybe in an effort to try to bring their churches together sincerely, they look at this kind of curriculum and they hope that it's going to be healthy for their churches and building bridges. And it's not, though. I don't think. I think it's a Trojan horse. And so, like, how should Christians and congregations be approaching this if something like this is presented in their churches? Well, you know, the biggest thing is I would ask questions and I'm so glad you asked this because I thought you know one thing I want to end with because Allie has such a huge audience of faithful church going Christians is if your church, if your pastor is saying, hey, we're going to bring this in, we're having

this pastor's conference and we're going to have Russell Moore and Curtis Chang speak to this issue. One, I would ask them why they're doing that because, you know, my belief is let's, you know, very deeply and deliberately and diligently study scripture, study the word. And I tend to think that that is going to form our hearts, our thoughts, our minds, and that is going to inform our politics. So I don't know that you need to have a specifically political Bible study. So I have some objections to that in the first place. I think that's really weird to be honest with you, especially. And then when you get into it, something that's so surface level that I go, if you're going to do a study like that, what I would hope to see is some deep exploration of

scripture on what our responsibilities are as citizens, what the Lord expects of us with regard to issues on life and sexuality, maybe just a few of those unquestionable issues where scripture is extremely clear. So that would be one. So I would ask, and look, if it were up to me, they wouldn't bring it in at all. and I would probably raise a stink and say, I don't understand why we're doing this. This is who these people are.

These are the things that Curtis Chang and some of these other people have been involved in. And this is who wants to see it in our church, Rockefeller, Hewlett, second largest funder of Planned Parenthood in the country. There goes my dog. Wants to see this in our churches. And so for that reason, pastor,

I would really prefer not to give them this access to our church. And the same goes for students at Christian colleges, since I do know that that email went out, saying, please, you know, bring this from the council for Christian colleges and universities, bring this to your school and your student life and your pastoral ministry classes. So I have a big issue with that to start with. But if your pastor is going to persist in this, I would say, if we are going to do this, if you're going to go forward in this, then you actually do need to have voices because Russell Moore, Curtis, Chang and David French are all of one mind. They have all sort of been the same sort of never

Trump voices. So if you're going to do that, then then let's get some other voices, a, an Albert Mueller, a Wayne Grudem, some other people who will come in and offer some other perspective on what the Lord requires of Christians in a political moment. So, you know, those are the two big things that I would hope people would walk away with. Yeah. And I'm, you know, I'm interested in those debates. It's not that I think that we have a monopoly. on the answer to, as you said, you know, those complex issues. But let's not pretend to be nonpartisan when you really aren't, when you're not open to other views.

And I just want to end on one thing because I think one of the most interesting things that you highlighted, and people can do their own homework on this, is the funding of the Rockefellers. And this is, and I want you to talk about your book. But I also have a book coming out this fall. And one thing I talk about is how the Rockefellers have funded abortion for for so long for decades. And John Rockefeller, the third, was a big fan of Margaret Singer and was an early funder of Planned Parenthood, her birth control, and from its own website, quote unquote, special projects

in African American communities, which is devastating when you think about what the history of Planned Parenthood's relationship has been with African American communities. And so I think that it is, and by the way, this is on their own website. This is not some conspiratorial website. This is work that they're proud of. This is history that they're proud of. This is history that they're carrying on today. They are still funding the slaughter of human beings. And they are funding these projects that are going into churches and saying, oh, let's have some humility if you're a conservative Christian who is pro-life or whatever it is. It's much more nuanced. So I just don't think that that's a coincidence. And I think that you are right for uncovering it. Thank you so much, Megan. Thank you for the work that

you do and for bringing us your insight here today. I really appreciate it. Thanks so much. Thanks for having me.