News Roundup: Rededicate America, Truth Crisis, & the Left's Chosen Villains

We have a great show for you today, we have a lot of stuff to get to from all over the world including the evangelical world. One quick update about me personally, I wasn't able to do as many podcasts last week because I was traveling and you can certainly pray for this.

SBC Woman Pastors Documentary and Support Updates

I am in the process of producing a documentary on the woman pastor issue in the Southern Baptist Convention. In fact, there is a proposal that was just made public this morning to reinstate a version of the law amendment, a rewritten version of it, an edited version of it, in order to, if you're a Southern Baptist you understand this, try to enhance the credentials committee and their ability to disfellowship churches, disassociate from churches who are undermining the Southern Baptist views on this particular topic.

Of course, this platform has been foremost lately in exposing this issue with individual cases of churches and we are also foremost in producing the documentary that is going to expose this and explain this in the best compact form.

You can look forward to that coming out before the Southern Baptist Convention. It will be coming out through the Church Reform Initiative and I'm really happy with the work.

We were able to do.

It did take some travel time and some interviews and I'm really thankful for those who weighed.

In.

In fact, just this morning I had another interview with someone who's essentially whistleblowing. He's telling the story of the North American Mission Board and his experience with them and their unwillingness to actually navigate this issue in any kind of, not just biblical way, but way that accords with the Baptist faith and message.

If you can't set the limits for your organization's identity and beliefs, then you really don't have an organization anymore. That's part of the problem with all of this. If we just don't have any boundaries, if anything goes, then everything goes.

So we're going to talk about that and so I really appreciate everyone who has supported me and supported efforts such as this. I think those are really the evergreen efforts that are going to make a difference in the long term.

I'm not looking for personal accolades for these things. It's not about boosting my platform. That's something that I've always been pretty clear about. This is about winning the issue and the issue is, in this particular case, the Bible's definition of what a pastor is and obviously being so involved in these things, it doesn't come for free.

It doesn't come without support by a prayer. It doesn't come without sacrifices that need to be made. I do appreciate those who have sacrificed. You can go to johnharrismedia .com if you want to find out more about how to support the effort or go to patreon .com forward slash johnharrispodcast.

The Lord has really just provided in amazing ways for me to be able to put my efforts toward these things. I think in years to come, people are going to look back on this particular project just like they're going to look back on some of the other projects that we've been involved in, whether it's the books or the documentaries like the documentary on Faith Baptist Nightdale.

By the way, I just found out really good news about a church that has averted a church takeover because they were aware of the work that we did in the Faith Baptist Nightdale documentary, in the documentary about McLean Bible Church and David Platt, in the documentary about First Baptist Naples down in Florida.

These have been real game changers and there are real people who have avoided problems and been able to avoid their churches being taken over because they were made aware of the strategy that goes into taking churches over.

I just want to say thank you to all of you from the beginning of this. It was a good trip. I did get to see some folks along the way, including some of the folks from Faith Baptist Nightdale and shared a meal with some of them, and also James Lawrence, who of course represented them in the documentary on that.

It was a really good time. I didn't film them, but I was in the area, so I got to see Kent and Rosaria Butterfield a little bit and receive their hospitality. I will say one complimentary thing. My camera guy and editor told me afterward, he goes, those were the most hospitable people I think I've ever met in my life.

They are truly hospitable people. I think Rosaria means what she says when she talks about hospitality, and I've experienced that firsthand. It's always good to know that someone who claims to be an expert in something or to know about a topic actually knows it and can back it up with personal experience.

It's becoming more and more of a rare thing. It was really refreshing to see that. I'm back though, and we have more content coming later this week, but let's get into.

It.

One quick word. I will be at the Church Militant Conference. It is the 12th and 13th of June, so it's coming up. Less than a month. If you are in the Vancouver, Washington area, which is just across the border, so if you're actually in the Portland, Oregon area, then please come on out.

We'd love to see you. The first story to bring to you, this is a sitting member of Congress. Anna Paulina Luna tells Joe Rogan that the King James Bible was a Bible that was rewritten so that a king could get remarried.

Interesting, because then you have the evolution of what the King James Bible is. We all know that story. He wanted to get remarried. They rewrote it. But you even have the Catholic Bible that has... It's what happened.

You have the Catholic Bible that had books that were taken out, and then we have the King James. I'm not saying that if you read the King James, you don't have access to God. That's not what I'm saying.

But I am saying that there's a bigger picture.

Well, there you have it. So the King James Bible, apparently, this just flies out there in some of the biggest podcasts, even though its name is specifically the King James Bible, and it was written over 60 years.

It was at least published over 60 years after the death of Henry VIII. Apparently that was what motivated the King James Bible. And this is a typical common Catholic thing I hear against Protestants. It's really an anti-Protestant thing that the Protestant Reformation is corrupt.

And one of the ways that we know it's corrupt is because Henry VIII just needed a justification to get a divorce. And so they invented a new religion. Now, this is a cartoon of history, but that cartoon becomes more and more crazy when you start just making stuff up.

And certainly this is an example of that, just making stuff up. You got Henry VIII, and after Henry VIII, there were a few other royals, kings and queens, before you even get to King James. You have Edward VI, you have Mary I, and Elizabeth I, and then you get to King James.

So this is obviously ahistorical, but this is the kind of thing that is out there very commonly. I've seen this kind of stuff just floating around social media. And what I think it says about social media and the current discourse is it is very difficult to know how to navigate that as a sane, rational person.

And hopefully, if you're listening to this podcast, I'm hopeful that those are the kind of people that tend to want to listen to this, because you're someone who does care about the receipts, what actually is true, thinking through things critically.

And I was having a conversation with someone that's a friend of mine the other day about.

This.

What do we do when it comes to debates, debates between Catholics and Protestants, debates on issues, debates over whatever, political, social, controversial, theological issues? Some of the loudest mouths, some of the most popular formats and figures are promoting some of the most laughable theories, but they get a lot of clicks, likes and accolades for just throwing crazy stuff out there sometimes.

And I don't know, because here's the problem. You actually do demean your platform when you engage with someone who just isn't worth the time and engagement. Not only can it be a waste of time, but it's also even if you expose them, you don't expose them.

I'm not saying this applies to Senator Paulina here, but Paulina Luna, it's just. It's sort of a par for the course thing. It's so common. There's very few people that merit the kind of attention that I think is what is deserved for a responsible person to engage with them.

And this is becoming more and more of a problem. The most kind of inaccurate, sensational, kind of based, and I don't mean base, really base is the word, not based, base cringe figures who have really nothing to contribute, unfortunately, are the ones that are more and more and more gaining the microphone.

And I think some of this has to do with, obviously, the fact that there's a lot of faith loss in institutions, but it's also a number of other factors. And I've been thinking about writing about this.

So I really, I don't want to get too ahead of my skis on this, but there is sort of an egalitarian and third world this aspect to all this. There are platforms, platforms like kick that will pay second, third world people to go clip videos to manipulate the algorithm.

Things like if a hurricane comes through, right? This doesn't specifically apply to the clip I just played, but this is sort of in general. If a hurricane comes through and people are posting about the hurricane, it grabs the attention of the algorithm, which makes you see it.

You might not have known, but you log onto social media and oh, there's a hurricane. It's the same thing when you have hundreds, if not thousands of people who are being paid low wages in second and third world countries to clip influencers, to go out there on social media and put their name out there to put something they said to grab attention.

And the algorithm senses while there's a lot of this going on, this name keeps coming up.

Clavicular.

I don't know.

I'm sorry.

I call them clavicle clavicle. There's things like that will grab attention. And then all of a sudden your algorithm says, you just got to keep seeing this person. That's a factor. The fact that the internet is there's a large group of people in other countries now with translation services being so well done because of AI, you can have an audience in the Middle East that can dwarf your American audience and an audience in places that don't restrict their internet as much that allow them to see what you're doing.

This has created a place in an egalitarian setting that just allows for kind of anything. There's no rules in this. I've talked about this. I've written about some of this, but I think I need to put together more because these are the kind of takes that I don't know about you, but I see them more and more and more.

No matter how you curate your algorithm or the accounts you try to follow, this stuff just keeps coming up and some people believe it. So all that to say, this particular fact is not a fact. It is just rank stupidity is what it is.

You don't know the subject at all, but this is someone in this case, a sitting member of Congress. So this is someone actually with some institutional authority. Now the Pope just recently also gave an award, which some are calling, well, some meaning I think those in the Middle East specifically who are pro-Iranian, are calling this Grand Cross.

That's the name of the award. The one of the highest, if not the highest honor that the Pope can give, and this was given to Mohammed Hussein Mokhtari. And this is the new Arab, which I specifically wanted to show you this particular website because look, it's in English, but it is Qatar.

It is coming out of Qatar and they report on this. This is widely reported in the Middle East and they of course show Donald Trump saying negative things about the Pope, but look, the Pope gave out this award and I don't think the timing is something we should just ignore.

The Pope and Trump have had some differences over immigration, over Iran, and now you have the Pope giving an award to an ambassador whose job it is to promote the interests of Iran, the Iranian regime specifically.

So this is political. I see it that way. I think this is a very, it's an odd thing for the Pope to do this. I mean, this is not even someone who's Catholic, right? But this, I don't know, is the Pope Catholic, right?

This is part of the issue. And so all the trad Catholic guys who really like the Pope, I just look at stuff like this and I think, even on the political stuff, can you really, with an honest face, tell me this is the religion that didn't get corrupted, that somehow is avoiding the problems of modernity, that is more pure than the Protestants, because they just reinvent themselves and make stuff up according to Catholics, at least some Catholic belligerents, apologists and so forth.

But can you look in the mirror with a straight face and say, yeah, our Pope, the vicar of Christ, quote unquote, he's not being corrupted by any of this. And you couldn't do it with Francis. And I don't think you can still do it.

Some evangelical news. This is a little old now from May 10th, but I wanted to address it because it did come up and it was big on social media. Trump statue, the Don Colossus, isn't golden calf worship.

Pastor Mark Burns claims. I saw all kinds of claims, especially coming from people who are anti-Christian, anti-Protestant, that anti-evangelical, that this was a golden calf, here there it is, it's a statue of Donald Trump.

Fortunately, we did a documentary on the monument debate. And so if you watch that documentary, it's called American Monument, and that's another evergreen thing that we've been able to do because of your support.

You can evaluate this probably in a more honest fashion. So if you look at it, the first question to ask yourself, and if you saw that particular documentary, you'll know what the question is. Is this on a human scale?

Meaning, does Donald Trump look like a human or is this like a God? What are you looking at exactly here? For example, the Lincoln Memorial makes it look like he's in a temple. This is like a Greek God of some kind.

A lot of the Soviet era monuments are on such a massive scale, they're trying to impress upon you something. Like, this is something to really put you in awe and make you think this is way bigger than you, to amaze you.

What I've said before on monuments that are at a human scale is that you have a monument that looks like a human. That's a good indicator that it's about someone who has human qualifications or qualities and is qualified to be represented because of some contribution they've made.

You could have an obelisk. An obelisk is really a monument to achievements or to a legacy. It's not a human itself, but if it's a statue of a human, is it the size of a human? Now, if it's a little bigger, that signifies that this human, this person, they're human, but their achievements make them stand out.

Now, I can't tell you exactly at what point it becomes more towards the side of, like, this is an idol, or could potentially be, but there is a point, I think you better detect it by seeing it than measuring it, but certainly if it's like a 30-foot tall statue, unless it's Paul Bunyan and it's a legend or something, then I'm uncomfortable with it.

Now, this particular statue is, I would say, on a human scale. What is it? Maybe a person and a half, person and three quarters. It's kind of big, but it's on a human scale, and it's gold because I think it's Trump.

Trump's kind of known for that style, kind of a Gilded Age gold. This pastor says, look, this isn't a golden calf. First of all, the golden calf is, the god is supposed to be the one that's riding the.

Calf.

It's not, people don't understand the symbolism of that necessarily when they start bringing this up. It wasn't just the fact that it was gold, but that's what they had to use to make this particular statue.

They melted down their jewelry that they had taken from Egypt, and they make this golden.

Calf.

It certainly conveys that there's a preciousness to it and so forth, but I don't necessarily think you have to read into this particular statue that what they're doing is they're worshiping. They're going to bow down and say, this is God, or this is a stand in for God.

Could people do that? I guess people could do that with most anything, but that doesn't seem to be the intention behind this. I guess you could say that I'm a shill. I'm defending the evangelicals. I'm sure there were bad actors there.

I'm sure there were guys who weren't good there saying cringey things, but I don't think the claim that this is a golden calf is necessarily a responsible one. There was an event that took place yesterday, and there's a lot of mixed things being said about this by Christians on social media.

I want to highlight a few things from it. This is a picture of people presumably singing and praying at the Rededicate 250. This happened in Washington, D .C. It happened yesterday, and Christian Post gives some highlights.

Franklin Graham says, America has become morally rotten. That's his message. I think Franklin Graham's right. Franklin Graham is correct. You have to ask yourself, if you were going to be part of this, if you were asked, say you're a pastor or a Christian leader, and they say, hey, could you participate, what would you say?

Would you just say no out of principle because there's compromised people there? What would you do? I think that's a question that has to be weighed, and I'll give you my answer after we get through.

All this.

Franklin Graham says that he's wept over the country. The spiritual climate in 2026 is different than the country that our founding fathers.

Established.

This is a sobering black pill. We have an appetite for violence, all of this kind of stuff. He prays that as individuals and as a nation, we'll humble ourselves before God, confess our sins, and turn back to God.

Honestly, I am more and more convinced that is the message, guys. I thought we had our bases covered with that in the evangelical Reformed world, especially if we understand repentance and faith. We need to develop a political theology.

We need to develop a way of interacting ethically in the public sphere better because we've done it so horribly. Of course, that's still a need, but more and more, I'm thinking, oh, yeah, man, we don't have the basics.

We really don't. We think we do, but more and more, people just really do need to understand the gospel. There's a lot of things being called Christian that aren't, that have a form of godliness without power.

There's a greater need now than I think there's ever been for pastors who are convictional, who know how to disciple. I think a few years ago, I would have thought we have a lot of pastors that can explain the text, that have good theology when it comes to soteriology, but we just don't have people that are good at ethics.

That's one of our main issues. Boy, five years since or so forth, I'm looking back and I'm thinking, I think it's worse. I think we need pastors. We need more and more pastors. That's sort of a foundational thing.

More than even, we need good politicians and so forth, but before you get to that point, we need a really good moral foundation at a personal level. Everything flows out from the family and before that, the hearts of the members of a family.

It's from the heart that determines what kind of country, what kind of society you're going.

To have.

More and more, I'm agreeing with Franklin Graham. Amen, Franklin Graham. You're 100 right. J .D. Vance spoke, and I think it's by a video, but he said that we should have hope. He read 2 Chronicles 7, so I believe that's if my people are called by my name, if I'm not mistaken.

Let's see.

He says, in times of suffering and in times of triumph, millions of Americans continue to turn to prayer and their faith in God. He talks about Charlie Kirk, and he says, if we do not see that God loves us, we have little reason, little inspiration to love one another.

He's right about this. This love which forms a morality is a foundation of a peaceful and healthy society. Defying predictions, the experts said that religion and faith were dying today. A wave of young Americans is returning to the pews.

Now, I saw the Freedom Center at Liberty University post something similar to this, that young Americans are more interested in religion, more involved in attending church than anyone. Gen Z is bringing the revival.

Now, I've heard this one all my whole life, but the young people are just there. They're on the verge. They're the pro-life generation. They're the generation that's going to really correct some of the wrongs.

There's an inspirational element to this. You want to believe that something around the corner is really good, and it's coming. I'm cautiously optimistic, but as I said in the previous podcast regarding Russell Brand's book, that caution is more and more growing, and that optimism is still there, but it's being tempered.

I don't know that this is 100 true, but I have hope. I have hope that there is a spiritual awareness and a desire. What kind of Christianity are they going to come to? This is a question we have to ask.

Think about this for yourself, because the theme of the podcast is which way Christian conservative man or woman, which way? Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, what kind of Presbyterian, Mormon? Is it more Muslim?

Tucker thinks Muslims are great, apparently. They're very pious and so forth.

Is it Judaism?

What exactly is the religion that needs to be promoted? What do people need to convert into for America to actually be blessed, to be flourishing in the obedience to God? What is it? Now, if you haven't answered that question, maybe pause and think about this for a moment, because we have true believers, true born-again children of God who have repented of their sins and put their trust in Jesus Christ, and they're trusting him completely and fully in a number of different denominations.

I would argue that I do think there are people who fit that description who are even in places like the Roman Catholic Church, despite the fact they don't agree with Roman Catholic doctrine in every way, but they are trusting Jesus for their salvation, they are reading the Bible, and if they get sanctified, I do think they will leave places of error.

But you can be in a denomination that has things you disagree with on secondary or tertiary matters, and you share fellowship. You're members of the universal body of Christ. In an event like this, if I was with an organizer, that's the only people I would invite.

I would invite people who are born-again, at least they claim to be, and they have theology that would match this particular view. They're born-again, they put their faith completely in Jesus Christ by grace through faith, and they have the right Jesus, and they have the right view of Scripture.

I think that's important, even though you don't have to believe in inerrancy to be saved. I do think without the Bible, we don't have an authority to base these claims off of. So there are some basic things.

I think a Trinitarian needs to be part of this, understanding Jesus is 100 God, 100

Man.

These are necessary elements for any kind of awakening, any kind of revival, and these are the elements that existed in our country at one time, cross-denominationally. That was the first Great Awakening.

You did have cooperation in regions and denominations based upon this orthodox core theology. You get outside of that, I think you start having problems, and that was one of the issues.

With this.

They had a rabbi speak. They had a number of Catholics speak, including bishops and so forth, and what message are you sending? What kind of Christianity? What is this really about? This is the question I think that we have to ask ourselves.

How far are we comfortable going? I can partner with these people at a rally for the unborn. I can partner with these people. I can partner with Mormons. In fact, this brings to mind there was a similar kind of event a few years ago that was a rededication of America.

I won't get into all the details of it. I had to look into it extensively because there was an alleged quote from Robert Hunt, who is the first pastor who came to Virginia Beach in 1607. Robert Hunt supposedly gave this dedication, and they were going to rededicate.

Now, unfortunately, that dedication cannot be found anywhere. There is no source for it. I spent days. I was on calls with a lot of people, including universities, and it doesn't exist. I was told by a number of people it existed.

I was told David Barton I knew because I saw in the video that David Barton said it existed. It was Michelle Bachman. It was Glenn Beck. It was a Mormon. It was all these people were getting together to rededicate America.

You looked at it, and the whole thing was very Lincolnian nationalistic. The layering thing that stood out to me is like, you're going to rededicate America with a Mormon, though. What are your theological convictions?

That wasn't the founding. Yeah, okay. We had Anglicans. We have Puritans. We have Baptists. Yeah, and there were some tolerated minorities in there. You certainly had your Quakers. You had a small number of Catholics, and there's Amish.

There's people who can live at peace and share a community or at least a state or a country, but the foundation for the Great Awakening was a Protestant theology, but it was really a biblical theology behind it.

That's what it was. This is the issue, I think, with an organization like this. They have some good speakers, but they also have some speakers that I would say are not as good. It looks like here's Pastor Jack Graham.

This is someone who is, I would say, going to have the gospel, going to preach it, so I'm glad that he was there as opposed to someone who could have taken his place. He says that Graham believes the U .S. is at the brink of blessing.

So there is an optimism out there that something good is happening. You have Trump in the White House. You have the anti-Christian discrimination at the federal level being pushed back. You have sort of a renewed sense of we need to have some basis for morality.

We need to not push the LGBT stuff so hard. At the same time, while this is going on, you have red states. When it's brought up on a ballot, they vote for abortion. There's a number of things happening simultaneously.

There's a rearranging of furniture, but this is my analysis. The number of Christians, I don't see evidence that it's increasing in a significant way or a proportionate way yet. I have an inkling that there are certainly spiritual interests, and that is growing among people, but I do not see that there is a consistent alignment with the commandments of Christ and then, previous to that, a conversion experience.

God is still saving people, and we could still be in the midst of something very positive and not know it, but as I look at all the data, as I look at all the things that are happening, as I expressed in the State of the Church address that I did a few weeks ago, I think that we are in an uncertain time, and there's certainly counterfeit revival elements happening.

Remember, the Pharisees had their law. They had their legal system that they were very, very tied to, and yet they were whitewashed tombs, Jesus says, right? It's better for the Pharisees to be against certain things that the Mosaic Law is also against, but they added to it.

They went farther than the Mosaic Law with many things. They substituted the rules of God for the law of man. They condemned Christ, who was actually accurately representing the law of God, right? So you can have certain rules, but generally, the way that a Pharisee or a hypocrite acts is they like the rules they can keep.

They like the rules that make them feel superior over other people. They like the rules that make them feel like they're coloring within the lines and other people are the real problems. We have to make sure that as we're doing this, as we're trying to promote Christianity in the public square, we're promoting true Christianity, and we're not promoting a version that excuses some things and condemns others.

Just because we're against the left, which we should be, which we ought to be, which is so much of what this podcast is dedicated to, is exposing and refuting the left's priorities and their morality, which is broken.

We have to be against it, but at the same time, we cannot just make that the one sole arbitrating thing. It's not the only thing that matters. We have to be for something. More on that as we get into the podcast, being for something versus being against something.

So this event happened, and I told you I'd give you my answer. My answer is if I was asked to speak at something like this, which I haven't been, I would say yes, and I would make it so if possible, I can say anything I want.

If it's a process of having to submit something, I would submit exactly what I'm going to say, and there's going to be strong rebukes, probably more along the line of what Franklin Graham said, repent, don't expect that God's going to bless a society that still does evil things, that keeps sinning, and abortion is certainly now I've wondered about this with abortion.

It is certainly the thing that seems to expose where we're at morally more than anything else, because we have this great opportunity that we still have in Dobbs. This was an amazing thing that we never thought would happen, and it happened.

Some of us didn't. It happened. Roe v. Wade was overturned, and now at the state level, we have the potential to fight.

It.

What do we find where people are actually at, where their moral state is actually at? In places like Ohio and Kansas, red states, Kansas certainly being red, and they're voting for pro-abortion members.

The people are voting for these things. If that's not a wake-up call, what does that mean? You can be against some other depravities all you want, but this is a pretty basic thing. That's my two cents.

I would speak against that, and I would expose some of those things, and I'd probably never be invited back, but who knows? The Carolina Journal published a piece, North Carolina Home to Key Figures in Renewed Religious Freedom Debates.

There has been increasing debate among conservative Protestants over whether and in what sense the United States should be considered a Christian country, some often identifying as Christian nationalists, arguing America should function as a distinctly Christian nation with laws rooted explicitly in Christianity.

Others, particularly Baptists who have a long tradition of emphasizing religious liberty and limits on state power, argue that the nation's founders were correct to protect the free exercise of a wide range of religious beliefs.

Many of the leading voices in the debate are based in North Carolina. They talk about Stephen Wolf, and the contrast is J .D. Greer, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention and the pastor of Summit Church.

Greer says, one misunderstanding is that you believe that Christian nationalism is simply recognizing that our laws and our freedoms and our ideals are framed by a Christian worldview. That is not Christian nationalism.

That is just a recognition. So again, we're now into the waters immediately of who's going to define what Christian nationalism.

Is.

This is a country that is based on Christian ideals, and you cannot separate those two, he said. At the same time, he warned against movements that seek to use government authority to enforce Christianity.

The other side is where people that want the government to mandate essentially that people be Christians. Now, the reality of the situation is I don't know of one person who says that or believes that.

Acting in accord with Christian laws, Christian values, Christian principles, Christian beliefs, when it comes to public morality, is different than mandating someone is a Christian. You can't dictate their private belief.

Only the Holy Spirit can convert someone. So I think this is a straw man. I think Greer is saying something that either he's ignorant about or he is being purposely.

Malicious.

But I don't know of anyone who believes that. Greer has consistently emphasized religious liberty. So that's the way they're framing this. Look, you got your religious liberty, and then you got guys like Stephen Wolfe.

Let's fast forward. And Stephen Wolfe is someone who doesn't want that, presumably. And they didn't interview him because of some of the constraints that he made. He said that they'd have to call him doctor, that they'd have to call John Locke a Christian nationalist, which is kind of funny that he did that.

But they decided to not interview him as a result. Instead, they write about him, and they say that Christian nationalism, they describe his definition of totality of national action consisting of civil laws and social customs conducted by a Christian nation as a Christian nation in order to procure for itself both earthly and heavenly good in Christ.

His vision includes policies such as restricting Sabbath commerce and punishing public blasphemy. Now, these are historic things, by the way. These are things that were features in our own governments and our state and local level governments not long ago.

I mean, in a historian's mind, not long ago means hundreds of years. So we're going back, we could probably go back 100 years and find these things still on the books in some places. And Carolina Journal reached out for comments.

I already told you about this, Wolfe didn't want to comment. Let's get to the conclusion. Many denominations remain resistant to Christian nationalist ideas. There's a president of a Pentecostal and Charismatic churches that is less influenced by the movement because of their theological difference and strong support for Israel.

The debate is not on a national scope. North Carolina has become an unexpected focal point with figures like Greer, Wolfe, and I guess they wrote about Michael Spengler, reflecting an ongoing divide within American conservatism.