Transcript

 : Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up, each of you. And God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time.

 : This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.

Planned Parenthood drops effort to add abortion as Oregon constitutional right

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, February 17, and starting out with some good news this morning, we could all use a little bit of good news every once in a while, right? this coming from Live Action. We have Planned Parenthood has dropped an effort to add abortion as an Oregon constitutional right. So the pro abortion group, Equal Rights Oregon, which includes Planned Parenthood, announced it will not continue its quest to add abortion as a right to the Oregon State Constitution. So the key takeaways, they've withdrawn that Initiative Petition 33, which was called, equal rights for all. notice how they always call these things something that, you know, you can't possibly object to on face, like, well, why wouldn't you want equal rights for all? Well, when we're talking about murdering, babies in the womb, that seems like it's not equal rights for them. So, you know, clearly these are all so misleading. But, the initiative sought also to add abortion, same sex marriage and cross sex treatments to Oregon, to the Oregon Constitution is right. So this went well beyond just the abortion issue. it was, you know, all sorts of terrible, evils and deviancy across the board. But the group failed to gather enough signatures to get the measure on the November 2026 ballot, collecting just 8% of the required signatures. So, that's really interesting. And no reason that was given for the decision to withdraw, the petition. You know, probably it's that they knew they wouldn't collect enough signatures. However, according to Live Action, it has been revealed that Oregonians are less supportive of so called gender affirming care. So maybe they just tried to do, ah, too much. And again, this is good news.

Father Frank Pavone: Nationwide pushback against gender altering surgeries may have doomed Oregon petition

So let's welcome in Father Frank Pavone, who's the founder of Priests for Life and you know, I think this is surprising a little bit for a state like Oregon.

Frank Pavone : Well, yes, Jenna. And it looks like you know, the nationwide pushback that we've seen against these, these, these life changing surgeries on minors and the hormones that try to change one's gender, is what brought this down. You know, even in places like Oregon, you know, parents are parents and it's like, you know, when they realize the danger being imposed on their children, they are going to cross political lines, they're going to cross ideological lines, you know, the children are going to come first. And I think this is what caused this petition to fail. we just had a meeting of pro life leaders here at our headquarters. We had a, about 60 national groups and the ballot initiatives, were one of the key topics of our conversation. And this theme came up actually how the other side might be short circuiting themselves by trying to take on these gender change priorities as if they enjoyed the majority support of the American people.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and we're seeing this divide between the policies from the left, like this so called gender affirming care, which of course is mutilation of the body and has nothing to do whatsoever with care. Again they always label these things so falsely. But we're seeing how that has really fallen out of favor even among the left. I mean conservatives and obviously Christians have long always stood with fundamental truth that we shouldn't be performing these types of procedures. but the support for abortion among the left hasn't had unfortunately kind of a similar backlash at least yet. So is it possible that the reason that this particular petition has been withdrawn is that planned Parenthood is looking at trying to just get that single issue state, constitutional amendment on the ballot and gather enough signatures in time? I mean, you know, some of these deadlines are running out fairly quickly for November. But is that possible?

Frank Pavone : you know, we have m. First of all when it comes to these amendments, one of the ways that we think we can defeat them and we're dealing with them in Virginia. There's also one, on track in Idaho and a couple of other states may have them. is number one, you know, the gestational limits. The further you go, this has always been the case into the pregnancy, the less the public supports abortion. Even in places like Oregon, you have support dropping dramatically once you start talking about second trimester abortion. Like in Oregon, 72% generally support abortion, but only 44% in the second trimester, even less, of course, if you're talking about the third trimester. And one of the things we're always pointing out to people so that we can defeat these amendments even in the signature gathering stage, is that, hey, you are voting for literally unlimited abortion even in the third trimester of pregnancy. The other thing to keep in mind is this, and this is key to defeating these things is to point out that, you know, look at Oregon again as an example. Abortion was already available in the state with no gestational limits. Oregon is one of eight states that literally has no limit as far as how late into the pregnancy you can abort that child. So why in the world would you need to gather signatures for a petition to make it a constitutional right to get an abortion at any time in the pregnancy? You already can. And Jenna, the way to understand this is very simple. They're not talking about current policy. The other side is afraid of what the pro life people are going to do for future policy. It's the difference between a law and a constitutional amendment. If you have a law, that law could be changed. If pro life people persuade pro life voters to elect pro life candidates, who then, as pro life lawmakers pass pro life laws, that's what the other side is afraid of that we're going to do. And they're right to be afraid because that's exactly what we're going to do. But by putting it in the context institution that no matter how many pro life lawmakers you elect, they can't pass any pro life laws because any lawmaking has to be done within the limits of the Constitution. You'd have to change the Constitution again, which of course is a much harder thing to do than to pass a law. So I think that's if people understand what's going on here, yes, we can stop these things from going forward.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and we should. And so, you know, where are the efforts among conservatives to then go for state constitutional amendments, for life? I mean, because we've obviously done a lot of legislative work and that's been really great. here in, you know, you're in my home state of Florida, passing the Heartbeat bill and you know, one of the, first, if not the first, you know, significant legislation on that front. but where are the efforts to, to get state constitutional amendments for pro life, especially in red states?

Frank Pavone : Missouri. Missouri is the, is the focus this year, for that effort. We did succeed last year in Nebraska, passing a pro life amendment, to the Constitution. That was an interesting scenario because you had like 10 states, you know, doing I say last year, I'm talking about the 2024 election. You had about 10 states with these initiatives. Nebraska was one of them. So they, but they had both a pro life and a pro abortion one. The pro life one, one. And so now Missouri, which was one of the ones unfortunately that passed a pro abortion amendment. Now the pro life forces have come back and said, wait a second, this does not unlimited abortion does not represent the people of Missouri nor the lawmakers. So we're going to put a pro life amendment on there that is going to restore the right of the people to pass the reasonable limits that they have always passed in Missouri. So that's the main, going to be the main battle. And people from all states can help with that. You know, messaging on social media obviously reaches everywhere. People you may know in Missouri or people can volunteer to make phone calls, and educate voters no matter where they live around the country. We need this victory and it will be a great encouragement to the entire movement.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. We do need those victories and we need to keep pressing forward. And that's why I'm so grateful for your ministry, Priests for Life and all of the great work that you do. in addition to what we do here at AFA Action and what our listeners around the nation do in their home states, because this is such a fundamental issue as you and I talk about all the time, Father Frank, that you know, the, the issue of life is the most foundational because without it you obviously can't exercise any other rights. And if you, if you get that wrong and you don't understand the protections of the most vulnerable and just the innate value of a human being made in the image of God from the moment of conception all the way until natural death. If you get that wrong, you're gonna get a lot of other stuff wrong too. I mean this is just so foundational that it is the most important. And often conservatives are somewhat criticized I guess, for focusing so much on the life issue. But it's because it's so foundational and so critical that we need to focus on it. Yeah, go ahead.

Frank Pavone : It's not that it's the only issue. It's the heart and core of every issue. If you don't have life, you don't have anything at all. Every issue is an issue because of the sanctity of life. And you know, in line with what you're saying, Jenna? interestingly, the Instagram post by which the Oregon group announced that they were withdrawing this petition, they said, quote, we will build an Oregon where all of us can be who we are. So I put a comment on their Instagram post and I said, and when are you going to decide to let the unborn be who they are? And again, this goes to the root of exactly what you're saying. This is the foundation of everything. If we can't be in the first place, well, then we can't exercise any other right, so.

Jenna Ellis: Well said. Absolutely. And, this is why we press forward on these things. And, you know, speaking of getting off into, you know, some of the other, nonsense that that false worldview and ideology leads to and why, perhaps the left is kind of, ah, pulling back from some of the trans issues, we're seeing.

Father Frank: Recent news stories highlight trans violence across the country

Father Frank, you know, so many, headlines now about the harm that occurs to, the children who have been victims of this false ideology, but then also, those victims turning around being the perpetrators. And, just yesterday, a deadly mass shooting, happened at a Rhode island hockey match, that apparently this was. This suspect is a biological male who appeared to identify as a woman and, was not a child. You know, so this is a man, who was wearing a dress, identified as a woman, went to this hockey game and shot his wife and unfortunately, two of his children. I'm, not sure seeing some of the reports or some conflicting information on how the children are doing. The wife apparently was killed, and then several seriously injured, at this, this hockey game. And, you know, this just continues to be a repeat headline that people who identify as trans are, you know, are, are buying into this ideology, whether they're taking hormones or medications or have had surgeries or not. this continues to be an issue that there is a rise of trans violence happening across the country. What do you make of this?

Frank Pavone : Well, here we go again, right? It's just like now it's at the point of just you shake your head and you say this is unbelievable, and yet it's believable because how can we. You know, I call it the dead end rule. I think I've mentioned it before on your program. if you go down a road and you ignore the signs that say it's a dead end, you'll soon learn by personal experience that it's a dead end. Now we've been putting up the signs and we're seeing this dynamic play out with regard to abortion. People run into a brick wall. And they say, wow, this didn't help me. This hurt me. And we have our silent, no more voices. And people repenting of the same is happening now with transgender, but it's not only in the case of the individual saying, hey, this harmed me. You know, I find no fulfillment in this. And people who have transitioned, who now want to de transition, but we're seeing it as a society. There's a brick wall here. If you play around with, deny and rebel against the way God has created humanity, there are going to be consequences. And unfortunately, as we're learning the less hard way, some people end up dying in the process. But that's what this is. This is the dead end rule. Either we learn the easy way or the hard way. And I hope that this makes people wake up. Jenna. It reminds me of Deuteronomy 30, where we read, you know, choose life and blessings or choose death and curses. Now we have the choice to go either way, but we don't get to choose the consequences. If we rebel against God's plan for life, marriage, sexuality, or any of his commands, we choose the road of death, we are going to get curses. And this breakout of violence is one of those curses. That's how it's going to be. The lie of the other side, the lie of the abortion industry, the lie of the transgender ideology, the lie of the left wing radical, the lie of the Democrat Party is that you can choose death and get blessings. No. God's word says you choose life and you get blessings. You choose death, you get curses. And that's my comment on these ongoing news stories that here we go again, once again, trans violence. And this has got to stop and we've got to wake up.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So well said. And, you know, it's so true, Father Frank, that in the midst of this, this continued, and even from conservatives, that's correct, this push for freedom and liberty, this is a reminder that freedom requires virtue. Because if you just have freedom without virtue, then it inevitably, ends in the moral consequences that are damaging to a society, damaging to the family, damaging to the individuals. When you choose freedom, that results in choosing evil. And this is a consequence of, this whole notion in the LGBTQ movement that suggests that, you know, we have the capacity as human beings to change our biology, change our gender, and live and identify however we prefer instead of how God created us to be. And so, you know, what an apt message from Deuteronomy and a reminder that even freedom and liberty requires adhering to the authority ultimately of our Creator, and we have the genuine freedom to follow him and to live according to his will. And that's what the government needs to preserve and protect. That's what our founders understood in creating our Constitution and our system of government in the, in legitimacy is to say, okay, we're giving you the freedom and not telling you to live your life contrary to the will of God and contrary to reality. And so we have the freedom and liberty to pursue the truth, but we will never be free from the consequences of choosing evil, even if some frame that as freedom.

Frank Pavone : Right. And that's why we should never apologize either for the religious roots of what we advocate for in public policy, whether we're legislators, politicians, or just people trying to influence the culture. I think we've entered a new age now in America where we're realizing, you know what, the shackles are off. We have absolutely no reason to pretend to have to preserve and, present only secular arguments for the policy positions that we want to see prevail in America. No, we've got a religious argument here. God created them, male and female. And I think more and more, it's essential, both in our school system. You know, it was so great to see, just a week before last, President Trump say there's, new guidance now for schools, and teachers can pray and pray with the students, and there's going to be a revival of prayer in public schools. We've got to cast off these shackles that make us think our religious motives here have to be kept hidden no more. Let, them come front and center, because, like you already said, without virtue, and virtue is grounded in religion again, we're never going to get to the right place again for these public policies that end up promoting not just morality, but peace and safety in our streets and at our hockey games.

Jenna Ellis: Yes. Amen. Well, we have to take a break here. Ah, Father Frank Pavone. And, you know, so well said. And of course, virtue is. You, can't get to that and you can't get to morality absent religion. And any leftist or secularist or atheist who would argue for good is borrowing already from, the truth of God, from the person of God, and from ultimately the Christian worldview, because they can't define those things, independently, separate and apart from the truth of reality. And so we do need to speak up. Yes. Can we defend these things from just a purely, biological perspective, from, the laws of nature? Yes. But we also need to bring in nature's God, and we can and should be doing that as we consistently defend the truth in all areas of politics and policy. So we will be right back with more.

Jenna Ellis: President Donald Trump's most important decision on Iran is coming

 : welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. So we turn to the question of Iran and, there was a very interesting opinion piece by our friend Hugh Hewitt and Fox News, this week that is titled Morning Glory. President Donald Trump's most important decision is coming, and he argues that serious Trump biographies in the decades ahead will begin with the decisions he makes on Iran now. And so, so Hugh Hewitt basically argues, if I can summarize, just a bit, but it's a great op ed, you should go read the whole thing, that basically he has to choose whether to be aggressive and order strikes now on Iran, which is what the, Truman Reagan model would suggest in Hugh Hewitt's opinion. And then the other pathway would be the Carter, Obama, Biden, you know, rather lackluster, kind of, you know, putting their, their hands up and just falling back on their heels when it comes to Iran. And so, with the ongoing tensions and the Iran's, and the Iranians are now, countering with thousands of ballistic missiles which already threaten, American bases across the Middle East, Israel and Gulf allies, the nature of the regime has been fully revealed, to be a serious threat. now, Hugh Hewitt argues, is the time for action.

Scott Eulinger says it's either attack or don't attack Iran

So let's welcome in Scott Eulinger who is a retired CIA station chief. And Scott, what do you think are the choices here realistically, for President Trump at this moment in time, with respect to Iran?

Scott Uehlinger: Good morning, Jenna. yeah, I think, unfortunately, I think it's similar to the, I haven't read the article, but as you put it, as you already kind of put it, it has become kind of a binary choice to go one path or another. the main reason it is a binary choice is because of the nature of the Iranian regime now. Like, they have been saved from the brink of extinction multiple times by weeks. U.S. leadership, whether it was Obama or whoever, Obama or Biden, at the 9th hour, the 11th hour, they were saved when they were just about to fall. And unfortunately, that has given the Iranians, like, an arrogance and, a craftiness. That means that, now that we've assembled this force there, in a way, it's to intimidate the, Iranians to give us what we want peaceably, and hopefully that will happen. But if it doesn't happen, then if President Trump sends a lot of those forces home or away from the theater, I believe the Iranians will perceive that as a weakness, not a strength. And so that means that it's either attack or don't attack. But if you don't attack, the penalty that we may pay down the line may be worse than we envision.

Jenna Ellis: And, what does that mean in terms of the broader context of foreign policy?

Scott Uehlinger: Well, I mean, for one thing, for one thing, it may mean that because, like I said, the Iranian regime is just evil. They've been at war with us since 1979. I worked against them constantly in the agency. so I'm very well aware of the Iranian threat, their leadership structure, everything. But, I think that, again, they would. They would interpret, they would interpret, let's say. Let's say there. Even if there is. If there is not an agreement, then really, Trump is compelled to attack. but even if they do conclude an agreement, which I think is doubtful, because Washington understands that they can't be trusted, really, they're always going to wind up trying to undermine whatever they agreed to. And, by doing that, then how long are you going to keep, two carrier battle groups in the area? So they're hoping to kind of outlast us, delay us, which is what they always do. Or maybe they try to conclude an agreement, and then they slowly, slowly cheat and work away at it. And then maybe we're going to have to do the exact Same thing we're doing now in a year. I think Trump, and his advisors are aware of this. And so I think that the signs are pointing toward conflict. But it's a conflict that's inevitable and is probably, at this point, better now than later. you know, for example, the ballistic missile threat is there. However, a lot of launchers, because they depend on the launchers more than the missiles themselves, have been destroyed, at least one third of them by Israel and the United States. So really, the time to do this is now, before they can try to rebuild, or perhaps they take American weakness as another cue to start massacring more civilians. See, so it's just the, we're sort of on a path to war here that almost cannot be avoided unless basically Iran decides to almost surrender without a fight. And the regime knows that to do that, to renounce all its nuclear weapons, to agree to dismantling of a lot of its ballistic missiles, would result in their death, because that means that the Iranian people would take that weakness and hopefully would overthrow them. So the Iranian regime has a lot, has nothing but really bad choices. They deceive themselves thinking they have better choices.

Jenna Ellis: Right. Well, and how much of the understanding and obvious awareness that Trump has that, you know, he has three years left and who knows what's going to happen in 2028. And, you know, even if, there is another Republican president after him, I think it's a very different calculation. If you look at a Vance administration versus Rubio, versus DeSantis, for example, then how does all of that sort of factor in, into the timing of this? Because if Trump delays further than, you know, that that clock ends up going further, toward running out.

Scott Uehlinger: Right, exactly. And that's not gonna. And basically this regime living on into the future, especially after this, demonstration of us might, and if we kind of skulk away without doing anything, that is a bad, that's a bad signal to telegraph to the world. because a lot, you know, these. Because remember, these, These countries, regimes do not think the way we do. They're going to see that as a sign of weakness and contempt, and they're going to lash out even more. And so, like I said, I think all the signs and momentum are towards war. But, you know, I'm not a big supporter of war. But really, in this case, the time to strike is now. This regime is, very unpopular with the Iranian people, particularly unpopular at this moment. And so we should take advantage of that. And plus the fact, you don't want to leave this for any subsequent administration, whether it's Republican or, God forbid, Democrat.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And Scott Eulinger. So, you know, this also comes at a. At a time when Marco Rubio, Secretary, of State, of course, was, talking at the Munich, security conference, tying broader geopolitical concepts to security and Western identity. Talked about revitalizing the transatlantic relationship and resisting a man decline of the West. And so how does that kind of strategic narrative in, the European perception of US Commitments to collective defense, and all this influence, military planning, deterrence in the Middle east, and especially regarding possible conflict with Iran?

Scott Uehlinger: Well, right. It doesn't. His speech is extremely important because he's basically putting into words things that. That no one was. Everyone was afraid to even voice 10 or 15 years ago. He's saying things like colonialism was not a bad thing. And he's correct about that. I mean, what would Africa look like if it had never been colonized versus, now, we've already seen the fall of these countries, after, post colonialism. But it would have been even worse if the Europeans hadn't been there to begin with. but of course, the European leadership right now is dominated by globalists. So any US Assertion of, okay, the free ride is over. You're going to have to. Instead of spending all your money on welfare for Muslim immigrants to have children, you actually have to rebuild your air force or navy. The Europeans don't want to hear this stuff. And so everything they hear from, Although apparently they did applaud Rubio, but most of the time the, Europeans are ankle biters because they've painted themselves into a corner where they can't. They can't even rebuild their military if they try. And that's why their talks about, oh, we're going to like, renew the war on Ukraine and stuff is it's absolute fantasy because the Europeans have no ability to do this anymore. So, you know, they, I guess they're just kind of hoping that this kind of thing will go away and hopefully a Democrat will be elected because they just don't want to deal with all of their problems. The European leadership is in denial or actively assisting with the destruction of their own countries by the importing of 50 million, M. Muslim immigrants since the year 2000, 25 years. The population went from 500,000 Muslims to 50 million in 25 years. And that is solely because that is what the leadership of the EU wanted. Now the people are rebelling, but the question is, is it too Late. So we'll be seeing this. and clearly the fallout from these disastrous policies are going to affect U.S. foreign policy because in 10 years, are the European countries even to be trusted anymore? Is Britain going to be another Iran but with better nuclear weapons, you know, dominated by, an Islamic majority almost at that point. These are real questions. I think that there are, people looking at infrastructure in Washington towards the future. What is the next 10 years going to look like?

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's such an important point that as the demographics, shift and intentionally, importing the, the Eastern ideology and Islam into these European countries, then can they really be characterized as our allies and part of the West? And we're even contemplating, you know, some of those same questions here on our own, domestic home front, in terms of that.

Scott Ewlinger: US could at least assist Europe in sounding alarm

And so, you know, just, in the last minute we have or so, Scott Ewlinger, I mean, what, what is the long term plan to sort of prevent that if, if the US could at least assist Europe in, in sounding the alarm?

Scott Uehlinger: Well, I mean, Trump is already, has already very publicly given speeches, as has the Vice President and Secretary of State on this danger. They say the things that European leadership dare not say about. You've basically imported too many people that are a security threat. They are dragging your economies down, your, zero energy goals are destroying German industry, French industry, etc. And so hopefully the United States perhaps will have to support, basically the nationalist groups in Europe that want to try to reclaim leadership so that it's more what the people want rather than what the globalist elitists want.

Jenna Ellis: Wow. It's just so fascinating how the risk board always changes. And this, is why insights, like yours, Scott Ewlinger, are so important, to be at the fore of what's going on. Thanks so much and, we'll be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the morning.

The AFR AH app is a powerful tool, but it does have limitations

 : welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Institute for Family Studies says young adults are experiencing a dating recession

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And the Institute for Family Studies Has a really interesting article out this week that today's young adults are in a dating recession. So young adults today are living in a depressed dating economy, according to this article. That is their conclusion after, analyzing findings from the 2025 National Dating Landscape Survey, a nationally representative sample of 5,275 unmarried young adults in their prime dating years, ages 22 to 35 in the United States. they say that our analyses focus mostly on the dating experiences of those single young adults who do expect to marry someday, or 86% of the sample. So, what did they learn? Well, the highlights are that three quarters of women, or about 74% and nearly two thirds of men, 64% in the survey reported they had not dated, dated or dated only a few times in the last year. A second among the rising generation, dating confidence is low with only about one in three young adults expressing much faith in their dating, skills. And third, young adults need effective roadmaps that guide them to and through the dating experiences that will connect their marital expectations to actual union. So some really interesting insights here.

About 38% of Gen Z say they feel confident approaching potential partners

Let's welcome in John Root who is a feature faith sports and cultural commentator and you can find him on X and Instagram. I'd encourage you to look him up for all of the really interesting cultural videos that he puts out. but John, you know this, this was fascinating to me in kind of a broader cultural context because I think that the norms of what is expected, not only in, in marriage but even within, you know, how you get there from you know, single to marriage. The Bible, doesn't specify a process us, even though, you know, the kind of the hallmark culture has defined this in various ways. but the, the norms that used to be expected of men and women are just so completely obliterated in this kind of post truth culture that I can understand, why Gen Z in particular finds the navigation of the dating world just, you know, really incredibly difficult.

Jon Root: Yeah, and I thought one of the most interesting things about this Jenna was dating skills and those attributes that you need within dating. And about 38% said that they found themselves attractive to potential dating partners. So that was actually maybe a little bit more than I thought. but you know, it's, you know, it's a little less than 40% but it drops dramatically for both men and especially women. And when it says I feel confident approaching someone I'm interested in and my best guess would be, especially since this seems to be survey that's done, you know, around byu probably around BYU students, and especially in that culture, that seems very similar to our Protestant culture. And I went to a Christian college myself. So you're thinking about dating, you're thinking about the future, you're thinking about marriage. And there's got to be a social media component here. The way that we interact, the way that we want to portray ourselves and quote unquote, our brand online and how we interact online mostly. And maybe that hurts that in person communication, they don't know how to communicate in general. And it's sad to me because it seems like there still is a good amount of young people that desire long term relationships, but men don't know what role they're supposed to fill. Feminism is still taking root whether you're at a religious institution or not. And we're now at a place where confidence and that was one of the biggest takeaways I had. Again seeing this and reading about this with confidence seems to be at an all time low and that must be, you know, aspects of social media plays a part.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I totally agree with that assessment and I think all of the studies that have shown how much social media influences the perception of what's not only attainable but also then by comparison, with filters with you know, so many different things, I mean even some of these accounts that are AI generated that you know, people are looking at and saying, oh well you know, that's a normal person, why can't I look like or have that or you know, some of those other things, and the norms and the expectations as well. you know, one of the things that I think think has been really detrimental overall to to dating has been this terminology shift from you know, I'm looking for a spouse or you know, boyfriend to girlfriend and you know, having clear gender distinctions, and, and with that the more, the nod to more traditional roles, I would say biblical roles, to this aspect of partnership. I mean have you heard that where it's like you know, and I've even dated a few guys that have said, you know, I'm looking for a partner and then they call themselves a partner and it doesn't actually mean any sort, you know, there's no boyfriend, girlfriend. And it's very, to me that's very weird. And it's kind of taking out the biblical element of it for this sort of more egalitarian, ah, more feminist, kind of approach to dating that I think is also blurring what the the traditional biblical model for marriage and what, What? Marriage is more than just a partnership. Almost like, you know, it's not a business transaction.

Jon Root: That's funny you bring that up when you say business transaction. That's the first thing I think of is a partnership is, you know, we're just kind of coming together and, you know, we might sign a contract for, you know, a short amount of time, you know, and I don't know necessarily, this partnership needs a commitment forever or a desire to be with someone that I want to be with forever. and that's the way I see these things too, is, men don't know how to lead. Young men don't know how to lead. I know I caught a lot of flack when I was responding, and I don't mean for Betty Johnson to be catching strays here, but, I know him and so many others that may really desire for young men to get married and young people to get married. But if you just keep telling people, you know, it's simple, fall in love, get married, have a million kids, and then watch God do amazing things in your life, you can't just keep telling young people, and especially young men, like, just get married. It's like, well, I don't know how to date. Like, you know, what is dating for marriage look like? what do I look for in a wife? How do I prepare mentally, physically, and biblically for marriage? What does leadership actually look like? Who are good examples of that? And then obviously, I know you've talked about this ad nauseum is feminism, whether it's just slight aspects of feminism or full blown radical feminism, has led women to believe that, you know, no men really want to watch out for them. There's no way that you should ever submit, you know, biblically to a man. You shouldn't, because it's, you know, this whole idea of in this partnership, you're going to have more power, and you should have more power and, you know, dating and relationships and marriage, that should change with the culture. and obviously, as Christians, we don't believe that. We believe that men should lead in relationships, but that doesn't mean lead as an authoritarian, as a dictator. and I think it is really tough, especially when, the culture keeps teaching men that they need to stop, leading, they need to take a back seat, let women lead, in these situations. And, you know, obviously we add those factors on top of the real interesting part of this is people are afraid to date because of money issues. It's more expensive now. And I'm about to have my Second kid with my wife and you know, it's like, wow, things are expensive. But I would have never let that hold me back from dating in the first place. Wouldn't let it hold me back from having more children. And I just think in general these young men and young women need to be taught, they need to realize that they, the grass isn't always greener. Swiping right and swiping left is maybe not the best way to go about things for you mentally and a big thing too if I just add another. Jenna is I would be really interested to see a follow up study about how sexual content, whether that's the stuff they're just viewing on streaming services or going full blown watching porn, how that is affecting relationships as well. Because I'm sure that would be something that is really ruining relationships or potential dating partnerships, and not to use partnerships, dating relationships in the future. And I think that can play a huge factor and has played a huge factor in warping the minds of especially a lot of young men.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And I think John Root, that the church overall has not done a good job of equipping men and women to actually understand what, what the dating landscape looks like because Yeah, and I was even, I was ranting to my, my producer Luke this week about a couple of Instagram posts that I saw. We don't have enough time to play it now. Maybe I will on a future program.

John: The church needs to disciple young men and women about dating

But there was a pastor who I know well, and I actually like otherwise who was was talking about, you know, the reminder to single Christians that you know, a spouse is a gift from m. The Lord. And if you, you know what, wait for, you know, basically the ideal, then you know, God will bless you. And kind of the, the way in the tone that it came across is you know, if you're worthy enough and if you can you know, attain sort of this you know, lofty club that the rest of you know, Christians have somehow attained and not not being specific at all about what kinds of qualities and characteristics both men and women should strive for and basically just leaving this as a broad, kind of generalized concept and also not recognizing that you know, a lot of people, I mean especially my parents generation, they. And even now it's like they'll get married even before they become Christians, you know. And so this is a, an aspect of general grace that marriage isn't even just for Christians. And not everybody does this perfectly. But once you're married. God still sees you just as married as, the people who did it exactly the right way. And so I think there's kind of this, this almost unspoken, sort of, almost looking down on singles in the church and not really a lot of, avenues and a lot of support and intention that churches give, to say, you know, if we value marriage and family so much, then we should be on purpose creating discipleship, elements and also creating a forum and a venue to, you know, put people together and not leaving them just to the dating apps. When, you know, I mean, in my experience, it's like, who knows what Christian actually means when you're talking to somebody just through a dating app? I mean, that can have a very, unfortunately, broad definition. So I think, John, you know, the church, is not really taking a lot of responsibility here, here to. To show men and women, you know, how they need to go about this whole process.

Jon Root: Yeah. And like you said, the term is discipleship. We need to disciple young men and young women about what the roles look like in a future marriage, what dating looks like right now, and then actually having people that have a good understanding of, okay, how many kids in our church. Young, young men, young women are on dating apps. You know, why aren't they. Why aren't the men approaching the young women in our, church? Do they need to be discipled? Yes. Like you're saying. It's. You can't just say, well, it seems like the dating pool should be wide open here at church. There's plenty of eligible bachelors. There's plenty of eligible young women. So, you know, why aren't they interacting? You know, why aren't men taking the next step to say, can I just take you out? Because, you know, there is a complicated aspect of things. I guess, but I don't think it's that complicated to ask somebody out. And especially within the church, I think a lot of young men are just. They're scared. I know I was at times, and going to a Christian college, things were done. It was.

Jon Root: If I asked somebody out, it was like, everybody expected them to become my future spouse right away. And there's a daunting aspect of dating, no doubt, but I think in general, there needs to be discipleship. And there's plenty of questions that young men and young women need answering in the church. And the church is just not really addressing it. And they're just kind of hoping, like, well, we got a lot of eligibles in our congregation, so, you know, it's up to the men, just to talk to them. And I just think again, it's playing sports my whole life. You can have somebody that has a lot of natural athletic ability, but they're not going to go out and be able to, you know, just play well on the court, you know, without being properly taught. And I think the same thing goes with dating. I think there needs to be proper discipleship. And then in general too, when you're saying outside of the church, a lot of young people, I think they won't admit it. And that was the interesting part of the study was if we really got down to the nitty gritty, I think there is a selfishness problem we all have, Christian or not, and especially in this day and age, that young men and young women will just decide, well, you know, I just feel like I'm not that afraid of commitment. But I do like pursuing my career more. I do like having my options open. I do like the ability to go and travel and do the things that I want to do. And I think that's something that needs to be addressed as well. but it doesn't seem like it's addressed in this, in the survey findings. but if someone actually put together a study and like almost a selfishness scale, it probably be some interesting findings to find out that people are afraid of commitment because they care about themselves more than sacrificing themselves, sacrificially loving somebody in a relationship and future in a marriage.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. so well said, John Root. I mean I think that at ah, the core, is the problem that we're seeing in the decline of marriage but also the decline of the birth rate is that even so many couples, even if they are married, then they say, well, you know, for economic reasons or just for pure selfishness reasons, I want to be able to be free to go travel or do whatever I want. And so I don't want to have a kid weighing me down. You know, they're, they are turning in the blessings of God for total selfishness. And the church needs to be discipling people and showing them the biblical truthful way. so we're already out of time. This could be a much longer conversation. Maybe we'll have to do it on the podcast soon, soon. But John Root, really appreciate it. Again, follow him on social media and as always you can reach me and my team.