Birth of American Progressivism: The Legacy of Woodrow Wilson
July 29, 2025
Host: Dr. Jamie Mitchell
Guest: Greg Schaller
Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 7/29/25. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.
Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning the following dialogue.
Jamie Mitchell:
Well, welcome to a very special stand in the Gap today. I’m Jamie Mitchell, and as always, I’m so honored to be your host today. About 15, maybe 20 years ago, our family took a summer vacation to a timeshare resort in West Virginia right on the boarder of Virginia. And as we were looking for options for sightseeing, I stumbled upon the town of Staunton, Virginia. It was suggested that we drive over and check it out. Well come to find out that Staunton was the birthplace of our 28th president Woodrow Wilson. Now, to be honest, back then I didn’t know a lot about Wilson. So we checked out the small museum in his memory. The first interesting fact is that it was called The Manse or a parsonage for the Town’s Presbyterian Church. His father was a minister, who knew, but that was not the only thing I learned about Wilson that day.
As I walked around and read the different account after account of the things that he did while he was in office, it then hit me. Wilson was probably the greatest threat that we’ve ever seen enter the White House at trying to undo all the things that make our country unique and exceptional. Simply put, Wilson could be credited as the grandfather of liberal progressive political thought in American politics. Yet what he did and what he believed is little known or even understood today. If you want to fully grasp progressivism and how that’s affecting us in our world today, you must tap into Wilson’s legacy and that’s our challenge today. Our program is entitled The Birth of American Progressivism. The legacy of Woodrow Wilson and to help us dig into this app aspect of our history is a return guest to Stand in the Gap. Dr. Greg Schaller. Greg is the director of the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University through Centennial Institute’s academic lectures, thought provoking workshops and engagement in Public policy initiative. It impacts the culture and fosters a deeper understanding of faith and freedom. He has been a joy to have on our program a number of times, and he’s a wealth of understanding and hopefully can really pull back the curtain on Woodrow Wilson and the rise of progressivism and liberalism in America. Greg, welcome again to Stand In the Gap.
Greg Schaller:
Thank you, Jamie. Let me just say I really appreciate the work you are doing. We’ve talked about this in the past, but I just think as Christians and citizens, what we have a real responsibility to understand the nature of our government, the policymaking process, and ultimately what we as Christians are trying to do when we engage in the public square. So the informative nature of your program I think is just hugely important, and I think it’s great that we have an audience that cares about these issues and wants to learn more.
Jamie Mitchell:
Well, Greg, you’re so kind. Thank you for that. And I’ll tell you, having people like yourself, being willing to come on here and give us the knowledge that you have, boy, that is tremendously important to us. As I always say, clarity is never our enemy, and clarity leads to courage. So Greg, before we get into Wilson, I think it would be helpful to define or describe this idea of progressivism. We hear it a lot. We hear about people being progressives. We think ourselves, the word progress means to move forward, but that’s not necessarily what they mean. When we hear that word. What does it mean and why should that concern us?
Greg Schaller:
Yeah, well, I think it should really concern us because it’s a complete break from what I believe is a classical Christian worldview, and it’s an assumption of sort of a historical positivism that there is such a thing as human progress. Like the human condition is malleable, it’s changeable, and that if the right technocrats are involved in the process, they can actually improve the human condition. And again, obviously a Christian thinking about that recognizes that the human nature is one that has fallen, that we are not perfectable. And there’s a confidence within the progressive mindset that rejects that classical Judeo-Christian understanding of human nature and a belief that if you just give the right people the right authority, they can alter and change the human condition. If you give them the right power and authority, they can eliminate societal ills. So it’s a complete rejection of the classical Christian understanding of human nature, and it’s a complete rejection of the founder’s view of human nature.
One of the reasons that we have something in our constitution like checks and balances is because we have a skepticism about human nature. We know we subscribe to that view of Lord Acton, that power can be corrupting and often is corrupting. And so we want to limit the amount of authority that anyone in government would have because they’re likely to abuse it if they have too much progressive view. The Wilsonian view is a rejection of that worldview. It’s a confidence that we can actually do things better, that social engineering is possible, which will improve the human condition. So what the impact that the progressive mindset has, the progressive worldview is an elimination of what we as Christians understand to be the permanent human condition.
Jamie Mitchell:
And Greg part of that, we heard this term that we need to fundamentally change America and how America works and how we view even America. But part of that is even the removal of God from the equation of how society works, how government works, and even our view of how politics works, you basically have to take God out of the equation for progressivism to have its full brain.
Greg Schaller:
Yeah, absolutely. I think if we were to break down the key tenets of progressivism, we’d say there is an absolute rejection of a Christian worldview, is a central part of this, a rejection of the idea of natural rights, something that was essential as part of the Declaration of Independence, that we have God-given rights that exist, a priori to the states, not the government that gives us these rights. It’s God that gives us these rights. It’s a rejection of the idea of limited government in favor of an expansive view of the state, a belief that more and more power ought to go to the state, a huge reliance and faith in expertise and bureaucracy. If we think back to how’s this realized, just think about the COVID years in our country and really around the world of granting all sorts of authority to governments, to the so-called experts and extraordinary confidence in their ability as bureaucratic technocrats to solve problems. There is this moral relativism that is a central part of the progressive movement, and then again, a belief in sort of reform through social engineering that if you give the right people the right authority, they can actually change and alter the human condition.
Jamie Mitchell:
Well, we’re going to see how this virus of progressivism has gotten into the nation’s bloodstream, and you need to look no further than our 28th president when we return. Who is Woodrow Wilson and how did he move forward? This idea of progressivism here in America? Welcome back friends. Our focus today is to understand the origins of progressivism in politics and specifically the role that Woodrow Wilson, our 28th president, played in the development of progressivism. Greg Schaller from the Centennial Institute and Colorado is our guest. Okay, Greg, let’s get at it. Who is Woodrow Wilson and why do we assign him with being one of the main influences in the development of leftist thinking here in the United States?
Greg Schaller:
Sure. So Wilson had a long career as an academic and someone who’s been in the academy for quite a while, myself looking at this, I sort of see the dangers of an academic getting involved in politics. That’s not a solid rule, that there aren’t good academics who can engage well in the public square. But what we see in Wilson, especially in his academic career, was an attack on the ideas, the ideals and the construction of the American founding Wilson. And this sort of gets back to this worldview that exists within the progressivism had a confidence in the bureaucratic technocrat and in elites and a belief if these elites get into power, and again, given the right control, given the right authority, they could solve all of our societal ills. And when Wilson, as academic politics professor is studying the American constitution, studying the foundations of the American Constitution in the Declaration of Independence, he doesn’t see these a source of good governments of a proper ordering of government.
He sees these as frustrations, as roadblocks to the technocrat being able to enact the system of government and the policies that they find preferable. So when Wilson is teaching, when he’s studying the American constitution, he doesn’t hold this up in high regard. He sees it as needing to be attacked. A big part of the progressive understanding is historicism and Historicism teaches that things that are proper in a particular era of time may not be proper in another era of time. And so maybe the US Constitution was appropriate early on for the American founding to getting a system of government in place. But by the time we get to the late 18 hundreds, Wilson sees this is out of date and again, a hindrance to the progress that he thinks the government should be making. So he begins an attack, he begins an attack on the natural right arguments found in the Declaration of Independence, and then the components of the US Constitution that he found frustrating. So things like separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism. He thinks that all of these things need to go away so that the enlightened technocrat in the executive branch can implement these policies. He sees democratic institutions, things like the Senate, the Congress is not allowing the experts to fulfill their objectives. So Wilson Undertakes is a very big project of tackling and targeting and attacking our constitutional order.
Jamie Mitchell:
As I’ve been reading, Greg, getting ready for this, like I said to you before we went on the air, I’ve just been shocked at what again, I didn’t know. And I thought in the last 15 years I had learned, I mean, Wilson had such a low view of the common man. He had a bigoted attitude within him in promoting segregation and things like that. And like you said, he really felt like they were them and us. They were the smart people. There were the elites, there were the people who knew better, and those are the people who should be running things and anybody who gets in his way. Boy, he was vicious. He was the first one really to bring about something like cancel culture. He was constantly going after anyone that would criticize him. Greg, it’s not enough to understand his biography, but what he accomplished in office. What are some of the most troubling things as you look at his history he brought into government and that were even feeling the effects of them today?
Greg Schaller:
Sure. Well, I mean one thing we could do is look at the constitution and amendments. He was very much involved in the passage of the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th amendments. Now the 19th Amendment we’re not upset about granting women’s suffrage, but the 16th and the 17th especially fundamentally altered the nature of our government. The 16th Amendment is what enabled taxation on wages, and then the 17th Amendment moved towards direct election of the United States Senate. Both of these had a fundamental impact, sort of changing the nature of our system of government, and it granted increased power ultimately to the federal government. So obviously the ability to have taxation on wages greatly expands the coffers, the treasury of the national government, and allowing the federal government to have much, much greater influence over lawmaking, over policymaking and control of a expanding, continually expanding national budget. And then the 17th Amendment, which again moved towards direct election of United States Senators fundamentally altered the nature of the United States Senate basically making it another voice, sort of a popular vote of the people as opposed to the original understanding of the Senate, which was to have the senators serve as a voice of the interests of the states.
And I am one who believes that that change in the nature of the United States Senate largely expanded led to the expansion of things like federal entitlement programs, Medicare, Medicaid, social security. I don’t think these things are likely to happen absent this change in the United States Senate because rather than the senators being protectors of the interests of the states, they become just another popular voice of the people within the states. And a lot of the things that our government does today make it very difficult for states to operate well, because it’s making so many requirements and mandates on states and their participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and the like. So we’re just there thinking about alterations to the US Constitution, we see a huge impact on what Wilson and the other progressives were attempting to do. Another big change, and this is sort of the structure of our government, is the rise in the federal bureaucracy. Wilson firmly believed in a fourth branch of government give agencies, give departments increased policymaking, rulemaking authority taking what should be in the hands of the legislative branch over to the executive branch. And so we have this huge expansion post Wilson’s presidency, but he’s one who really initiated this of a great increase in the size of the federal bureaucracy.
Jamie Mitchell:
Wow. Now interesting about the whole Senate thing. When I see that change, that means that senators would have to be elected by the popular vote of their state and not be placed by their state legislators, which means a whole lot more corruption for outside money. And you’ve seen in our time the rise of wealth of our senators today. Well, partly because they’re not beholding to their constituents and to the voters anymore. They are driven by the people who give them money to get elected. And boy, that one change, Greg that just sent the whole political landscape in turmoil. Am I reading that right?
Greg Schaller:
No, I think you are. And one of the great ironies are that the progressives actually argued that there was too much corruption. So as you pointed out, it was the state legislatures that used to choose their state senators and Wilson and the progressive said, well, that’s a corrupt system because there’ll be all sorts of deal making going on between the state legislatures and those people who want to be chosen as senators. But I think Hugh rightly point out the corruption that exists today is probably far greater than the corruption that was existing. I’m not trying to say there wasn’t some corruption going on, but to the extent to which they use that as evidence to call for a change in the means choosing senators obviously is not proven correct because I think you’re right. There’s extraordinary amount of money that is changing hands and influence that goes into the process of choosing our senators today. So it certainly didn’t eliminate corruption. I think you can make a strong case that it probably increased the amount of corruption.
Jamie Mitchell:
Greg, we got about a minute. Explain the League of Nations and Wilson’s involvement with that.
Greg Schaller:
Sure. This satisfies this progressive impulse that if you give those people in authority, I mean he has a wild utopian view, that if the right people in power leaders of nations could operate under this sort of a global governance, that they could eliminate the problems that exist, eliminate the wars, eliminate the economic strife that exist among nations, that it was the passions of the people that alone explained why there was conflict, why there was global conflict. And if you grant authority to certain people, you could eliminate that. Again, it is wildly utopian, but it fits in with the mind state of the progressives, a belief that the human condition can be altered, it can be changed, it can be improved given the right authority structures.
Jamie Mitchell:
Wow. And League of Nations becomes the United Nations, and basically we hand our sovereignty over to that group of nations at times. It’s amazing what Wilson has done. Another amazing part is literally the last half of his term, of his last term. He was not functional. His wife was actually running the presidency. Sound familiar? Well, when we come back, I want to look deeper into modern progressive theory and how its roots are founded in Wilson and how we are feeling it today. Don’t go anywhere. This is stand in the gap today. Thanks again for staying with us and allowing us to share what we consider important information that American Pastors Network and stand in the gap today. We want believers and leaders to be informed, to be able to speak intelligently on the topics of the day. And understanding progressivism is important. Your children, grandchildren are being inundated with it throughout their education and you’ll be called upon at some point to help them unravel the damage that’s being done.
And that’s why today is so important. Greg Schallers, our guest, Greg. We’ve looked at Woodrow Wilson and his life and some of the things that he did as a president to push a leftist more liberal, progressive political doctrine that has been a hundred years ago, but what Wilson dreamed of becoming a reality and more is happening. We’re seeing more and more as I went through his history and the things that he was pushing. It’s amazing the things that now we are living with. How have Wilson’s seeds of progressive thought borne fruit today and how is it manifesting itself?
Greg Schaller:
Sure. So I mean this sort of gets back to what we’ve been circling around it is sort of the question of who is the ultimate authority. So just think about policy debates we experienced today or go through things about healthcare perhaps or education or even something like parental rights. A question is who is the ultimate authority? Is it the individual? Is it the family or is it the state? And the progressive movement says that oftentimes in their view things like families are a hindrance. So we need to weaken the authority of parents and grant greater authority to some government entity. I’ll give you a tragic example of something that happened here in the state of Colorado. It’s a woman I’ve gotten to know fairly well. Her daughter, when she was 12, was brought into a group called Art Club at their local school where a teacher was grooming this child to transition their gender.
And they did this without informing the parents of what was going on. In fact, they lied to the parents about this in shielding this girl and shielding this teacher. That mindset. You might think that’s an extraordinary example, an extreme example, but it is that mindset that some government authority actually knows better than the child’s own parents. So we think about where these lines are drawn. There’s a really important economist, I’m sure you’re familiar with him, Thomas Sowell and Sowell has studied progressivism and its impact on government and sort of the mindset, this change in mindset. He wrote a book several decades ago called Division of the Anointed. And in this book he lays out all of these case studies of where government claims an authority and an expertise, and they know better than others, that they know better than individuals, that they know better than parents.
What sole can contrast in this book is the vision of anointed. That’s the expert technocrat versus what he calls the tragic vision. Now, the tragic vision is the Christian worldview. It’s the understanding of the human condition. So we know that we’re fallen people, we know that we are limited in our capacity. We know that we can’t solve all of the world’s problems, all of the social ills. So that mindset greatly changes what our expectations are of the role of government. If you hold the tragic vision, you say government shouldn’t have too much power and authority because it won’t solve problems. It doesn’t have the capacity to solve problems. The vision of, again, the vision of the anointed beliefs that if you give those experts the power, the money, the control, they can solve these things. And what’s fascinating in Soul’s book is how he goes through case after case of where the alleged experts come in with their government programs, they think they’re going to solve problems, and more often than not, Sol finds they actually make things worse.
One quick example, the sex ed, something that didn’t exist in most schools prior to the 1960s, government began requiring and mandating that all public schools across the country do sex ed. And they said, we have a crisis on our hands. We have teen pregnancies. We have a rise in socially sexually transmitted diseases. What Sowell finds is that following the application of this of sex ed in public schools, there was not a decrease in sexually transmitted diseases. There was not a decrease in teen pregnancies. There was actually an increase. So not only did the experts not fix the problem, they led to things actually getting worse. And what was the expert’s response to that data? Well, you didn’t give us enough power. You didn’t give us enough money. So a long answer to your question, Jamie, but the idea here, and what we’re seeing here is the impact of this progressive Wilsonian mindset is let’s give government more and more money, more and more authority, and they’re going to fix things. And I would argue, no, they’re not going to fix things. They’re actually likely going to make things worse. So if we get into things like cultural relativism, identity politics, DEI and the like, government is pushing this agenda and I argue that these agendas are contra the biblical worldview and they’re not going to result in improving the human condition, more than likely they’re going to make our societal conditions worse.
Jamie Mitchell:
Greg, if you really do an honest evaluation of Woodrow Wilson’s policies and who he was, he made life here in America worse, and then his arrogance, he believed that what he was doing was virtuous and had great merit. He even began to stick his nose in the rest of the world around us. I was shocked to find out that he messed around in Haiti, in the Dominican Republic in Mexico, and even when it comes to World War I, he pressed Congress to declare war on Germany. And really we weren’t even involved in that conflict. He found a way to insert himself around the world because he knew better and he was going to make things better. But it just was failure after failure after failure. And until Donald Trump came along in some respects, we just kept doing the same thing of sticking our nose in places where it both didn’t belong, but it really wasn’t changing anything. It was making it worse and even making it a corrupt nations to deal with his foreign policy, really we are feeling the brunt of it even today, aren’t we?
Greg Schaller:
Yeah, I think stepping back just a second here, I mean what you described there I think is a good explanation of the progressive mindset and it’s hubris, it’s an arrogance. We’re called as Christians to not have that arrogance, to recognize our fallibility and to have humility. That doesn’t mean we don’t enter into the public square. We try, but we recognize our limitations and we have a skepticism because of our limitations. What Wilson brings is an arrogance that he knows best and step aside and give him the authority he needs and he’s going to write the situation. And that hubris is what often gets us into very serious trouble. We need to be very careful about our interventions, about where we step into and recognize with humility that we’re limited in our capacity. The progressive mindset assumes that we can comprehensively understand all the things going on, and we know as Christians, we don’t have that capacity.
So we need, again, to enter into the public square with the humility, and that’s something that’s lacking. There’s this confidence, you’ve heard the phrase, I’m sure on the right side of history, this belief that they were on the right side of history, and again, just grant them the authority they need and they’ll bring the rest of us along. And that arrogance as you point out, and as we’ve seen in many things, both in military engagement but then just other policymaking that we don’t end up making things better. We often can make things worse. So I think we should have a reluctance. And before we leap into situations like that,
Jamie Mitchell:
We got about a minute or two left, and I want to talk about how to combat some of this, but I can’t help but to think that Wilson came from the home of a Presbyterian minister. He was the president of Princeton University and seminary. He was there when Gresham Machen was there. He’s been around evangelicals. And to be honest with you, he used his understanding of Christianity as kind of allure to bring in this sense of goodness for mankind. I think we need to be very discerning as Christians that sometimes progressivism can be sold as doing good, but really in reverse. It’s not doing good, it’s making things worse. As someone in the Christian college world, I mean this is an important piece of this conversation, isn’t it?
Greg Schaller:
Yeah, absolutely it is. I mean, it’s ironic. The child of a pastor who develops what I think is a really flawed worldview and one that’s not consistent with biblical principles. So while he was familiar with it, I don’t know whether it was a rejection of it or if it was just a perverted understanding of a biblical worldview, but what he was attempting is not compatible with an understanding of a fallen world because it’s assuming things that we can’t as Christians assume.
Jamie Mitchell:
Well, when we come back for our last segment, we want to talk about how to fight against the progressive left and again, talk more about how to be discerning. That is our calling. It takes to be courageous people to do that. So don’t go anywhere. Stay with us as we finish up our conversation about Wilson. Well, I hope you’ve been stirred and we’ll maybe do some further study in investigating on Woodrow Wilson and progressivism. Greg Scheller has been our guest. Greg, before I forget, just this past year you became the director of the Centennial Center at Colorado Christian University. What is the center? What are you attempting to do and how can our people check out your work and benefit by it?
Greg Schaller:
Sure, yeah, thanks. Yeah. I taught at Colorado Christian University from 2009 to 2017 before leaving to go run the John J Institute for seven and a half years. When I was at CCU originally, the Public policy center was formed the Centennial Institute. So what we tried to do is impact both local, state and national politics by informing our students, our faculty staff, and then a wider audience about what a biblical approach to engaging in the public square to public policy is. So we really try and study policy areas and then inform, well, so we have engagement with students specifically, we have reading groups, things like that. But then we also host larger events all the time. So we’re actually hosting a big event, the end of, and it is the intersection of technology and theology of the body. So we are embodied people created in the image of God, how is technology impacting us, perhaps positive, but also in a lot of negative ways. We know that certain technologies are changing, things like attention span and our ability to do read long form and perhaps even with artificial intelligence, our ability to think well if we’re handing off those things to a technology. So we’re exploring all sorts of issues like that. We do conferences, speaker series and the like. And we’re going to be doing an awful lot next year for the celebration of the 250th anniversary of course, of the Declaration of Independence.
Jamie Mitchell:
And what’s your website? How could they check you out?
Greg Schaller:
Yeah, it’s centennial.ccu.edu and you’ll see all of our events. If you’re in the Denver area, we’d love to have you stop by, meet with us, and maybe attend some of our events.
Jamie Mitchell:
Well, we watch what’s happening in Colorado and Denver and all through that area. And boy, you are facing progressivism for sure. And so we’re thankful for Colorado Christian University and what you do and pray that you will have the kind of influence that we believe you can. Greg, we have raised a red flag on this idea of progressivism today and especially educating our people on President Wilson’s destructive administration and policies. But I don’t want to sound like we don’t like Wilson or he’s kind of the demon in a black suit and a fedora hat and that we might not like people like Biden or Roosevelt or Trump as president or personalities, but there are ongoing deep damage that has been done. And more importantly, why should we as Christians be concerned about progressive thought? I know you’ve already raised this issue of it being contrary to a biblical worldview, but it goes deeper, doesn’t it?
Greg Schaller:
I guess as Christians I think thinking about this sort, what are the tenets of progressivism and what we’ve discussed? I think that this is a rejection of objective moral truth because they believe in the historical positivism that the human condition can improve over time. It’s a rejection of God-given rights. It’s a rejection of the dignity of the human person. And in place of that is a deification of the state and a belief that again, given the right authorities, given the right of power, given the right financial abilities that the state can bring about human flourishing, basically replacing the role of God, replacing the role of the family, replacing the role of the church. These are the fundamental tenets of progressivism. So as Christians and thinking about this and thinking about what the progressive movement is attempting, it very much is a rejection of the biblical worldview, a biblical understanding of the human condition, and it is an assault.
And so we need to be very mindful of this. As followers of Christ, we’re called to uphold truth, to resist tyranny, to steward the society towards good, towards justice, towards virtue. And the progressive impulse is a rejection of all of those things. It’s untethered from transcended truth, and that alone is a reason we need to be very, very concerned about this. And as you were pointing out, I live in a state where religious liberty, freedom of speech is constantly under attack and it’s under attack from progressives who think they know better. The Supreme Court is taking up a case. It’ll be heard, I believe in October, this fall term of a Christian counselor who can’t introduce by law in the state of Colorado. She can’t introduce her faith to a client who let’s say who’s dealing with same sex attraction and tell the Bible teaches us that this is sin and we have to suppress our sin nature.
She can’t say that or else she’s her license to practice as a psychologist in this state is under attack and she will be fined. That’s the progressive mindset. The progressive mindset. There’s another case that was just settled here in Colorado of camp I Haji a Christian camp has been around for 75 years. The state licensing board that controls overnight camps was telling camp I haji that they were going to have to allow a transgender to bunk and to shower in the same place as a biological female with a biological male if that biological male was identifying as a female. Fortunately, the alliance defending freedom came along and was able to get an injunction against this. But that’s extraordinary. That’s the mindset. It is a denial of the biblical understanding of human sexuality and gender and some technocrat in the state of Colorado telling this camp how they need to operate. And if they don’t operate the way the technocrat wants them to, they were going to lose their license. This is why as Christians, I think we need to be very aware of what the progressive impulse is about and what the threat that is to Christians, to families, to individuals.
Jamie Mitchell:
Sadly, I see many churches and especially younger Christians embracing progressive thought and trying to marry it with Christianity. You’re around a lot of Christian college students. Do you see that happening and is that something we should again be ever so mindful of?
Greg Schaller:
Well, fortunately the campus at Colorado Christian University is quite conservative. So while there are a few students who maybe have that inclination in general, most of our students thankfully recognize the flaws in progressive thought. I do think there is a confusion there and you hear this oftentimes, it’s something as simple as love is love, love is love. No love is not love. There are distinctions in love and some love is good and some is actually not real love. It’s improper because it’s badly motivated, it’s directed towards corrupt ends. So we need to be very careful. So you can see how a progressive view of it glossed over might sort of look like there’s care there, but there can’t be care there if it’s based in a lie. There’s another bill that’s part of went through the Colorado legislature that punishes somebody who misgenders somebody what their preferred gender is. And that can’t be truth. That’s not truth because that’s not grounded in truth. That can’t be love if it’s not truly grounded in the truth. So lying, calling someone a female who’s actually a male, can’t be
Jamie Mitchell:
Loving. Greg, there is so much more to discuss. We’ll have to do another broadcast. Friends, I hope you can see and understand that the present and avoiding greater problems in the future, we have to have a grasp on history. Thank you for listening today. Study more about Wilson. Live and lead with courage.
Recent Comments