The Bulletin

My first time listening was Episode 115 on third party voting was very informative and engaging. Thank you for providing these perspectives for Christians who are wrestling with how they will vote in 2024. I really enjoyed this podcast.

I recently listened to episode 122 with Roger Berkowitz and was disappointed by the clear bias displayed by both the speaker and host against Trump. If you believe the ‘34 felony charges’ don’t reveal the political weaponization of the legal system, if you dismiss extreme leftist policies as mere vote-seeking missteps rather than genuine errors lacking common sense, and if you overlook the two serious assassination attempts on Trump, then writing numerous books won’t bring you any closer to understanding the frustration felt by tens of millions of Americans who voted for him. In this context, calls for unity or peace risk sounding hollow and even cynical. Moreover, framing Trump supporters as mere victims of a movement while ignoring the real issues at hand only deepens this divide. I expected CT to offer a more balanced perspective.

Have listened from the beginning and think the recent interviews with different voting perspectives have been some of the best episodes, thank you. Russell and many of the guests will quote Scripture as examples of how to think biblically but Cosper prefers to quote authors, movies, or modern day figures and it shows. Both he and Nikole Martin have had some of the weakest emotionally based statements that reflect their infatuation with the present rather than their faith in the eternal. Disappointing since both have claimed pastoral titles on their resume. Clarissa has been a great addition as she focuses segments back on thinking biblically.

I will begin by saying, I am more conservative than the hosts of this podcast but was looking to challenge my views with someone’s opinions and objectivity I could trust. I respect Russel Moore. I thought this podcast would be that. It is not. I was especially excited for the recent podcasts on voting. Mike repeatedly states “we do not endorse any candidate” and yet there is a very plain bias. The language towards one candidate versus the other makes this obvious. The pushback to what was said by the Republican voter versus the agreement, encouragement even!, of that of the Democratic voter was anything but objective. Your disingenuous claim of objectivity is disappointing and misleading.