Podcast appearances and mentions of Peter Wagner

What is the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR)? And what does it have to do with conservative political power in the United States and abroad? Leah Payne and Caleb Maskell join Mark Labberton for a deep dive into the emergence and impact of the New Apostolic Reformation—a loosely affiliated global network blending Pentecostal Christian spirituality, charismatic authority, and political ambition. With their combined pastoral experience and scholarly expertise, Payne and Maskell chart the historical, theological, and sociopolitical roots of this Pentecostal movement—from Azusa Street and Latter Rain revivals to modern dominion theology and global evangelicalism. They distinguish the New Apostolic Reformation from the broader Pentecostal and charismatic traditions, and explore the popular appeal, theological complexity, and political volatility of the New Apostolic Reformation. Episode Highlights “Isn't this just conservative political activism with tongues and prophecy and dominion?” “At no point in time in the history of these United States … have Protestants not been interested in having a great deal of influence over public life.” “You can be super nationalistic in Guatemala, in Brazil, in India, and in the United States. … It is a portable form of nationalism.” “They are not moved by appeals to American democracy or American exceptionalism because they have in their mind the end times and the nation of Israel.” “Charismatics and Pentecostals, unlike other forms of American Protestantism … do not have a theological value for democracy.” Main Themes Pentecostalism's history and global influence Charismatic Christianity versus Pentecostalism Defining and explaining the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) C. Peter Wagner, Lance Hall, and Seven Mountain Mandate Dominion theology, Christian nationalism, and the religious Right Pentecostals and Trump politics Zionism in charismatic theology Vineyard movement, worship music, and intimacy with God Linked Media References About Vineyard USA God Gave Rock and Roll to You: A History of Contemporary Christian Music by Leah Payne The New Apostolic Churches by C. Peter Wagner This Present Darkness by Frank Peretti Atlantic Article: “The Army of God Comes Out of the Shadows” by Stephanie McCrummen Bonhoeffer's America: A Land Without Reformation, by Joel Looper Another Gospel: Christian Nationalism and the Crisis of Evangelical Identity, by Joel Looper Show Notes Leah Payne defines Pentecostalism as “a form of American revivalism” William J. Seymour Marked by interracial desegregated worship and spiritual “fireworks” like tongues and prophecy Mystical experiences of God Desegregation and physically touching one another in acts of miraculous healing The Azusa Street Revival (1906) identified as a global catalyst for Assemblies of God denomination There is no founding theological figure, unlike Luther or Calvin Caleb Maskell emphasizes Pentecostalism's roots in “a founding set of experiences,” not a founding theological figure “Limits to what makes a church” Lack of ecclesiological clarity leaves Pentecostalism open to both renewal and fragmentation Leah highlights Pentecostalism as “a shared experience … a shared series of practices.” “Holy Rollers” and being “slain in the Spirit” “A different way of knowing” “Christians are made through an encounter with Jesus.” The global “charismatic movement” and how it has had cross-denominational Influence “Charismatic” was a mid-twentieth-century term for Spirit-led practices arising within mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic traditions Charismatic means “gifted” or “being given gifts” “‘Charismatic' has typically been a more inclusive word than ‘Pentecostal.'” Emphasis on personal spiritual gifts and intimate worship styles “They are not respecters of institutions.” Figures like Oral Roberts and Amy Semple McPherson were “too big” for denominational constraints “Too-bigness” as driven by both an over-inflated ego and spiritual mysticism Frederick Buechner: “The place God calls you to is the place where your deep gladness and the world's deep hunger meet.” Spellbound, by Molly Worthen (see Conversing episode 212) What are the origins and key ideas of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR)? New Apostolic Reformation: “a form of institutionalized charismatic identity that builds on grassroots consensus.” “NAR” coined by C. Peter Wagner at Fuller Seminary in the 1990s Wagner promoted post-denominationalism and “reality-based” church governance centred on individual charismatic gifts Emerged from a “larger soup” of charismatic ideas—often practiced before being systematized. Closely tied to the “Seven Mountain Mandate”: that Christians should influence key societal sectors—family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business, and government The role of dominion theology and political alignment “The convergence of egos, the convergence of ethos … is a natural thing to see emerging.” “Dominion is really just two or three logical steps from an obsession with cultural relevance.” Payne sees dominionism as a Pentecostal-flavoured version of a broader conservative political strategy. “Charismatics and Pentecostals are everywhere … so we should expect them on the far right.” Many deny the NAR label even as they operate in its mode. ”When Bob Dylan's in your church, suddenly your church is relevant, whether you like it or not.” Defining “Dominionism” “Dominion is really just two or three logical steps from an obsession with cultural relevance. Cultural relevance says church should fit—not prophetically, but should fit all but seamlessly—into modes of culture that people are already in.” What are the “Seven Mountains of Culture”?  Family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business, and government—”the world would go better if Christians were in charge of each of those arenas.” “At no point in time in the history of these United States and the history of European settlers in the new world have Protestants not been interested in having a great deal of influence over public life.” Trump, Zionism, and global Pentecostal nationalism Christian nationalism versus religious Right “They are not moved by appeals to American democracy. … They think the nation of Israel is the nation of all nations.” “Isn't this just conservative political activism with tongues and prophecy and dominion?” Anti-institutional and anti-structural How Trump seeks power and ego affirmation Christian theocratic rule? ”It may simply be a part of what it is to be a Christian is to say, at some level, within the spheres that I'm given authority in, I ought to have the right kind of influence, whatever it is.” “ I think what's scary about the moment that we're in right now is in fact the chaos.” A book about Donald Trump—God's Chaos Candidate, by Lance Wall ”The beliefs in divine prophecy are so widespread that they transcend partisanship.” Black Pentecostalism: immune to the charms of Trump and populist conservatives Trump's Zionist overtures strategically captured charismatic loyalty The rise of global Pentecostal nationalism in countries like India, Brazil, and Guatemala parallels US patterns. “They don't actually care long-term about American democracy.” “They are not moved by appeals to American democracy or American exceptionalism because they have in their mind the end times and the nation of Israel.” Prosperity gospel Dominionism and the Roman Catholic “doctrine of discovery” The gospel of Christ as “sorting power” “It is a portable form of nationalism.” Concerns about power, order, and eschatology Mark Labberton reflects on Fuller Seminary's controversial role in NAR's intellectual development. Payne critiques the equation of widespread Pentecostal practices with far-right dominionism. “What's scary … is the chaos. And a number of people associated with NAR have celebrated that.” NAR theology often prioritizes divine chaos over institutional order. Warnings against super-biblical apostolic authority and spiritual authoritarianism. Pentecostalism beyond politics “There's a vivid essentialism—make everything great and all the nations will gather.” Vineyard worship as a counterweight to dominionism—emphasizing intimacy and mystical union with Christ. “That emphasis on Jesus as a friend … is a really beautiful image of God.” Vineyard music helped export a gentle, intimate charismatic spirituality. About Leah Payne Leah Payne is associate professor of American religious history at Portland Seminary and a 2023–2024 public fellow at the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). She holds a PhD from Vanderbilt University, and her research explores the intersection of religion, politics, and popular culture. Payne is author of God Gave Rock and Roll to You: a History of Contemporary Christian Music (Oxford University Press, 2024), and co-host of Rock That Doesn't Roll, a Public Radio Exchange (PRX) podcast about Christian rock and its listeners, and Weird Religion, a religion and pop culture podcast. Her writing and research has appeared in The Washington Post, NBC News, Religion News Service, and Christianity Today. About Caleb Maskell Caleb Maskell is the associate national director of theology and education for Vineyard USA. Born in London, he immigrated with his family to New Jersey in 1986, at the age of nine. Caleb has been involved in leadership in the Vineyard movement for twenty-five years. After spending a gap year at the Toronto Airport Vineyard School of Ministry in 1995, he went to the University of Chicago to study theology, philosophy, and literature in the interdisciplinary undergraduate Fundamentals program. While there, he joined the core planting team of the Hyde Park Vineyard Church, where he served as a worship leader, a small group leader, a setter-up of chairs, and whatever else Rand Tucker asked him to do. After college, full of questions that had emerged from the beautiful collision of serious academic study and the practical realities of church planting, Caleb enrolled in the MDiv program at Yale Divinity School. For four years, he immersed himself in the study of theology, church history, and Scripture, while also leading worship and working with middle school and high school youth groups. After graduating in 2004, he worked for three years as the associate director of the Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University. In 2007, along with his wife Kathy and their friends Matt and Hannah Croasmun, Caleb planted Elm City Vineyard Church in New Haven, Connecticut. That year, he also began a PhD program at Princeton University, focusing on the history of American religion, with an additional emphasis in African American studies. After moving to Manhattan for four years while Kathy went to seminary, the Maskells ended up in suburban Philadelphia, where Caleb completed his PhD while teaching regularly at Princeton Theological Seminary, and serving as the worship pastor at Blue Route Vineyard Church. Since 2010, Caleb has led the Society of Vineyard Scholars, which exists to foster and sustain a community of theological discourse in and for the Vineyard movement. Caleb is passionate about developing leaders and institutions that will help to produce a healthy, courageous, and hospitable future for the church in the twenty-first century. Caleb and Kathy now live with their two kids, Josiah and Emmanuelle, in the heart of Denver, where Kathy pastors East Denver Vineyard Church. Production Credits Conversing is produced and distributed in partnership with Comment magazine and Fuller Seminary.

C. Peter Wagner was the genius behind the NAR - the New Apostolic Reformation. Although he may have had good intentions, he got a ball rolling that is still leaving destruction in its wake. Pat Kahnke and Dave Johnson discuss Chapter 2 of Matthew Taylor's outstanding book: The Violent Take it by Force. Pat Kahnke's books are available on Amazon: "A Christian Case Against Donald Trump" (2024): https://a.co/d/iVSTqny "MAGA Seduction: Resisting the Debasement of the Christian Conscience" (2020): https://a.co/d/1KNX3uQ Dave Johnson's books are also available on Amazon, including "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse": https://a.co/d/d17eDNy  

On today's Bible Answer Man broadcast (02/25/25), Hank answers the following questions:Has the second coming already occurred? How do you interpret Matthew 24:29-31? Cody - Moses Lake, WA (1:04)Can you give me some insight into the New Apostolic Reformation and C. Peter Wagner? Cynthia - Edmonton, AB (7:31)What do you think of Beth Moore? Lupe - Fresno, CA (9:46)Did Satan talk to Eve? If so, how did he do it? Jason - Hesperia, CA (15:11)Are generational curses biblical? Crystal - Clute, TX (17:37)What did baptism represent prior to Christ's commission? What did John the Baptist's baptism signify? Gabriel - Napa, CA (20:16)Were the tongues spoken by the apostles a human language, not the gibberish we hear in churches today? Dave - Dixon, TN (22:25)I struggle with sexual sins. Will God give up on me at some point? James - Shelby, NC (23:27)

When Ken researched his Bible School classmate, Melvin Warren, he stumbled across Dr. Curtis' book. It referenced a familiar, legendary press conference. In 1970, at the famed Arch entrance at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, Melvin made a speech as the cameras rolled and journalists scribbled notes. He claimed that the school's racism so marred his experience as a student that he tore up his diploma and tossed it into the trash. He made national news. That incident not only drove Ken into a years-long quest to understand the dynamic of racism in his white evangelical church but it also played significantly into the doctoral dissertation of another Moody grad, Dr. Jesse Curtis. Dr. Curtis is now an assistant professor at Valparaiso University. Ken and Jesse compare notes on that momentous event. It prompted Ken's Beached White Male journey. It also contributed to Dr. Curtis' doctoral focus - now a book considered a “must-read” by both Jemar Tisby and Kristin Kobes du Mez. Ken and Jese discuss The Myth of Colorblind Christians: Evangelicals and White Supremacy in the Civil Rights Era. Dr. Curtis covers the history of racism in the white evangelical church going back to the Billy Graham era when Howard Jones became the first African American evangelist on “The Team.” Jesse believes that the Church Growth Movement founded by Donald McGavran contributed to the segregation that was a feature in the explosive growth the church at the turn of the century - including “ethnic” congregations and mega-churches. McGavran's protege, C. Peter Wagner, added fuel that dynamic. In their wide-ranging discussion, they talk about evangelical super-stars like Rick Warren and Bill Hybels as well as champions like Bill Pannel, Tom Skinner and John Perkins. Curtis argues that the notion of “colorblind Christians” is a myth. While he wrote some five years ago, the case is as relevant as ever. Just this week, in his inaugural address, the 47th President stated, “We will forge a society that is colorblind…” His supporters stood in enthusiastic applause. Ken and Jesse agree: this is not progress. SHOW NOTESBecome a Patron | Ken's Substack PageEpisode Number 399    Support the show

C. Peter Wagner writes: “The chief end of humans is to glorify God and the chief end of Satan is to prevent God from being glorified.”*There's a lot in that statement so let's take a few moments to unpack it.When he says that the “chief end of humans is to glorify God” he's referring to … Continue reading What is the Devil trying to do?

The Murder Sheet sits down with author Dean Jobb to discuss his new book on Arthur Barry, a fascinating Jazz Age jewel thief who charmed the masses with his exploits — and later unwittingly got tangled up in the case of the abduction and murder of Charles Lindbergh Jr. We will also discuss Jobb's work on the Victorian serial killer, Dr. Thomas Neill Cream. Check out Dean's website here: http://www.deanjobb.com/Support your local bookstore! Get Dean's book here A Gentleman and a Thief: The Daring Jewel Heists of a Jazz Age Rogue: https://bookshop.org/p/books/a-gentleman-and-a-thief-the-daring-jewel-heists-of-a-jazz-age-rogue-dean-jobb/20674930?ean=9781643752839Buy The Case of the Murderous Dr. Cream: The Hunt for a Victorian Era Serial Killer here: https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-case-of-the-murderous-dr-cream-the-hunt-for-a-victorian-era-serial-killer-dean-jobb/17215538?ean=9781643752501Listen to our episode with David Grann here: https://art19.com/shows/murder-sheet/episodes/3a4d8509-d482-468a-bf60-e1a00f775e68Support The Murder Sheet by buying a t-shirt here: https://www.murdersheetshop.com/Send tips to murdersheet@gmail.com.The Murder Sheet is a production of Mystery Sheet LLC.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Is a cult infiltrating churches all around the world? In this chapter of Cult Chronicles, we learn about the New Apostolic Reformation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Peter_Wagner   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fp8naJsgNA   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXDq59eqtwg   https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Apostolic-Reformation.html   https://www.npr.org/2011/10/03/140946482/apostolic-leader-weighs-religions-role-in-politics

Though the Christian church in India goes back to the time of St. Thomas the Apostle, church growth in India has been slow until now. India is predominately Hindu (74%), with some Muslims (20%) The truly exciting thing is that the percentage of Christians has increased substantially from 2.5% a decade ago to about 5.8% today. That represents a huge increase in the growth rate. Something is happening! Missiologist and church growth expert C. Peter Wagner has been receiving reports that the percentage may actually be 25% Christian — at least in parts of this large country — most of the growth coming in the past 10 to 15 years. And the growth may not all be in traditional churches. A substantial part may come from Jesus-follower groups within the Hindu culture. Today, we are going to look at what God is doing in India!Please SUBSCRIBE!Join Our Community at: www.StevenGarofalo.ComBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/reason-for-truth--2774396/support.

Send us a textThe conversation explores the rise of Christian nationalism and the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) in American politics. The guest, Matthew Taylor, discusses the theological and social shifts within the religious right, the influence of charismatic Christianity, and the role of violence in their beliefs. The conversation also delves into the four quadrant model of American Christianity and the impact of charismatic leaders like Paula White. The chapter titles could include 'The Rise of Christian Nationalism', 'Understanding the New Apostolic Reformation', 'The Theology of Violence', and 'The Paradox of Empowering Women'. The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement, led by figures like C. Peter Wagner, has had a significant impact on American Christianity and politics. The NAR combines charismatic worship music with political activism, using worship as a way to insert religion into public debates. This worship music industrial complex has enculturated the far right of America to see themselves as the true worshipers of God, standing against the idolatry and demonic realm that surrounds them. The NAR movement is on the upswing, with its ideas becoming more mainstream among American evangelicals. It has also infiltrated the militia movement and white nationalist scripts.Buy the book: https://a.co/d/5yUwxSeGuest Bio:Matthew D. Taylor, Ph.D., is a Senior Scholar and the Protestant Scholar at the Institute for Islamic, Christian, and Jewish Studies (ICJS), where he specializes in Muslim-Christian dialogue, Evangelical and Pentecostal movements, religious politics in the U.S., and American Islam. His book, Scripture People: Salafi Muslims in Evangelical Christians' America (Cambridge University Press), offers an introduction to the oft-misunderstood Salafi movement in the U.S. by way of comparison with American Evangelicalism. He is also the creator of the acclaimed audio-documentary series Charismatic Revival Fury: The New Apostolic Reformation, which details how networks of extremist Christian leaders helped instigate the January 6th Insurrection.  "The Faith Roundtable" is a captivating spinoff from the Faithful Politics podcast, dedicated to exploring the crucial issues facing the church in America today. Hosted by Josh Burtram, this podcast brings together faith leaders, theologians, and scholars for deep, respectful discussions on topics at the heart of American Christianity. From the intersection of faith and public life to urgent matters such as social justice and community engagement, each episode offers insightful conversations Support the showTo learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics Subscribe to our Substack: https://faithfulpolitics.substack.com/

¿Qué es el discipulado? Entonces, ¿Qué es exactamente el discipulado? Cuando se pregunta qué es el discipulado, la mayoría de las personas ofrecen respuestas diferentes. El autor C. Peter Wagner dijo: “El concepto bíblico de ‘discípulo' se ha convertido en un término clave en la misiología evangélica contemporánea. Frente al uso impreciso del término en gran parte de la literatura y la predicación popular, ahora es hora de examinar más de cerca el significado de la palabra en el Nuevo Testamento, junto con sus implicaciones para las misiones”. El profesor J. Dwight Pentecost dice: “El tema del discipulado se discute con frecuencia hoy en día. Los hombres son llamados a convertirse en discípulos sin ninguna definición del concepto, y sin ninguna aclaración de los requisitos que el Señor hace de aquellos que son Sus discípulos. Por lo tanto, no se puede tomar una decisión inteligente con respecto a esta importante pregunta”. Por lo tanto, es importante tomar un momento para definir el discipulado. El discipulado es simplemente responder al llamado de Cristo de “Id y haced discípulos”. El discipulado es un proceso orgánico de ayudar a otros a convertirse y continuar siendo discípulos de Jesucristo. El discipulado no es un programa que tiene un principio y un fin. Más bien, es un proceso continuo que es dinámico y orgánico por naturaleza. Ed Stetzer dice: “El discipulado no es solo un curso o una serie de estudios. El discipulado comienza con la conversión y continúa como un proceso continuo. “Hacer discípulos” significa que la iglesia debe ganar personas para Cristo y hacer crecer a estos nuevos conversos en la fe. Ese proceso debe llevarse a cabo en la iglesia local”. A continuación se presentan algunos fundamentos básicos del discipulado bíblico. Aunque no es exhaustiva, esta lista destaca lo que las Escrituras enseñan sobre el proceso del discipulado. 1. El discipulado cristiano es la transformación continua de un individuo que se vuelve como Jesús en carácter y propósito a medida que crece en intimidad con Cristo.;; Por tanto, sed vosotros perfectos como vuestro Padre celestial es perfecto. Mateo 5:48 Hasta que todos lleguemos a la unidad de la fe y del conocimiento pleno del Hijo de Dios, a la condición de un hombre maduro, a la medida de la estatura de la plenitud de Cristo; 14 para que ya no seamos niños, sacudidos por las olas y llevados de aquí para allá por todo viento de doctrina, por la astucia de los hombres, por las artimañas engañosas del error; 15 sino que hablando[b] la verdad en amor, crezcamos en todos los aspectos en aquel que es la cabeza, es decir, Cristo. Efesios 4:13-15 Haya, pues, en vosotros esta actitudque hubo también en Cristo Jesús. Filipenses 2:5 2. El discipulado cristiano se ocupa de todas las dimensiones de la vida. No sólo se ocupa de hacer lo correcto en cada circunstancia, sino también de hacer lo correcto por la razón correcta. Solamente comportaos de una manera digna del evangelio de Cristo, de modo que ya sea que vaya a veros[a], o que permanezca ausente, pueda oír que vosotros estáis firmes en un mismo espíritu, luchando unánimes por la fe del evangelio. Filipenses 1:27 3. El discipulado cristiano es progresivo por naturaleza. Cuando alguien deja de crecer en intimidad con Cristo, deja de ser saludable en su discipulado. Permaneced en mí, y yo en vosotros. Como el sarmiento no puede dar fruto por sí mismo si no permanece en la vid, así tampoco vosotros si no permanecéis en mí. Juan 15:4 4. El discipulado cristiano es una obra de gracia. Es el Espíritu Santo quien transforma la vida, no alguien que trata de ser bueno. El término gracia disciplinada describe este proceso. Mientras que Dios transforma, la práctica espiritual de un creyente crea el entorno transformador en el que obra el Espíritu Santo. porque Dios es quien obra en vosotros tanto el querer como el hacer, para[a] su beneplácito. Filipenses 2:13 Pero nada tengas que ver con las fábulas profanas propias de viejas. Más bien disciplínate a ti mismo para la piedad; 8 porque el ejercicio físico aprovecha poco, pero la piedad es provechosa para todo, pues tiene promesa para la vida presente y también para la futura. 1 Timoteo 4:7-8 5. El discipulado cristiano siempre se manifiesta en el ministerio a los demás. Cada cristiano ha sido dotado espiritualmente con el propósito de servir. Según cada uno ha recibido un don especial, úselo sirviéndoos los unos a los otros como buenos administradores de la multiforme gracia de Dios. 1 Pedro 4:10 6. El discipulado cristiano fue concebido por Cristo para ser reproductivo. Quienes siguen la vida y las enseñanzas de Jesús estarán preparados para compartir con entusiasmo sus experiencias de fe y dedicarse a la crianza espiritual de otros. Y acercándose Jesús, les habló, diciendo: Toda autoridad me ha sido dada en el cielo y en la tierra.19 Id, pues, y haced discípulos de todas las naciones, bautizándolos en el nombre del Padre y del Hijo y del Espíritu Santo, 20 enseñándoles a guardar todo lo que os he mandado; y he aquí, yo estoy con vosotros todos los días, hasta el fin del mundo. Mateo 28:18-20 Y lo que has oído de mí en la presencia de muchos testigos, eso encarga a hombres fieles que sean idóneos para enseñar también a otros. 2 Timoteo 2:2 7. El discipulado cristiano se centra en la vida de la iglesia local, donde la comunión de otros discípulos anima, enseña y salvaguarda el proceso de discipulado del creyente. y consideremos cómo estimularnos unos a otros al amor y a las buenas obras, 25 no dejando de congregarnos, como algunos tienen por costumbre, sino exhortándonos unos a otros, y mucho más al ver que el día se acerca. Hebreos 10:24-25  

Send us a Text Message.Strategic Spiritual Warfare, Is It Biblical: A Look At Peter Wagner's Approach To Spiritual Warfare.Are you ready to dive into the depths of spiritual warfare? Join us on the next episode of The Remnant Radio as we critically examine C. Peter Wagner's controversial teaching on "Strategic Spiritual Warfare." Wagner claims that God has provided the church with a new "Rhema module" essential for these last days. But is it truly biblical? Wagner, a prominent figure in the New Apostolic Reformation, has been a leading advocate for this approach to spiritual warfare. But the big question remains: Is this practice truly biblical?In this episode, we will explore:-The Foundations of Strategic Spiritual Warfare: What does C. Peter Wagner propose, and how has his approach shaped contemporary views on spiritual warfare?-Key Concepts and Practices: We'll break down the main elements of Wagner's strategy, including territorial spirits, prayer walking, and the use of prophetic acts.-Biblical Analysis: How do these practices align with Scripture? We'll delve into biblical texts and contexts to discern whether strategic spiritual warfare holds up under theological scrutiny.-Historical and Theological Perspectives: Comparing Wagner's teachings with traditional Christian doctrines and the historical understanding of spiritual warfare.-Practical Implications: What are the potential benefits and dangers of adopting Wagner's approach? How should Christians engage in spiritual warfare in a way that is grounded in biblical truth?We'll also address questions such as:    -Does the Bible support the idea of engaging with territorial spirits?    - How did Jesus and the apostles approach spiritual warfare?    -What role should prayer and intercession play in our battle against spiritual forces of darkness?    - Is prayer walking, spiritual mapping, and "binding the strong man" the new "Rhema module" of spiritual warfare?  Tune in as we offer a balanced and thorough review of strategic spiritual warfare, helping you navigate this complex and often controversial topic.

Subscribe for to listen to this series ad-free, and get access to Axis Mundi Media premium features: access to exclusive series, bonus content most Mondays, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, access to the entire 500-episode archive, Discord access, and more: https://axismundi.supercast.com/ Or listen to the series ad-free with a one-time purchase: https://mysoundwise.com/soundcasts/1708963220821s Cindy Jacobs is one of the most influential independent charismatic apostles on the planet. And almost no one outside of charismatic circles has any idea who she is or what she does. It was through Cindy Jacobs that C. Peter Wagner came to believe that Christian prayer could be mobilized on a grand scale to affect and open up entire nations to the gospel.  That infamous passage in Ephesians doesn't just talk about little garden-variety evil spirits, but it also refers to “principalities” and “powers” and “spiritual hosts of wickedness.” Wagner and Jacobs and a whole bunch of other Charismatics come to believe that, not only are Christians called to do battle against those demonic “principalities” and “powers,” but that there is a profound interface between the spiritual world and the physical world. Wagner would eventually to call these “principalities” and “powers” “Territorial Spirits,” and he imagined elaborate hierarchies of demons - demon commanders, demon generals - who ruled over actual, physical earthly territories - and Cindy Jacobs is the spiritual warfare general par excellence.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Subscribe for to listen to this series ad-free, and get access to Axis Mundi Media premium features: access to exclusive series, bonus content most Mondays, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, access to the entire 500-episode archive, Discord access, and more: https://axismundi.supercast.com/ Or listen to the series ad-free with a one-time purchase: https://mysoundwise.com/soundcasts/1708963220821s There are two phenomena that we hear a lot about these days in connection to the NAR: The Seven Mountains Mandate and Sean Feucht. The former is a theology, or ideology, or brand depending on who you ask. It proposes that Christians have a call to dominate every sphere, or mountain, of earthly existence--from the economy to entertainment to politics. It was first popularized by Lance Wallnau, a popular figure in NAR circles and one of C. Peter Wagner's closest followers. But before diving into the Seven Mountains and Wallnau, we need to figure out where another ubiquitous NAR phenomenon came from - the Charismatic Troubdaor Sean Feucht.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Subscribe for to listen to this series ad-free, and get access to Axis Mundi Media premium features: access to exclusive series, bonus content most Mondays, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, access to the entire 500-episode archive, Discord access, and more: https://axismundi.supercast.com/ Or listen to the series ad-free with a one-time purchase: https://mysoundwise.com/soundcasts/1708963220821s There are two phenomena that we hear a lot about these days in connection to the NAR: The Seven Mountains Mandate and Sean Feucht. The former is a theology, or ideology, or brand depending on who you ask. It proposes that Christians have a call to dominate every sphere, or mountain, of earthly existence--from the economy to entertainment to politics. It was first popularized by Lance Wallnau, a popular figure in NAR circles and one of C. Peter Wagner's closest followers. In Part II, Matt connects Feucht's use of mountain imagery to the Seven Mountains theology popularized by Lance Wallnau.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Subscribe for to listen to this series ad-free, and get access to Axis Mundi Media premium features: access to exclusive series, bonus content most Mondays, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, access to the entire 500-episode archive, Discord access, and more: https://axismundi.supercast.com/ Or listen to the series ad-free with a one-time purchase: https://mysoundwise.com/soundcasts/1708963220821s Eight days before the Capitol Insurrection, on December 29, 2020, a group of 15 apostles and prophets, including Dutch Sheets and Becca Greenwood, two of the members of Peter Wagner's Eagles Vision Apostolic Team, toured around Washington, DC doing spiritual warfare at different monuments.  That afternoon, they had a more than 2-hour meeting with high-level Trump Administration officials in a conference room in the White House. This meeting has never been reported on before. How did these New Apostolic Reformation leaders get that access? What were they doing there in the leadup to January 6? Who did they meet with? Follow Matthew Taylor: @Taylormatthewd Follow Scott Okamoto: RSokamotoAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Subscribe for to listen to this series ad-free, and get access to Axis Mundi Media premium features: access to exclusive series, bonus content most Mondays, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, access to the entire 500-episode archive, Discord access, and more: https://axismundi.supercast.com/ Or listen to the series ad-free with a one-time purchase: https://mysoundwise.com/soundcasts/1708963220821s In this episode, Matthew traces the beginning of the NAR to C. Peter Wagner, a former missionary and seminary professor who spent the last part of his life cultivating what he believed to be a new apostolic age in the life of the church. Wagner wanted to go beyond denominations to a new Reformation - one in which modern day apostles and prophets used their spiritual gifts to guide their congregations. Wagner developed a network of charismatic young leaders who he believed would lead the church into its next era. And twenty years later, these apostles and prophets did just that - by forming the background of Christian Trumpism and leading the charge on J6. The views expressed by Matthew D. Taylor are his own and do not represent the Institute for Islamic, Christian, and Jewish Studies.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Subscribe for to listen to this series ad-free, and get access to Axis Mundi Media premium features: access to exclusive series, bonus content most Mondays, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, access to the entire 500-episode archive, Discord access, and more: https://axismundi.supercast.com/ Or listen to the series ad-free with a one-time purchase: https://mysoundwise.com/soundcasts/1708963220821s Ché Ahn may be C. Peter Wagner's most dedicated student- and his most successful heir. He leads a network of 25,000 churches and an international superstar known to many simply as Pape Ché. A Korean immigrant raised in Maryland, he has operated from Pasadena, Ca for the last three decades. But he's much more than a pastor. He is an apostle. Or so he says. The story of Ché Ahn is, in many ways, emblematic of the whole Independent Charismatic sphere and what has emerged from it in the past 40 years. If we can come to understand who Ché Ahn is – his long and deep relationship to C. Peter Wagner, his theology, how he got to that stage on January 5th, and how he was thinking about himself in that moment – we'll be a lot closer to understanding what the “New Apostolic Reformation” is all about. The views expressed by Matthew D. Taylor are his own and do not represent the Institute for Islamic, Christian, and Jewish Studies.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

On This Episode of CHURCHepreneurs, Richard continues the update on the Mike Bickle & IHOP Kansas City sexual allegations controversy. Richard shows how Mike Bickle Rejects his own Prophecies, Visions, Dreams, and Revelations, The Advocate Group releases a series of videos, and all the other whirlwind of reports on X (Twitter) Richard also covers the Remnant Radio Interview with Mike Bickle and Sam Storms. Where Sam Storms said, “Either they (Mike Bickle's visions, dreams, & prophecies) are genuinely true or Mike Bickle is a pathological liar." Richard covers how Benny Hinn, Lou Engle, Steven Strang, Rick Joyner, Bill Johnson, Kris Vallatton, and Bethel are all connected inextricably to Mike Bickle and the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) and C. Peter Wagner. Richard calls all involved to repentance and describes how this movement NAR and IHOPKC have been the divisive agents in the body of Christ. Please be sure to subscribe https://www.youtube.com/@richardm23 Follow on Twitter https://twitter.com/richardpmoore23 Follow on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/richardm23/ Richard's Website https://www.richardpmoore.net/

Peter Wagner is a Founding Partner of Wing. Peter has led investments in dozens of early-stage companies including Snowflake, Gong, Pinecone, and many others which have gone on to complete IPO's or successful acquisitions. Prior to founding Wing, Peter spent an incredible 14 years at Accel, starting as an associate in 1996 and scaling to Managing Partner, before leaving to start Wing. In Today's Episode with Peter Wagner We Discuss: 1. From Associate to Managing Partner to Founding Partner: How did Peter first make his way into the world of venture as an associate at Accel? How important does Peter believe it is to have early hits in your career as an investor? What is the biggest mistake Peter sees young VCs make today? 2. The Venture Market: What Happens Now: Does Peter agree with Roger Ehrenberg that venture returns will worsen moving forward? How does Peter answer the question of how large asset management venture firms co-exist in a world of boutique seed players also? Does Peter agree with Doug Leone that "venture has transitioned from a high-margin boutique business to a low-margin, commoditized industry? 3. Investing Lessons from 27 Years and Countless IPOs: What have been some of Peter's single biggest investing lessons from 27 years in venture? Why is Peter so skeptical of capital-intensive businesses? Will defense and climate startups suffer the same fate as clean tech did in the 2000s? How does Peter reflect on his own relationship to price? When does it matter? When does it not? What have been Peter's biggest lessons on when to sell positions vs when to hold? What has been Peter's biggest miss? How did it impact his mindset? 4. Building a Firm from Nothing: How was the fundraise process when leaving the Accel machine and raising with Wing? What have been the single hardest elements of building Wing? What did he not expect? What advice does Peter have for someone wanting to start their firm today?

¡Bienvenidos a nuestro primer episodio de VIVARIUM PODCAST! Donde queremos impulsar la plantación de iglesias a través de herramientas prácticas, testimonios, entrevistas ¡y mucho más! Como dijo el misionólogo Peter Wagner "la plantación de nuevas iglesias es la metodología evangelística más eficaz conocida bajo el cielo". Y por eso, en este episodio queremos inspirarte y desafiarte a conocer cuáles son las oportunidades de emprender "start ups" de fe. Si tu corazón está inquieto por las misiones, el llamado de Dios y emprender nuevas iniciativas para bendecir a otros ¡Quédate en este episodio y disfrútalo con nosotros! Ayúdanos a compartir el contenido y no te olvides de seguirnos. Nuestras Redes Sociales: YouTube: ⁠https://youtube.com/@M4-Spain?si=txYz5SZlZDHB7_5K⁠ Instagram: ⁠https://www.instagram.com/vivarium.podcast?igsh=NDRhZXNlaXEwanRz&utm_source=qr

Makeover your area into a work of art without going over budget! Join us in the latest She Renovates podcast episode with Deborah de Jong and Peter Wagner as they unveil the magic of bespoke printing. The possibilities are endless, from crafting marble masterpieces out of tiles to fabricating three-dimensional illusions on walls. Learn how to create a lasting impression, accommodate various design DNAs, and inject personality into your surroundings. Improve the look of your interior design with statement-making custom prints. “You don't need to spend a million dollars to make something look a million dollars. So all of these beautiful marbles that we see or sandstone, you can print on anything. So you can create something to look. million dollars without having to spend it." -Deborah de Jong EPISODE HIGHLIGHTS: 00:00 Introduction 02:51 Versatility of Grand Format Printing 04:49 Applications in Renovations 06:38 Behavioral Design in Decorating 09:20 Psychology in Commercial Spaces 11:06 Bespokenness and Bespoke Decor 12:15 Expanding Architectural Environments 14:59 Limitless Possibilities in Printing 17:24 Color Management and Technology 19:17 Creative Freedom and Applications 22:18 Malleable Fabrics and LED Integration 25:52 Individualizing Spaces Based on Temperaments 30:02 Biophilia and Nature-Inspired Design 32:34 Passion for Empowering Spaces Resources Deborah de Jong https://deborahdejongonline.com/ The School Of Renovating https://www.theschoolofrenovating.com She Renovates Podcast https://www.theschoolofrenovating.com/podcasts-page/ Connect with The School of Renovating ASK BERNADETTE https://www.theschoolofrenovating.com/podcasts-page Subscribe to She Renovates Apple Podcast https://apple.co/3faoWlT Subscribe to Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheSchoolOfRenovating Follow on Twitter https://twitter.com/renovatingsc Follow on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/the_school_of_renovating Amanda McEwin is Founder of The Rising Star Developer. Amanda helps people get control over their time, create income and wealth to 'Build Lifestyle' using Small Scale Property Development. Each episode, she brings you insightful interviews from everyday Australians sharing their skill and property journey to inspire you to take action so that you can open your mind to a world of opportunity at your finger tips. “ I didn't really understand this whole property game, but what really connected with me was the fact that it wasn't going to take a lot of my time and time was really a priority for me. but from what I understood, the returns were going to be lucrative enough to be able to help us get rid of our mortgage, which that was really tying us or to me to have to work full time." -Amanda McEwin EPISODE HIGHLIGHTS: 00:00 Introduction 02:06 Awakening to Property Investment 04:47 Discovering Property Development 07:30 Rising Star Developer Launch 08:23 Success Stories: Six and Seven Figure Club 09:34 Managing Multiple Projects 12:25 Pitfalls and Solutions in Development 15:38 Navigating Material and Trade Challenges 18:18 Contingency and Collaboration 21:13 Choosing the Right Builder: A Team Building 24:29 Financial Viability Check 25:46 Start Small for Confidence 27:16 Leveraging Success for Multiple Deals 28:48 Rising Star Developer's Vision Resources Rising Star Developer's https://www.risingstardeveloper.com.au/ The School Of Renovating https://www.theschoolofrenovating.com She Renovates Podcast https://www.theschoolofrenovating.com/podcasts-page/ Connect with The School of Renovating ASK BERNADETTE https://www.theschoolofrenovating.com/podcasts-page Subscribe to She Renovates Apple Podcast https://apple.co/3faoWlT Subscribe to Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheSchoolOfRenovating Follow on Twitter https://twitter.com/renovatingsc Follow on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/the_school_of_renovating

Over this week's cuppa, David and Christina discuss the Independent State Legislature Theory in light of the just-concluded SCOTUS arguments regarding Colorado's assertion that the 14th Amendment empowers the state to remove certain individuals from its primary ballot; Breaching the Mainstream project by the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights; a case for open primaries; the latest NAR-cissistic doublespeak coming from C. Peter Wagner-anointed “apostle” Lance Wallnau; a win against Project Veritas; the disbanding of Moms for Liberty in Lehigh County; and an introduction to Conservapedia, the alt-fact reference site.Thanks for listening! Now follow us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and Threads. And please consider becoming a Patreon supporter at www.patreon.com/podcastunreasonable. It's a small price to pay to help keep America from becoming a theocracy, dontchya think?

This week, Ken and Grant discussed the New Apostolic Reformation, also known as the NAR. We look forward to what God has in store for all of us living and working in His Kingdom.  P.S. There is a power surge at the location where Ken is filming, so at 34 minutes in, the video changes to his iPad.  Tune into Episode 3 of Season 5 of God is Not A Theory. We long for your faith to be encouraged and the fire of the Holy Spirit to ignite in your life by hearing these testimonies. Live up to the Holy Spirit's potential in you and prove to your world that God Is Not a Theory.  Thanks for listening to God Is Not A Theory, a podcast of Orbis Ministries. For more information, visit orbisministries.org (http://orbisministries.org/). If you'd like to hear more from Ken or join the Orbis Ministries community, you can download the free Orbis Ministries Mobile App here: https://get.theapp.co/kjwz (https://get.theapp.co/kjwz) Partner with Orbis Financially  http://tinyurl.com/yfe3974h "Trying to grasp the NAR is like catching a jellyfish because it is not clearly defined in a box." - Ken Fish "John Wymber would have said, "Peter Wagner is my boss or my Spiritual oversight, but he would use the word Apostle because John didn't use language like that." - Ken Fish  "Peter Wagner believed in an ongoing prophetic revelation but never suggested rewriting scripture or opening the canon." - Ken Fish "If we are being honest and fair about it, neither signs nor wonder or the prophetic side of it (Ministry) is out of step with what we consider to be historic Pentecostalism; those have been very much a part of the Pentecostal movement." - Ken Fish  "The difference between a Pentecostal and a neo-Pentecostal is a neo-Pentecostal, on average, is more educated." - Ken Fish  "The term 5-fold ministry comes from the Book of Ephesians chapter 4." - Ken Fish  "I am NOT saying that what happened in Kansas City with the Kansas City profits was a new Naioth." - Ken Fish  "In the prophetic movement, there was not a belief that those prophesying were on the same level as the prophesying of old or that the canon should be reopened." - Ken Fish  Joseph Mattera and Michael Brown NAR Article: https://narandchristiannationalism.com/#statement Michae Brown GINAT Episode: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3DncvZWJgYXI7CN4pNVAtP?si=TpTGBxuYS926eFTwYKiYHw  Joseph Mattera GINAT Episode: https://open.spotify.com/episode/6PkCjMNLrms6qMprVPKsoe?si=ypBEFXIjTaykIsudb1-F5g "Keep going hard for Jesus." - Ken Fish  "Be open to new wine skins." - Ken Fish 

As the public and policy makers at various levels of government are pressured to double down on punitive status quo approaches, we hope everyone listens to this re-air of Crystal's robust conversation with criminologist Damon Petrich about the ineffectiveness of incarceration.  As lead author of the seminal work “Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Damon performed an extensive analysis of 116 research studies looking at the effect of incarceration on reoffending. The review's finding that the oft-used policy of imprisonment does not reduce the likelihood of recidivism sparks a discussion about how the United States ended up as the world leader in mass incarceration and the disconnect between conventional assumptions about what prisons provide versus reality. Noting that the carceral system does a poor job of rehabilitation - while eating up budgets across the country and exacting significant societal costs - Damon and Crystal talk about how to design and evaluate programs that do work to deliver greater public safety for everyone. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal, on Twitter at @finchfrii and reach Damon for more information about his research at dpetrich@luc.edu   Dr. Damon Petrich Dr. Damon M. Petrich is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Loyola University Chicago. He received his Ph.D. in Criminal Justice from the University of Cincinnati, and his Bachelor of Arts (Honors) and Master of Arts degrees in Criminology from Simon Fraser University. His research focuses on two interrelated areas. The first is the development of antisocial behavior across the life-course, specifically focusing on desistance from crime and the mechanisms by which exposure to community violence impacts self-regulation and behavior. Dr. Petrich's second area of research surrounds the effectiveness of sanctions and programs in the criminal justice system. Throughout these projects, Dr. Petrich uses a wide range of methodological approaches, including qualitative techniques, meta-analysis, machine learning, and marginal structural modeling.   Resources  “Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review” by Damon M. Petrich, Travis C. Pratt, Cheryl Lero Jonson, and Francis T. Cullen for Crime and Justice   Scott Hechinger Twitter thread   “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2022” by Wendy Sawyer and Peter Wagner from the Prison Policy Initiative   “Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation” by James Bonta and D. A. Andrews for Public Safety Canada   “Let's Take a Hard Look at Who Is in Jail and Why We Put Them There” by Alea Carr for the ACLU-WA blog   Book - “Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect” by Robert J. Sampson   Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Program - “Police Legitimacy and Legal Cynicism: Why They Matter and How to Measure in Your Community”   “Polls Show People Favor Rehabilitation over Incarceration” by Matt Clarke for Prison Legal News   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, I am excited to welcome Damon Petrich, who's a doctoral associate in the School of Criminal Justice at University of Cincinnati and incoming assistant professor at Loyola University Chicago. He was the lead author of a recent article, "Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review," along with Travis Pratt, Cheryl Lero Johnson, Francis T. Cullen. Damon's research focuses on the effectiveness of corrections and rehabilitation programs, desistance from crime, and the impact of community violence on youth development. Thank you so much for joining us, Damon. [00:01:13] Damon Petrich: Thank you very much for having me on, Crystal. I'm excited to talk a little bit about my work and the implications of that and all that, so thanks again. [00:01:20] Crystal Fincher: I'm very excited to talk about this and it's extremely timely - has been for a while. We have conversations almost every day in the public sphere having to do with public safety - this is such a major component of it. And so I'm hoping as we have this conversation, it'll help us to better assess what the costs and benefits are of custodial sanctions and incarceration, and alternatives to that - to have a conversation that kind of orients us more towards public safety. Sometimes we're so concerned with metrics around police and how many they are, and what the length of a sentence should be. And sometimes we focus on things that take us off of the overall goal of keeping us all safer and reducing the likelihood that each of us are victimized and to hopefully prevent people from becoming victims of crime. And just to have accurate conversations about how we invest our public resources - what we're actually getting from them, and then how to evaluate as we go along - what we should be tracking and measuring and incentivizing. As so many people talk about taking data-driven approaches and create all these dashboards - that we're really doing it from an informed perspective. So just to start out - what actually were you studying and what were you seeking to find out? [00:02:47] Damon Petrich: Yeah, so the main purpose of our meta-analysis, which I can explain exactly what that is later on if you have questions, but the main purpose was to understand what happens when you take one group of offenders and you sentence them to something custodial like prison or jail, and then you sentence another group of similar offenders to something non-custodial like probation. How do those two groups differ in terms of whether they reoffend? So does prison actually deter recidivism, or does it make people more likely to commit crime afterwards? So that's sort of what we were looking at and so we considered all of the available research on that, in this review. [00:03:29] Crystal Fincher: Got it. So right now we have gone down the path of mass incarceration - that is the default punishment that we, as society, have looked to for crime. Hey - sentence them and many times it's, Hey, they're going to jail. Sometimes they get out of jail and they have supervision that continues, but jail is really focused, where we focus a lot of our effort and where we put people and hope that that'll straighten them out and they come out and everything is fine. How did we get here and where are we in terms of how we're approaching incarceration in our society, in our country? [00:04:11] Damon Petrich: Yeah, so there is a lot of public uproar around a lot of issues, like race issues, and there was crime spikes and concerns over social welfare - and there's all this confluence of issues in the '60s and early '70s. And we decided to - as a country, not everyone, but politicians decided that we should tackle the crime problem by A) incarcerating more people, and then B) once they get there, keep them there for longer. So we enacted things like mandatory minimum sentences, where the judge really has no discretion over what happens - the person gets automatically a sentence of incarceration if they've committed a certain type of crime. You had habitual offender laws where if you're - like California's three strikes policy - where if you have two prior felonies and you get a third, no matter what it is, you're going to jail for life. Michigan had the "650 Lifer Law," where if you get caught with 650 grams of heroin or cocaine, you're automatically going to prison for life. And then we got rid of parole and stuff like that in a lot of states. So all these things lead to more people going to jail and then for longer, and those laws came to be in the '70s and '80s. And over that time, our incarceration rate ballooned up by about 700%, so by the early 2000s, we were at over 2 million people incarcerated and another 7-8 million people on probation or parole. So it's a pretty big expansion - the United States has 5% of the world's population and a quarter, or 25%, of the prisoners, so it's a little ridiculous. The crime rate here isn't nearly as high, or nearly high enough to justify that huge disparity. So yeah, it's a whole confluence of factors led us to be the world leader in incarceration. [00:06:14] Crystal Fincher: And what attitudes or what justifications are the people who have the power to enact these policies and continue these policies - how are they justifying them? [00:06:25] Damon Petrich: So there's a few reasons why you might want to incarcerate somebody. One is just because you want to punish them or get revenge on them, so that's more of a moral reason. But the main focus of politicians were twofold - one was incapacitation, so that one means that because you're keeping somebody locked up in a cage, obviously they can't be out in the community committing crimes. So the thought is that you're going to reduce crime that way. The research on that is a little squishy even now, and I can talk a little bit more about that later if you want. But the other reason, and the one that we focused on in our review, was that prison deters people from going back to crime after they get out. So the idea there is that prison sucks - you go in there, you're cut off from your job, from your family, from your friends, or from just having hobbies or things to do. And you're not going to want to go back, so when you get out of prison - you think real hard, and you think how much prison sucks, and you decide not to go back to crime. That's the thinking behind that deterrence hypothesis anyway. So those two - incapacitation and deterrence - were the main drivers of those increase in laws and stuff during the '70s, '80s, and '90s, but there really wasn't any evidence for either of them - in the '70s and '80s in particular. So most of the research evaluating whether prison actually does deter recidivism has popped up over the last 25 years or so. [00:08:05] Crystal Fincher: And as you took a look at it - all of the studies that have popped up over the past 25 years had varying degrees of rigor and scientific validity. But as that body of research grew, people began to get a better idea of whether incarceration actually does reduce someone's likelihood of reoffending. How big was that body of work, in terms of studies, and what were you able to look at? [00:08:40] Damon Petrich: So in our particular review, we looked at 116 studies, which is a pretty sizable number. Most people - when you read through an article and a literature review might have 10 studies or something that they just narratively go through, but we looked at 116. And then within those 116 studies, there were 981 statistical models. So 901 different comparisons - or 981 different comparisons - of what happens to custodial versus non-custodial groups. So we looked at a pretty big chunk of literature. [00:09:20] Crystal Fincher: And in that, in the reliance of - that's a really big number - and I think, people now are maybe more familiar, just from a layperson's perspective, of just how big that number is. As we've seen throughout this pandemic that we're in the middle of, studies come out - people are looking at one study, and wow - study number two comes out and we're feeling really good about it. And man, we get to five studies and people are like, okay, we know what's going on. To get beyond a hundred is just a real comprehensive body of study and analysis. What were you able to determine from that? [00:10:05] Damon Petrich: So I should probably explain upfront what a meta-analysis is and why it's useful. So like you were just saying - like in the COVID pandemic, for example - one study will come out and it'll say, oh, Ivermectin reduces symptomatic COVID cases by X percent. And then the next study will come out and say, Ivermectin makes people way worse. So any individual study can be kind of misleading. A good analogy for what a meta-analysis does would be to look at baseball, for example. So let's say you're interested in some rookie player that's just come out, he's just joined Major League Baseball and you go to his - you want to know how good this player actually is? You've never seen him play, you've only heard rumors. So you go out to his first game, he gets up to bat four times and he gets no hits. So you walk away from that game thinking, wow, this player is terrible, the team wasted all their money recruiting and paying this guy's salary. But that could have just been an off game for many reasons - it's his debut game so maybe there's just first-game nerves, maybe the weather was bad, maybe he was having personal problems in his life, or he had a little bit of an injury. So there's a number of reasons why looking at his performance from that one game is not going to be representative of who he is as a player. Ideally, you'd want to look at all the games over a season where he might go up to bat 250 times. And over those 250 times, he gets 80 hits, which is a pretty good batting average - it's over .300. So with that amount of data, you could come to a more solid conclusion of whether he's actually a good player or not. And with that amount of data, you could also look at what we call moderating characteristics. So you could look at, for example, whether he plays better when it's an away game or in a home game, whether it's early or late season - you could look at all these sorts of things. So this is essentially what we're doing with research as well, in a meta-analysis. So if you look at studies on incarceration - one might show increases in recidivism after people go to prison, the next might show decreases, and the next might show that probationers and prisoners reoffend at about the same rates. So just like in the baseball analogy, in a meta-analysis, we're looking at all of the available research. We're combining it together and determining A) what the sort of overall or average effect of incarceration is, and then B) whether these moderating characteristics actually matter. So in other words, is the effect of incarceration pretty much the same for males as it is for females, or for juveniles as adults, or when the research design is really good versus when it's not so great. So that's basically what we did in this meta-analysis is again - looked at 116 studies and from those 981 statistical estimates. [00:13:13] Crystal Fincher: Very helpful. Totally makes sense with the baseball analogy, and I especially appreciate breaking down with all the statistical models and not just kind of thumbs up, thumbs down - the binary - it either increases or reduces the likelihood of recidivism. But under what conditions are - might it be more likely, less likely that someone does? What are some of those influencing effects on what happens? And so you were just talking about the justification that people used going into this, and now that we have data coming out - does it turn out that people go into prison or are incarcerated in jail, they think - wow, this is horrible. Some in society are like the more uncomfortable we make it in jail, the better we want to make sure it's a place that they never would want to come back to - that it's so scary and such a bad experience that they are just scared straight for the rest of their lives. Does it actually turn out to be that way? Do they take a rational look at - this was my experience, I don't want to go back again, therefore I will not do any of the things that I did going in. [00:14:28] Damon Petrich: I would not say that's the conclusion - no. So again, based on the 116 studies that we looked at, which is again a lot, people who are sentenced to incarceration - so jail, prison - they commit crime, they reoffend at about the same rates as if you'd sentence those same people to probation. So in other words, they're not being deterred by being sent to prison. These effects are the same for both males and females. So in other words, prison doesn't reduce reoffending for one group versus the other. It's the same whether we look at adults versus juveniles, it's the same regardless of what type of recidivism we're interested in - rearrests or convictions. It's pretty much the same across the board. There's some slight variations in research designs, but even within those, prison either has no effect or it slightly increases recidivism. We don't find any conditions under which prison is reducing reoffending or deterring these people from going back to those lives. [00:15:35] Crystal Fincher: So from a societal perspective, a lot of people kind of make the assumption that, Hey, we arrest and we incarcerate someone - whew, our streets are safer. They get out, and now they can choose to reintegrate themselves into society hopefully - they do and we're all safer because of it. But it looks like impressions that some people may have that, Hey, we're letting someone off easy. And suggestions - there's so much media coverage around this - and suggestions that because we're letting people off easy, that we're making it easier for them to reoffend, or they don't feel sufficiently punished enough and so that becomes an incentive to reoffend. Does that seem like it tracks with what the studies have shown? [00:16:33] Damon Petrich: Not really - so there's some studies that actually ask prisoners and offenders whether they'd prefer going to prison or probation. And a lot of them will say, oh, I'd rather do a year in prison than spend two or three years on probation. So it's not like they view probation as just being super easy. And they're not saying this because they received time off their sentence for being in the study or anything like that. Probation's not easy either - and you have to also think that while these people are on probation, they're able to stay in close touch with their family, they're able to maintain connections with work or find work, they're able to participate in the community, they can pay taxes - that I know a lot of people who are pro-prison love. So there's all sorts of reasons why - beyond just them reoffending at the same rates as if they'd gone to prison - there's a lot of reasons why we might want to keep these people in the community. And it's not like we're saying, let everybody out of prison - so the nature of this research - you want to compare apples to apples. So in this research, comparing prisoners to probationers - these have to be people who are getting - they could either legitimately get a sentence of jail or probation, or prison or probation. So these are going to be first-time offenders, people who are relatively low-level - they've committed low-level crimes and all that. So we're not saying - there's not going to be a situation where a murderer just gets probation - that sort of thing. So I know that might be a concern of some people - they think that's a natural argument of this analysis, but it's really not. [00:18:24] Crystal Fincher: Well, and to your point, we're really talking - if we're looking at all of the crime that gets people sentenced to prison time, a very small percentage of that is murder. A very small percentage of it is on that kind of scale - you can wind up in jail or prison for a wide variety of offenses - many of them, people perceive as relatively minor or that people might be surprised can land you in prison. Or if someone has committed a number of minor offenses, that can stack up - to your point in other situations - and increase the length of detention or the severity of the consequences. As we're looking through this and the conversation of, okay, so, we sentence them, we let them out - it's not looking like there's a difference between jail or community supervisions, things like probation - what is it about jail that is harmful or that is not helpful? What is it about the structure of our current system that doesn't improve recidivism outcomes for people? [00:19:42] Damon Petrich: Probably the main one is the rehabilitation is not the greatest. So just as an example, substance abuse is a very strong predictor whether people are going to reoffend, unsurprisingly. About 50% of prisoners at the state and federal level in The States meet the DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders] criteria for having a substance use abuse disorder - so they meet the clinical criteria for substance abuse disorder. So half of them, and then more than that just use substances, but they don't meet the criteria for a disorder. But of that 50% who has a substance abuse disorder, only about 20% of those actually receives treatment for it while they're incarcerated. So, you're not dealing with a root cause of reoffending while they're in prison - so you're not deterring them, but you're also not rehabilitating them - so you're really not doing anything. And then in the rare cases where these people are provided with rehabilitation or reentry programming, it's often not based on any sort of evidence-based model of how you actually change people. So there's a lot of psychological and criminology theory and research on how you actually elicit behavioral change, and these programs really aren't in line with any of that. And I could give examples if you wanted, but - [00:21:17] Crystal Fincher: Sure. I think that's helpful, 'cause I think a lot of people do assume, and sometimes it's been controversial - wow, look at how much they're coddling these prisoners - they have these educational programs, and they get all this drug treatment for free, and if they don't come out fixed then it's their own fault because they have access to all of these treatment resources in prison. Is that the case? [00:21:43] Damon Petrich: No, I wouldn't say so - first of all, they don't have access, a lot of them, to any programs. And then, like I said, the programs that they do get really aren't that effective. So the big one that everybody loves to argue for is providing former inmates with jobs. If you look at any federal funding for program development, like the Second Chance Act or the First Step Act - I think that was one under Trump - and then under Bush, there was a Serious [and] Violent Offenders Reentry Initiative - pretty much all of these federal bills will be heavily focused on just providing offenders with jobs. And almost all of the evaluations of these programs show that they don't reduce reoffending. And it's not really that hard - again, if you go back to the literature on behavioral change and, criminology literature - it's not really that hard to understand why just providing a job isn't going to reduce or lead somebody away from a life of crime. A lot of these people have spotty work histories where they've never had a job at all, they believe and know that it's easier to gain money by doing illicit work than it is legal work, they have things like low self-control so they're very impulsive, they don't know how to take criticism or being told what to do by a boss. They live in neighborhoods with very poor opportunities for good jobs and education, and maybe there's a mindset around there that illegal work or whatever is just a better way to go - that's sort of ingrained. So there's a lot of different reasons why just handing somebody a job isn't going to lead them away from crime, 'cause they have all these other things that need to be dealt with first. So ideally, a rehabilitation program that's comprehensive would deal with all of those other background factors and then provide them with a job. Because if you make them less impulsive, better able to resist the influence of their antisocial friends, and get this thought out of their head that other people are being hostile towards them when they're really not - all these sorts of cognitive and behavioral biases that they have - if you deal with all of those things and then you give them a job, they're more likely to actually latch onto that job as something worthwhile doing. And then they're going to go on to get out of a life of crime. But if you just give them a job and you haven't dealt with any of those issues, you can't really expect that to work. And that is the model that we currently do - is something that we don't really expect to work that well. [00:24:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that's - it's really interesting and I don't know that a lot of people actually know that, Hey, giving someone a job isn't sufficient - which is why I think it's so important to talk about studies like this, because some of what has become conventional wisdom, really is not accurate or reflects what has been studied and discovered. And I guess in that vein, what are the factors - you just talked about a few - but what does increase someone's likelihood of reoffending or recidivism, and what reduces it? [00:25:08] Damon Petrich: So those are probably two ends of the same, or two sides of the same coin, but this is pretty well known in criminology - a model called the risk-need-responsivity [RNR] model was developed by a couple of fellow Canadians, named James Bonta and Don Andrews, along with some of their colleagues in the '80s and '90s. And they, through again, other meta-analyses just like we did, found certain categories of characteristics of people who are more likely to reoffend. So you have things like having antisocial peers - so that one's pretty obvious - if you have a bunch of friends that are involved in crime, it's going to be pretty hard for you to get out of that life because you're surrounded by those people. Same with family members. If you have what are called criminal thinking patterns - so again, you might have what's called a hostile attribution bias, things like that, where somebody says something a little bit negative to you and you take that as a huge insult and you retaliate with anger and aggression - things like that. Or being impulsive - so you're again quick to anger, you're swayed by small little enticements in the environment and that sort of thing - so you're easily swayed one way or the other. Things like that are strong predictors of reoffending. Substance abuse - it's what I mentioned earlier. If you don't really have any sort of proactive leisure activities, like hobbies and stuff like that. So there's a bunch of well-known things that we know are strongly associated with recidivism, and a rehabilitation program should ideally deal with them. Now this model that Andrews and Bonta and all these other people came up with - this RNR risk-need-responsivity model - the risk part says that we should give people a risk assessment when they're entering prison or leaving prison and determine what level of risk are they from reoffending. And we assess these different criteria, like criminal thinking patterns and antisocial friends and substance abuse. So we determine what those factors are and then we design them a treatment program that actually deals with those factors at the individual level. So we're not just giving a blanket rehabilitation program to everybody, and you're providing the most amount of care to the people who most need it or who are the most likely to re-offend. And then once we've done all that, we need to make sure that we're addressing these problems in some sort of a format that we know actually works. The most well-known one, but not as often used, the most well-known within the sort of psychologist and criminological literature is cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT]. So this is pretty popular for dealing with depression and all sorts of eating disorders and substance abuse problems in non-offender populations. Well, those programs also work in offender populations and they work pretty well. So the research shows - again meta-analyses - that when you deal with all these three factors - risk, need, and responsivity - you can reduce reoffending rates by about 26%. So it's a pretty sizeable amount - it's much greater than you're getting by just sentencing people to prison without doing anything. [00:28:42] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and I think you cover in your paper - those things are absolutely true. And you just talked about several administrations' attempts to implement programming and resources to try and help people get jobs, potentially - hey, there's even a CBT treatment, but if that treatment has twice as many people as are recommended being in a session and occurs over half the time that it's supposed to, you really are sabotaging the entire process or really setting it up for failure. And it just seems to be an expensive exercise that we aren't really getting anything out of. Does that seem to be consistent with how you've seen the attempts at introducing this programming within prisons and jails? [00:29:40] Damon Petrich: Yeah, for sure - this is a pretty common finding too - so it's not just about preaching that you're going to do these things. You actually have to implement them well. So just like you said, there's a number of studies that show this - so you've designed some really great program that deals with all of these risk factors that lead people back into reoffending, you give it to them in a cognitive behavioral setting. So all seems good on paper, but in practice, like you said - one of the famous studies there - can't remember the names of the authors offhand right now - but one of the famous studies there showed that they're providing it to people in groups of 30, as opposed to 15, and they're delivering it in a really short amount of time. And they're not maybe giving it to the highest-risk people - so they're just mixing random people in there at varying levels of risk. So when you do all these sorts of things - you implement the program poorly - you can't really expect it to work. And this is often the case - is the government pays people to come up with these great programs, and then not enough funding is provided to actually make sure that they're implemented and evaluated well. So the amount of funding that actually goes into that - developing the programs to begin with - is small, but when you do do that, you're not making sure that you're actually implementing things well. So it's just sort of shooting yourself in the foot, and probably making people come to the conclusion that these things don't work - when they do work, if you just implement them well. [00:31:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and there's also a lot of rhetoric - and you discuss this - there's a lot of rhetoric coming from the government, even coming from leadership within the Bureau of Prisons or leadership in our carceral system, saying we do want to rehabilitate people. We are trying to implement programming that does this. You see - we have these educational opportunities and we are doing evaluations of people. And it may be happening while they're understaffed or other challenges, but one of the biggest, I guess, red flags is that none of the evaluation of their programs and none of the incentives that arise are in any way tied to what is the actual result of what happens. Are you actually succeeding on reducing someone's likelihood for reoffense? It does not seem like any compensation is tied to that, any kind of evaluation of positions or regular reporting - to say, is this program having its intended effect? And if not, what do we need to do to correct for that? Is that what you found? [00:32:33] Damon Petrich: I would say that's probably a pretty fair assessment. A lot of the programs that are implemented are never evaluated at all. And then the ones that are - it's usually once - there's one evaluation of those programs. And then, like you said, there doesn't really seem to be a lot of self-reflection - I don't know what other word you would use - but these programs don't really change on the basis of these evaluations. So, it's kind of disheartening to hear about, I guess. [00:33:14] Crystal Fincher: It feels very disheartening to live in the middle of - and one of the big things about this is that this - we have these conversations and we talk about these studies and we're saying, yeah, it actually - we're not doing anyone any favors right now when it comes to reducing recidivism. And having these conversations oftentimes detached from the cost associated with what we're paying for these. And my goodness are we paying to incarcerate people? It's not just, well, we do lock them up and we keep them away. Or we do a good job of keeping them in - they reoffend, they go back to jail. And lots of people are like, we did our job, they went back to jail - boom, everything is fine. But we are paying through the nose and out the ear for this - just here, we're in the state of Washington, and right now the state spends about $112 per day, or over $40,000 annually, to incarcerate one individual - that's the cost per inmate. In King County - the county that we're in - they spend $192 a day, or $70,000 annually, to incarcerate an individual. That is a huge amount of the tax dollars that we spend - these come out of our general fund, meaning that these are dollars that every service, everything that is not a dedicated source of revenue, is competing for. So when we talk about things and have conversations like, well, we don't have the budget for that and we don't have the money - that is related to how much of that money we're spending on other things. And my goodness, I would think that we want to get our money's worth for that level of expenditure. And it really appears that if we're saying the goal of jail is to get people on the straight and narrow path and becoming contributing members of society and all of the implications of that, it doesn't seem like we're getting our money's worth. And so, if those aren't the goals and if we just want to punish people, it's not like we're punishing people for free. We're punishing people at the cost of $70,000 per day [year], and at the cost of all the other services and infrastructure needs that we have. So it really seems like we're punishing ourselves as much, or more, as others - particularly if we're bringing people back into society that are likely to reoffend in one way or another. And so if our goal is to keep our community safe and that is the North Star, it looks like we need to realign our processes and our expenditure of resources. I guess my question to you, after all that, is - how should we be moving forward? What should we be looking to do? What is shown to work? [00:36:24] Damon Petrich: Well, I would say - yeah, $70,000 a year as just a revenge cost per person seems like a lot. $80 billion in the country as a whole, for a revenge cost, seems like a pretty high price to pay, given we're not reducing reoffending. You could make the argument that these people aren't offending while they're in prison, but that's - there's other reasons why that might not be completely accurate, which I could talk about too, but - [00:36:59] Crystal Fincher: Well, I'm interested in that. Why might that not be accurate? [00:37:03] Damon Petrich: So, obviously the person - if you incarcerate a particular individual, obviously they can't be out in the community committing crimes. So that's obvious, but there's a number of reasons why that might not, en masse, actually reduce crime a whole lot. The research on it - this is a little bit squishy - in terms of whether incarcerating more people leads to lower crime rates, because one influences the other. But for example, if you look at illegal drug markets - a lot of the homicides in the United States and other violent crime that people are really concerned about, and it's plastered all over the media is - homicides, gang-related stuff. So if you take key gang members out and you put them in prison, what ends up happening is that there's competition in that market to take over that person's place, either within the gang or other gangs coming in. So what ends up happening oftentimes is a spike in violence. So that's one reason why just incapacitating, particularly high-crime individuals, might not actually lead to lower crime rates overall. Again, you're lowering crime for that one person, but you might be increasing crime on a more systemic level. Beyond that, these things have broader societal and community level impacts - incarcerating a lot of people. Again, research shows that when you're incarcerating a lot of people in a particular community - so there's a bunch of really good work by Robert Sampson - he has a book that came out a few years ago called Great American City. And he looked at these individual neighborhoods in Chicago over time, and what he finds is that in communities where there's a higher number of people incarcerated in a particular community, this ends up increasing what's called "legal cynicism." And this is done in some other work as well with David Kirk and Andrew Papachristos - but they show that this increases legal cynicism, which means people are skeptical of police helping them out, the police doing a good job. And what ends up happening after that - when people are more cynical of the legal system, they're less likely to report crimes to the police, they're less likely to cooperate with the police. So what ends up happening? You incarcerate more people and people in that community end up being less willing to cooperate with law enforcement. And this leads to sort of an endless cycle where things sort of get out of hand. So there's all these unintended and nonfinancial consequences of incarcerating a lot of people that could potentially end up leading to more crime. [00:40:03] Crystal Fincher: Well, and - speaking as a Black woman - obviously, looking at the impacts of mass incarceration in the Black community and in neighborhoods around the country - where it is almost like the community is responding to the actual outcome and that, Hey, this actually isn't making my community any better. I'm experiencing traumatic impacts from this - whether it's my relative went to prison or a sole breadwinner in the family and now we're thrown into poverty, or I'm in a situation where I don't have a parent who used to be there - who now is no longer there. Or causing instability and impacting the education that people get and the kind of job opportunity, watching someone who's come out have to struggle and be ostracized. And it looks like, Hey, this is just the first step on a long cycle of traumatic and undesirable events - and I don't want to participate in a system that is doing that. With that, as we look forward, and I think this is also related to conversations about just fundamental trust in our criminal legal system and relations with police and throughout the system. It's - if we think about how to turn that around - to me, seems related to thinking about the question of how do we get better outcomes for everyone? 'Cause it seems like right now where we're investing a lot in poor outcomes for people who were already, usually, in pretty poor spots leading to themselves being incarcerated, coming out and not necessarily improving, definitely not improving. And if anything, a chance that it gets a little bit worse. How do we change that entire outcome? And I know you're looking specifically in the incarceration space, but what should be, what could be done differently? Or do we just need a fundamental restructuring of the way we do this? [00:42:17] Damon Petrich: I don't know about a fundamental restructuring - I don't, I'm not great at that high-level thinking stuff, but what I do know is that - we're probably going to continue to incarcerate people. That's something that's done in every country and people seem to love here. So if we actually want to use prison for public safety - because 95% of inmates eventually get out - if we actually want to use it for public safety, then let's actually try wholeheartedly to rehabilitate them while they're in there. And again, there's a lot of theory and evidence-based principles on how we can do this, like the risk-need-responsivity model that I talked about earlier, cognitive behavioral therapy more broadly. If you use these types of things and continue to work on them and develop them over time, then yeah - prison might actually be helpful if people are going there and getting the help that they need. But that's not what's happening currently. So that's one level in incarceration terms - that's the area that I know best. So that's one way you could potentially alleviate some of this stuff is - if people are actually getting resources and stuff when they're in prison, and then when once they're reintegrating, they're not only going to reoffend less, but maybe they're going to contribute to their community more. They're going to be better able to connect with their family and stuff like that. So rather than being a hindrance, it could potentially be a help. Obviously, again, it's not ideal to remove people from their communities and their family and friends. And like I said earlier, if you have the option to sentence them to something community-based instead, I think that's the better route to go. But if you are going to send people to prison, which I think we're going to continue to do a lot of the time, then let's rehabilitate them while they're in there is the main point. And do so based on what actually works to do that. [00:44:23] Crystal Fincher: It's really the investment in the people who are there, and we're - I think up against a lot of societal attitudes and resistance where it just feels wrong to a number of people to be providing services and shifting that investment to things that are seemingly helpful for the inmate, because everything about how we've been conditioned to understand our prison system has been - the punishment is kind of the key, and they'll make rational decisions afterwards to avoid prison based on how bad the punishment is. When it comes to community supervision, things like probation, what are the differences there? If there are better outcomes from that, what accounts for the better outcomes when it comes to probation versus incarceration? [00:45:23] Damon Petrich: I wouldn't say the outcomes are better - they're just pretty much the same as they would be if they're sentenced to prison. So, probation costs less and then it also enables the people to be out in the community doing community things, like being with their friends and families and all that. I mean, you can't quantify, based on a recidivism percentage, what their family members and friends and employers are getting out of it. So that's something we can't really look at - or I guess you could, but something we don't often do - but so there's intangible things that you would get by keeping people in the community. Plus it doesn't lead to all that other stuff I talked about where people become cynical of the legal system and it leads to this cycle of whatever. [00:46:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and so if we're were doing this programming in prison and helping people, I think your research shows it's extremely important to do both the structural, Hey, you need a place to live, you need to be able to pay your rent and your bills - so having a job, having housing, having healthcare, getting those very basic needs met is critical. But also addressing a number of the mental or behavioral health issues that are common among the incarcerated population - and dealing with that is as important. And basically those two things both need to happen hand-in-hand. How do we do a better job of that in our current system? [00:46:57] Damon Petrich: Well, first of all, I'd like to say that you're right there - I think maybe when I was talking earlier about employment, it might sound like giving people jobs is just a waste of time, but that's not the case. It needs - the two things need to be paired - you need to deal with the cognitive and behavioral problems in addition to giving them jobs and housing support and all that. In terms of how you actually go about doing that, there are examples in the literature of programs that do this, so there's examples out there. I think if you're a state or local or even federal correctional department and you're interested in doing this - implementing something that's evidence-based - or if you're just a concerned citizen that wants to rally your local officials to do that - go and talk to researchers like me, or people at universities that have criminology departments or criminal justice departments, because this knowledge is out there. It's widely available. You just have to go and seek it out. So at my university, for example, we have the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute and under the guidance of Ed Latessa, he was - now passed - but he was, over the last 30 years, responsible for disseminating a lot of this evidence-based practices to some of the state and local criminal justice agencies. And they helped with implementation and evaluation in a lot of these places, so the help is out there. You just have to look for it a little bit. [00:48:38] Crystal Fincher: And another question I had - your analysis seemed to suggest that when we're talking about low-risk, medium, and high-risk offenders - or people who have done relatively minor crimes versus those who have done more serious crimes - that these interventions are particularly effective the more serious the offense or crime has been. And that perhaps even sometimes treating someone who is a really low-risk as if they're a high-risk, can worsen the outcomes for that person. Is that the case? [00:49:21] Damon Petrich: Yeah, that tends to be a finding in research - we're not exactly sure why, but providing a lot of really intensive services to people deemed to be low-risk can actually be harmful rather than helpful. We don't know based on research why, but there's a lot of pretty good hypotheses about why. So a low-risk offender is going to be somebody who's a first-timer who's committed some not-that-serious crime. So they probably have a job, they probably have pretty strong connections with their family and all that. So if you're taking them and you're putting them in a program where you have to be there 40 hours a week, they're probably going to get fired from their job, it's going to be harder to stay in contact with friends and families that are sort of tying you into a non-criminal life. And then you're probably going to be associating with all kinds of people who are high-risk, and maybe they're going to draw you towards, oh yeah, I could earn four grand going out tonight and stealing some laptops. There's a lot of reasons why just taking low-risk people and putting them in these programs is going to be harmful rather than helpful. [00:50:31] Crystal Fincher: And so with that in mind, and you talk about, Hey, if we're trying to influence local electeds - one of the interesting things about having a podcast and radio show that caters to extremely politically and civically inclined people is that we actually do have a number of policymakers and politicians who listen, and people who are enacting and in control of this policy. If you were to talk to them and give them advice about how to move forward, especially in the current environment that we find ourselves in, where over the past few years has been increasing awareness of some of the defecits of our system and pushes to change those. And also, as we have seen more recently, a real strong pushback from a lot of people who are invested in our current system saying, Hey, let's not change things too much. Maybe we need to jail more and for longer. And maybe we're just not doing enough incarceration, and that's the answer. In that kind of political environment, what would you tell people who are in charge of this policy, who may be facing pressure to keep going forward with the status quo, about how they should evaluate how they should move forward and the kinds of things that they should do? [00:52:07] Damon Petrich: I know a lot of these politicians get lobbied by correctional officer groups or whatever, and that's whatever, but ultimately you get voted in by voters. So, I'm not an expert on public opinion - I have other friends who are more into that kind of stuff, but I do know from talking with them and from reading that literature, that the public actually does support rehabilitation. So they have for a long time and it's shifted more towards being in support of rehabilitation over time. So right now, most Americans support providing rehabilitation programs to prisoners and offenders. So this is something that's going to please your constituency, people want this kind of thing. And it's not like you're going to be losing all kinds of jobs by getting rid of prison - there's going to be a need for skilled people who can provide these programs and probation officers and all these sorts of things. So it's not a net loss when you're getting rid of prisons. There's a lot of reasons to sentence people to community supervision and things like that - provide rehabilitation. There's public support for it, there's jobs involved, there's cost savings - big time, obviously - it's way cheaper to keep somebody out of prison than it is to keep them in prison. So there's a lot of different reasons why you would want to do that as a politician. [00:53:43] Crystal Fincher: I think that makes sense. Certainly it's a lot cheaper to keep someone out of prison versus in prison. I mean, we talked about the annual costs - in the state of Washington over $40,000, King County over $70,000 - comparing that to how much we invest in a student of $11,500 a year. If we focus more on investing in people, both inside and outside the system, it seems like we set ourselves up for a safer community, fewer people being victimized, and more people leading thriving, productive, tax-paying lives. And we're all happier than we are right now, I would think, I would hope - it seems like the research points in that direction. So I certainly appreciate you taking the time to speak with us about this. Is there anything else that you want to leave with us, in thinking about this study and your research? [00:54:55] Damon Petrich: I think we covered it pretty well. Just to circle back to something you just said - I know this might put me out of a job since I focus on what happens when people's lives go awry, but you really are better off to invest in early prevention programs and giving people a good start on life than trying to correct the program or the problem afterwards. So yeah - politicians spend some money on prevention programs. I know the good effects of that are a long way out, but they're actually good on a societal level. So I guess I would add that, even though it's not good for criminologists, maybe, to put themselves out of a job like that. [00:55:40] Crystal Fincher: Well, much appreciated, and thank you so much for having this conversation with us today. [00:55:45] Damon Petrich: Yeah, thank you very much for having me on. I'm glad that there are people out there interested in this stuff, so thanks again. [00:55:51] Crystal Fincher: I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Cheng. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.

Peter Wagner of Wing VC joins Nick to discuss Lessons from Seed Investing in Snowflake and Gong, Why the Next Super-Cycle is Here and How to Invest in It, and Insights on Firm Building, Decision Making, and Talent Spotting. In this episode we cover: Early-Stage Investing and Company Building in B2B Technology Investment Decisions and Market Fit AI's Impact on Business and Investment Strategies Data Platforms, ETL, and Vector Data in AI Venture Capital Team Building and Talent Selection Guest Links: Twitter LinkedIn Wing VC The hosts of The Full Ratchet are Nick Moran and Nate Pierotti of New Stack Ventures, a venture capital firm committed to investing in founders outside of the Bay Area. Want to keep up to date with The Full Ratchet? Follow us on social. You can learn more about New Stack Ventures by visiting our LinkedIn and Twitter. Are you a founder looking for your next investor? Visit our free tool VC-Rank and we'll send a list of potential investors right to your inbox!

Peter Wagner is a Founding Partner of Wing Venture Capital, where he focuses on the Modern Enterprise, an agile workplace built on data and powered by AI. Peter has led investments in dozens of early-stage companies, including Snowflake, Gong, and many others, which have gone on to complete IPOs or successful acquisitions. Recently Wing has announced Wing Four, a new $600 million pool of capital dedicated to early-stage investing and long-term company building in B2B technology. Peter was also featured on the Forbes Midas List as one of the top tech investors.    You can learn more about:  1. How to build a successful fund?  2. How to invest in the AI companies that truly matter?  3. How does AI transform businesses?    ===================== YouTube: @GraceGongCEO Newsletter: @SmartVenture LinkedIn: @GraceGong TikTok: @GraceGongCEO IG: @GraceGongCEO Twitter: @GraceGongGG =====================

16,360 views Premiered Jul 6, 2023 Further Resources for study of this topic: The Impact of Open Theism on C. Peter Wagner's Philosophy of Discipleship by Evan Pietsch Info: https://repository.sbts.edu/handle/10... File: https://repository.sbts.edu/bitstream... Utilizing a Reformed Sanctification Framework to Assess and Evaluate C. Peter Wagner's Doctrine of Sanctification by Vivian Pietsch Info: https://repository.sbts.edu/handle/10... File: https://repository.sbts.edu/bitstream... God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism by Bruce Ware https://amzn.to/3PFDT2o Their God is Too Small: Open Theism and the Undermining of Confidence in God by Bruce Ware https://amzn.to/3PLhscf Website for Drs. Evan and Vivian Pietsch https://protestantcollective.com Support Fighting for the Faith Join Our Crew: http://www.piratechristian.com/join-o... Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/PirateChristian Merchandise: https://www.moteefe.com/store/pirate-... Fighting for the Faith Radio Program: http://fightingforthefaith.com Social Media Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/piratechristian Twitter: https://twitter.com/piratechristian Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/piratechris...

In this episode, Brooke discusses the concept of freedom and its significance in our lives. She believes that people are yearning for freedom, peace, and hope like never before. Brooke shares three different elements that bring her a sense of freedom and how they can impact others as well. Freedom in Christ Brooke begins by highlighting the importance of finding freedom in Christ from a biblical perspective. She shares several empowering scriptures that have helped her break free from fear, intimidation, worry, and overwhelm. One scripture that resonates with her is 2 Corinthians 3:17, which states that wherever the Holy Spirit is Lord, there is freedom. By making Jesus the Lord of our lives, we can experience true freedom and let go of the need for control. Unity and Divine Connections Brooke emphasizes the significance of unity and divine connections in shifting the atmosphere and fostering freedom. She encourages women to come together and embrace the divine connections that God brings into their lives. Drawing inspiration from the book "The Great Transfer of Wealth" by C. Peter Wagner, Brooke highlights the power of partnerships as a divine principle. These connections enable individuals to achieve things they could never accomplish alone. By honoring and appreciating others, we can experience a sense of freedom and multiplication in our relationships. Clarity as a Path to Freedom Brooke explores how clarity plays a vital role in attaining freedom. She believes that many people feel trapped by confusion and overwhelm, hindering them from realizing their goals and desires. To overcome these barriers, she suggests asking ourselves important questions. Brooke shares four thought-provoking questions that can lead to self-discovery and clarity.   Join me at the Live Out Loud Experience LIVE Event November 5-8th!  Enroll in The Live Out Loud Ignite Membership  APPLY NOW to work with me! 30 Ways to Speak Scripture Out Loud Join Brooke's mental wellness team   Follow Brooke on Social Media!

In this enlightening episode, we are joined by special guest Matthew D. Taylor, PhD, as we delve into the intriguing world of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). Together, we'll explore the beliefs, origins, and impact of the NAR, shedding light on its relevance to both religious and political spheres.Dr. Matthew D. Taylor, a respected expert in religious studies, brings his wealth of knowledge to guide us through the complexities of the NAR. We'll uncover the teachings of C. Peter Wagner, the seminary professor who coined the term "New Apostolic Reformation" in the 1990s, and explore the transformative influence he had on Pentecostal Charismatic Christianity.Join us as we examine the role of apostles and prophets in church leadership, as emphasized by the NAR. Together with Dr. Taylor, we'll discuss how this movement challenges established structures and fosters new perspectives on leadership within faith communities.Through engaging conversations, we'll explore the growth of the NAR and the rise of self-proclaimed apostles and prophets, as Dr. Taylor provides insights into their significance in shaping modern Christianity. We'll also delve into the unique structure of the NAR, which prioritizes personal connections over traditional denominational hierarchies.In addition, we'll tackle the concept of strategic spiritual warfare—a topic that sparks debate within the NAR. Dr. Taylor will shed light on the belief in territorial spirits and their supposed influence over physical regions, as well as their role in the NAR's approach to prayer and spiritual battles.Here's the series we reference on the program- Charismatic Revival Fury: The New Apostolic Reformation https://www.straightwhiteamericanjesus.com/series/charismatic-revival-fury/Guest Bio:Matthew D. Taylor, Ph.D., is the Protestant Scholar at ICJS, where he specializes in Muslim-Christian dialogue, Evangelical and Pentecostal movements, religious politics in the U.S., and American Islam. Prior to coming to ICJS, Taylor served on the faculty of Georgetown University and The George Washington University. He is a member of the American Academy of Religion, the North American Association of Islamic and Muslim Studies, and the Company of Teachers of the Reformed Institute of Metropolitan Washington. Taylor holds a Ph.D. in Religious Studies and Muslim-Christian Relations from Georgetown University and an M.A. in Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary. His forthcoming book, Scripture People: Salafi Muslims in Evangelical Christians' America (Cambridge University Press—August 2023), offers an introduction to the oft-misunderstood Salafi movement in the U.S. by way of comparison with American Evangelicalism. He is also the creator of the acclaimed audio-documentary series  “Charismatic Revival Fury: The New Apostolic Reformation,” which details how networks of extremist Christian leaders helped instigate the January 6th Insurrection.Support the showTo learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics

https://amsterdam2023.com/ E.A Adeboye: Redeemed Christian church of God in Nigeria claims 5 million congregants he claims the title apostle as wellChristine Caine: Hillsong and Bethel connectionsLeo Bigger: ICF claims to be an apostle, claims heaven goes with him. He cleanses rooms before he stays in them, etcRussell Evans: Planet Shakers definitely an Apostle in the NAR. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. In regard to Bethel. I can tell you listener and Leo bigger. There is no baby in the bathwater. Nothing is there to be saved. You're welcome to throw it all out. And people who partner with them at events like this, or to know better by now and auto withdraw their involvement. I would.Ben Fitzgerald: founder of Awakening Europe, newly installed Pastor and anointed as the leader for G5 church, which subsequently changed its name to awakening Church. And swiftly left the free evangelical denomination in Germany.Bill Johnson: Senior leader and Apostle at Bethel. He thinks of himself and Kris Vallotton as an Apostle and Prophet.Cindy Jacobs: also the large part of the NAR she according to Ché Ahn received the mantle of leading the NAR from C. Peter Wagner. She leads the apostolic council of prophetic elders which produces a document yearly called “The Word Of the Lord.”Daniel Kolenda: calls critics of the NAR incels and says the NAR is a conspiracy theory contrived by critics. But myself, and other critics have proven to be on a shadow of a doubt according to see Peter Wagner‘s writings was the one who coined the term. And developed its major theological and practical premises.Chris Overstreet: Bethel evangelism pastorJean-Luc Tratchsel: spoke at Bethel had Benny Hinn on his program, healing ministry in Switzerland Todd White: he's known and famous for his leg-lengthening stick. He also has many different places, claimed himself to be a new breed of Christian. He comes very close to the Teaching and belief of sinless perfectionism. Teachers a kenosis Christ just like all the rest of the people in NAR. Kenosis, is the belief that Jesus laid aside his divinity. ***Anyone who says teaches or believes that Jesus divested himself of his deity in any way or at any time, places themselves, their teaching, and their doctrine outside of Christian orthodoxy.*** Brother Yun: story changes every time I hear it and has been debunked and disavowed by pastors in China. People introduced him when he speaks and others, including himself, claim leadership of 1 million Christians in China. I find this quite hard to believe since he's never in China. He's on the NAR speaking circuit you can't have leadership of 1 million people and never see them. I believe he's a fraud and maybe his whole story is fabricated. Arleen Westerhof: NAR prophet and appeared on Ché Ahn's tv show several timesAll in all this event is pretty obviously deeply affected by the NAR. It's a Theology and the prophecy from false prophet (Chiefs prophecy) and prophetic sexual abuser Bob Jones. It looks like they believe that there will be another Pentecost in 2033 that they are preparing for and preparing for the return of Jesus. The NAR has a prevalent idea that is called the Seven Mountains Mandate (7MM) or 7 spheres of influence, which teaches that the church should move into the seven spheres of culture and spread the dominion of Jesus by taking back territory that Satan usurped in the Fall. The seven mountains are government, media, family, business, education, church, and the arts. Once these seven spheres are neatly controlled by the church, only then will Christ return to a victorious bride. Empowered 21 hold to the 7MM lets have a look at their website...Dominion 7 Mountain Mandate described...https://empowered21.com/nl/about/ (5th goal down the page) Describes the Global reach of Empowered21...https://empowered21.com/?fbclid=IwAR0wQ5cHSPhn9tH5TZWpsDEt7lnRM7RDzkKXpNl7p-z2vdVFioeqoC8I5wE Empowered21 Global leadership...https://empowered21.com/nl/about/global-leaders/?fbclid=IwAR0v8xlURiu-NWtBRfnTa95ARgC7WWJAzqwRuXb9aEsNKNfAnyXoPbVsH-0

Dominion Theology is a popular belief held among those who believe that man gave up his authority to Satan in the garden, but now, we have authority back through Christ to rule and to bring heaven to earth. Along with this belief, some may hold to what is called open theism. This is the belief C. Peter Wagner wrote about and ministered alongside dominion theology. Perhaps you have heard of dominion theology, but what is open theism, and is it as problematic? Join me as we take a look at one of Wagner's public teachings on the dominion mandate, and we look at a recently republished book by Wagner, Dominion. We will also glean from Scripture, Bible teachers, and resources concerning the sovereignty of God. Resources: (19) Is God Sovereign over My Free Will? - YouTube (19) The Sovereignty of God: The Attributes of God with Steven Lawson - YouTube Message Evaluated: (19) Session B (Pastors & Leaders 2010) C. Peter Wagner - YouTube Related Podcast episodes: The Lovesick Scribe Podcast: This Is Dedicated to the NAR Deniers on Apple Podcasts The Lovesick Scribe Podcast: The Dangerous Belief that Satan Is Sovereign and the Lord Is Not God on Apple Podcasts The Lovesick Scribe Podcast: A Mandate Contradicting Scripture- The Seven Mountain Mandate on Apple Podcasts My info: Website: http://www.lovesickscribe.com Subscribe to my blog here: http://eepurl.com/dfZ-uH Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lovesickscribe/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lovesickscribeblog If you found this podcast helpful, please share it with others and leave a good review. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/dawn-hill2/support

On this Hacks & Wonks midweek show, Crystal has a robust conversation with Damon Petrich about his research at the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. As lead author of the seminal work “Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Damon performed an extensive analysis of 116 research studies looking at the effect of incarceration on reoffending. The review's finding that the oft-used policy of imprisonment does not reduce the likelihood of recidivism sparks a discussion about how the United States ended up as the world leader in mass incarceration and the disconnect between conventional assumptions about what prisons provide versus reality. Noting that the carceral system does a poor job of rehabilitation - while eating up budgets across the country and exacting significant societal costs - Damon and Crystal talk about how to design and evaluate programs that do work to deliver greater public safety for everyone. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal, on Twitter at @finchfrii and reach Damon for more information about his research at dpetrich@luc.edu   Resources  “Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review” by Damon M. Petrich, Travis C. Pratt, Cheryl Lero Jonson, and Francis T. Cullen for Crime and Justice   Scott Hechinger Twitter thread   “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2022” by Wendy Sawyer and Peter Wagner from the Prison Policy Initiative   “Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation” by James Bonta and D. A. Andrews for Public Safety Canada   “Let's Take a Hard Look at Who Is in Jail and Why We Put Them There” by Alea Carr for the ACLU-WA blog   Book - “Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect” by Robert J. Sampson   Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Program - “Police Legitimacy and Legal Cynicism: Why They Matter and How to Measure in Your Community”    “Polls Show People Favor Rehabilitation over Incarceration” by Matt Clarke for Prison Legal News   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, I am excited to welcome Damon Petrich, who's a doctoral associate in the School of Criminal Justice at University of Cincinnati and incoming assistant professor at Loyola University Chicago. He was the lead author of a recent article, "Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review," along with Travis Pratt, Cheryl Lero Johnson, Francis T. Cullen. Damon's research focuses on the effectiveness of corrections and rehabilitation programs, desistance from crime, and the impact of community violence on youth development. Thank you so much for joining us, Damon. [00:01:13] Damon Petrich: Thank you very much for having me on, Crystal. I'm excited to talk a little bit about my work and the implications of that and all that, so thanks again. [00:01:20] Crystal Fincher: I'm very excited to talk about this and it's extremely timely - has been for a while. We have conversations almost every day in the public sphere having to do with public safety - this is such a major component of it. And so I'm hoping as we have this conversation, it'll help us to better assess what the costs and benefits are of custodial sanctions and incarceration, and alternatives to that - to have a conversation that kind of orients us more towards public safety. Sometimes we're so concerned with metrics around police and how many they are, and what the length of a sentence should be. And sometimes we focus on things that take us off of the overall goal of keeping us all safer and reducing the likelihood that each of us are victimized and to hopefully prevent people from becoming victims of crime. And just to have accurate conversations about how we invest our public resources - what we're actually getting from them, and then how to evaluate as we go along - what we should be tracking and measuring and incentivizing. As so many people talk about taking data-driven approaches and create all these dashboards - that we're really doing it from an informed perspective. So just to start out - what actually were you studying and what were you seeking to find out? [00:02:47] Damon Petrich: Yeah, so the main purpose of our meta-analysis, which I can explain exactly what that is later on if you have questions, but the main purpose was to understand what happens when you take one group of offenders and you sentence them to something custodial like prison or jail, and then you sentence another group of similar offenders to something non-custodial like probation. How do those two groups differ in terms of whether they reoffend? So does prison actually deter recidivism, or does it make people more likely to commit crime afterwards? So that's sort of what we were looking at and so we considered all of the available research on that, in this review. [00:03:29] Crystal Fincher: Got it. So right now we have gone down the path of mass incarceration - that is the default punishment that we, as society, have looked to for crime. Hey - sentence them and many times it's, Hey, they're going to jail. Sometimes they get out of jail and they have supervision that continues, but jail is really focused, where we focus a lot of our effort and where we put people and hope that that'll straighten them out and they come out and everything is fine. How did we get here and where are we in terms of how we're approaching incarceration in our society, in our country? [00:04:11] Damon Petrich: Yeah, so there is a lot of public uproar around a lot of issues, like race issues, and there was crime spikes and concerns over social welfare - and there's all this confluence of issues in the '60s and early '70s. And we decided to - as a country, not everyone, but politicians decided that we should tackle the crime problem by A) incarcerating more people, and then B) once they get there, keep them there for longer. So we enacted things like mandatory minimum sentences, where the judge really has no discretion over what happens - the person gets automatically a sentence of incarceration if they've committed a certain type of crime. You had habitual offender laws where if you're - like California's three strikes policy - where if you have two prior felonies and you get a third, no matter what it is, you're going to jail for life. Michigan had the "650 Lifer Law," where if you get caught with 650 grams of heroin or cocaine, you're automatically going to prison for life. And then we got rid of parole and stuff like that in a lot of states. So all these things lead to more people going to jail and then for longer, and those laws came to be in the '70s and '80s. And over that time, our incarceration rate ballooned up by about 700%, so by the early 2000s, we were at over 2 million people incarcerated and another 7-8 million people on probation or parole. So it's a pretty big expansion - the United States has 5% of the world's population and a quarter, or 25%, of the prisoners, so it's a little ridiculous. The crime rate here isn't nearly as high, or nearly high enough to justify that huge disparity. So yeah, it's a whole confluence of factors led us to be the world leader in incarceration. [00:06:14] Crystal Fincher: And what attitudes or what justifications are the people who have the power to enact these policies and continue these policies - how are they justifying them? [00:06:25] Damon Petrich: So there's a few reasons why you might want to incarcerate somebody. One is just because you want to punish them or get revenge on them, so that's more of a moral reason. But the main focus of politicians were twofold - one was incapacitation, so that one means that because you're keeping somebody locked up in a cage, obviously they can't be out in the community committing crimes. So the thought is that you're going to reduce crime that way. The research on that is a little squishy even now, and I can talk a little bit more about that later if you want. But the other reason, and the one that we focused on in our review, was that prison deters people from going back to crime after they get out. So the idea there is that prison sucks - you go in there, you're cut off from your job, from your family, from your friends, or from just having hobbies or things to do. And you're not going to want to go back, so when you get out of prison - you think real hard, and you think how much prison sucks, and you decide not to go back to crime. That's the thinking behind that deterrence hypothesis anyway. So those two - incapacitation and deterrence - were the main drivers of those increase in laws and stuff during the '70s, '80s, and '90s, but there really wasn't any evidence for either of them - in the '70s and '80s in particular. So most of the research evaluating whether prison actually does deter recidivism has popped up over the last 25 years or so. [00:08:05] Crystal Fincher: And as you took a look at it - all of the studies that have popped up over the past 25 years had varying degrees of rigor and scientific validity. But as that body of research grew, people began to get a better idea of whether incarceration actually does reduce someone's likelihood of reoffending. How big was that body of work, in terms of studies, and what were you able to look at? [00:08:40] Damon Petrich: So in our particular review, we looked at 116 studies, which is a pretty sizable number. Most people - when you read through an article and a literature review might have 10 studies or something that they just narratively go through, but we looked at 116. And then within those 116 studies, there were 981 statistical models. So 901 different comparisons - or 981 different comparisons - of what happens to custodial versus non-custodial groups. So we looked at a pretty big chunk of literature. [00:09:20] Crystal Fincher: And in that, in the reliance of - that's a really big number - and I think, people now are maybe more familiar, just from a layperson's perspective, of just how big that number is. As we've seen throughout this pandemic that we're in the middle of, studies come out - people are looking at one study, and wow - study number two comes out and we're feeling really good about it. And man, we get to five studies and people are like, okay, we know what's going on. To get beyond a hundred is just a real comprehensive body of study and analysis. What were you able to determine from that? [00:10:05] Damon Petrich: So I should probably explain upfront what a meta-analysis is and why it's useful. So like you were just saying - like in the COVID pandemic, for example - one study will come out and it'll say, oh, Ivermectin reduces symptomatic COVID cases by X percent. And then the next study will come out and say, Ivermectin makes people way worse. So any individual study can be kind of misleading. A good analogy for what a meta-analysis does would be to look at baseball, for example. So let's say you're interested in some rookie player that's just come out, he's just joined Major League Baseball and you go to his - you want to know how good this player actually is? You've never seen him play, you've only heard rumors. So you go out to his first game, he gets up to bat four times and he gets no hits. So you walk away from that game thinking, wow, this player is terrible, the team wasted all their money recruiting and paying this guy's salary. But that could have just been an off game for many reasons - it's his debut game so maybe there's just first-game nerves, maybe the weather was bad, maybe he was having personal problems in his life, or he had a little bit of an injury. So there's a number of reasons why looking at his performance from that one game is not going to be representative of who he is as a player. Ideally, you'd want to look at all the games over a season where he might go up to bat 250 times. And over those 250 times, he gets 80 hits, which is a pretty good batting average - it's over .300. So with that amount of data, you could come to a more solid conclusion of whether he's actually a good player or not. And with that amount of data, you could also look at what we call moderating characteristics. So you could look at, for example, whether he plays better when it's an away game or in a home game, whether it's early or late season - you could look at all these sorts of things. So this is essentially what we're doing with research as well, in a meta-analysis. So if you look at studies on incarceration - one might show increases in recidivism after people go to prison, the next might show decreases, and the next might show that probationers and prisoners reoffend at about the same rates. So just like in the baseball analogy, in a meta-analysis, we're looking at all of the available research. We're combining it together and determining A) what the sort of overall or average effect of incarceration is, and then B) whether these moderating characteristics actually matter. So in other words, is the effect of incarceration pretty much the same for males as it is for females, or for juveniles as adults, or when the research design is really good versus when it's not so great. So that's basically what we did in this meta-analysis is again - looked at 116 studies and from those 981 statistical estimates. [00:13:13] Crystal Fincher: Very helpful. Totally makes sense with the baseball analogy, and I especially appreciate breaking down with all the statistical models and not just kind of thumbs up, thumbs down - the binary - it either increases or reduces the likelihood of recidivism. But under what conditions are - might it be more likely, less likely that someone does? What are some of those influencing effects on what happens? And so you were just talking about the justification that people used going into this, and now that we have data coming out - does it turn out that people go into prison or are incarcerated in jail, they think - wow, this is horrible. Some in society are like the more uncomfortable we make it in jail, the better we want to make sure it's a place that they never would want to come back to - that it's so scary and such a bad experience that they are just scared straight for the rest of their lives. Does it actually turn out to be that way? Do they take a rational look at - this was my experience, I don't want to go back again, therefore I will not do any of the things that I did going in. [00:14:28] Damon Petrich: I would not say that's the conclusion - no. So again, based on the 116 studies that we looked at, which is again a lot, people who are sentenced to incarceration - so jail, prison - they commit crime, they reoffend at about the same rates as if you'd sentence those same people to probation. So in other words, they're not being deterred by being sent to prison. These effects are the same for both males and females. So in other words, prison doesn't reduce reoffending for one group versus the other. It's the same whether we look at adults versus juveniles, it's the same regardless of what type of recidivism we're interested in - rearrests or convictions. It's pretty much the same across the board. There's some slight variations in research designs, but even within those, prison either has no effect or it slightly increases recidivism. We don't find any conditions under which prison is reducing reoffending or deterring these people from going back to those lives. [00:15:35] Crystal Fincher: So from a societal perspective, a lot of people kind of make the assumption that, Hey, we arrest and we incarcerate someone - whew, our streets are safer. They get out, and now they can choose to reintegrate themselves into society hopefully - they do and we're all safer because of it. But it looks like impressions that some people may have that, Hey, we're letting someone off easy. And suggestions - there's so much media coverage around this - and suggestions that because we're letting people off easy, that we're making it easier for them to reoffend, or they don't feel sufficiently punished enough and so that becomes an incentive to reoffend. Does that seem like it tracks with what the studies have shown? [00:16:33] Damon Petrich: Not really - so there's some studies that actually ask prisoners and offenders whether they'd prefer going to prison or probation. And a lot of them will say, oh, I'd rather do a year in prison than spend two or three years on probation. So it's not like they view probation as just being super easy. And they're not saying this because they received time off their sentence for being in the study or anything like that. Probation's not easy either - and you have to also think that while these people are on probation, they're able to stay in close touch with their family, they're able to maintain connections with work or find work, they're able to participate in the community, they can pay taxes - that I know a lot of people who are pro-prison love. So there's all sorts of reasons why - beyond just them reoffending at the same rates as if they'd gone to prison - there's a lot of reasons why we might want to keep these people in the community. And it's not like we're saying, let everybody out of prison - so the nature of this research - you want to compare apples to apples. So in this research, comparing prisoners to probationers - these have to be people who are getting - they could either legitimately get a sentence of jail or probation, or prison or probation. So these are going to be first-time offenders, people who are relatively low-level - they've committed low-level crimes and all that. So we're not saying - there's not going to be a situation where a murderer just gets probation - that sort of thing. So I know that might be a concern of some people - they think that's a natural argument of this analysis, but it's really not. [00:18:24] Crystal Fincher: Well, and to your point, we're really talking - if we're looking at all of the crime that gets people sentenced to prison time, a very small percentage of that is murder. A very small percentage of it is on that kind of scale - you can wind up in jail or prison for a wide variety of offenses - many of them, people perceive as relatively minor or that people might be surprised can land you in prison. Or if someone has committed a number of minor offenses, that can stack up - to your point in other situations - and increase the length of detention or the severity of the consequences. As we're looking through this and the conversation of, okay, so, we sentence them, we let them out - it's not looking like there's a difference between jail or community supervisions, things like probation - what is it about jail that is harmful or that is not helpful? What is it about the structure of our current system that doesn't improve recidivism outcomes for people? [00:19:42] Damon Petrich: Probably the main one is the rehabilitation is not the greatest. So just as an example, substance abuse is a very strong predictor whether people are going to reoffend, unsurprisingly. About 50% of prisoners at the state and federal level in The States meet the DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders] criteria for having a substance use abuse disorder - so they meet the clinical criteria for substance abuse disorder. So half of them, and then more than that just use substances, but they don't meet the criteria for a disorder. But of that 50% who has a substance abuse disorder, only about 20% of those actually receives treatment for it while they're incarcerated. So, you're not dealing with a root cause of reoffending while they're in prison - so you're not deterring them, but you're also not rehabilitating them - so you're really not doing anything. And then in the rare cases where these people are provided with rehabilitation or reentry programming, it's often not based on any sort of evidence-based model of how you actually change people. So there's a lot of psychological and criminology theory and research on how you actually elicit behavioral change, and these programs really aren't in line with any of that. And I could give examples if you wanted, but - [00:21:17] Crystal Fincher: Sure. I think that's helpful, 'cause I think a lot of people do assume, and sometimes it's been controversial - wow, look at how much they're coddling these prisoners - they have these educational programs, and they get all this drug treatment for free, and if they don't come out fixed then it's their own fault because they have access to all of these treatment resources in prison. Is that the case? [00:21:43] Damon Petrich: No, I wouldn't say so - first of all, they don't have access, a lot of them, to any programs. And then, like I said, the programs that they do get really aren't that effective. So the big one that everybody loves to argue for is providing former inmates with jobs. If you look at any federal funding for program development, like the Second Chance Act or the First Step Act - I think that was one under Trump - and then under Bush, there was a Serious [and] Violent Offenders Reentry Initiative - pretty much all of these federal bills will be heavily focused on just providing offenders with jobs. And almost all of the evaluations of these programs show that they don't reduce reoffending. And it's not really that hard - again, if you go back to the literature on behavioral change and, criminology literature - it's not really that hard to understand why just providing a job isn't going to reduce or lead somebody away from a life of crime. A lot of these people have spotty work histories where they've never had a job at all, they believe and know that it's easier to gain money by doing illicit work than it is legal work, they have things like low self-control so they're very impulsive, they don't know how to take criticism or being told what to do by a boss. They live in neighborhoods with very poor opportunities for good jobs and education, and maybe there's a mindset around there that illegal work or whatever is just a better way to go - that's sort of ingrained. So there's a lot of different reasons why just handing somebody a job isn't going to lead them away from crime, 'cause they have all these other things that need to be dealt with first. So ideally, a rehabilitation program that's comprehensive would deal with all of those other background factors and then provide them with a job. Because if you make them less impulsive, better able to resist the influence of their antisocial friends, and get this thought out of their head that other people are being hostile towards them when they're really not - all these sorts of cognitive and behavioral biases that they have - if you deal with all of those things and then you give them a job, they're more likely to actually latch onto that job as something worthwhile doing. And then they're going to go on to get out of a life of crime. But if you just give them a job and you haven't dealt with any of those issues, you can't really expect that to work. And that is the model that we currently do - is something that we don't really expect to work that well. [00:24:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that's - it's really interesting and I don't know that a lot of people actually know that, Hey, giving someone a job isn't sufficient - which is why I think it's so important to talk about studies like this, because some of what has become conventional wisdom, really is not accurate or reflects what has been studied and discovered. And I guess in that vein, what are the factors - you just talked about a few - but what does increase someone's likelihood of reoffending or recidivism, and what reduces it? [00:25:08] Damon Petrich: So those are probably two ends of the same, or two sides of the same coin, but this is pretty well known in criminology - a model called the risk-need-responsivity [RNR] model was developed by a couple of fellow Canadians, named James Bonta and Don Andrews, along with some of their colleagues in the '80s and '90s. And they, through again, other meta-analyses just like we did, found certain categories of characteristics of people who are more likely to reoffend. So you have things like having antisocial peers - so that one's pretty obvious - if you have a bunch of friends that are involved in crime, it's going to be pretty hard for you to get out of that life because you're surrounded by those people. Same with family members. If you have what are called criminal thinking patterns - so again, you might have what's called a hostile attribution bias, things like that, where somebody says something a little bit negative to you and you take that as a huge insult and you retaliate with anger and aggression - things like that. Or being impulsive - so you're again quick to anger, you're swayed by small little enticements in the environment and that sort of thing - so you're easily swayed one way or the other. Things like that are strong predictors of reoffending. Substance abuse - it's what I mentioned earlier. If you don't really have any sort of proactive leisure activities, like hobbies and stuff like that. So there's a bunch of well-known things that we know are strongly associated with recidivism, and a rehabilitation program should ideally deal with them. Now this model that Andrews and Bonta and all these other people came up with - this RNR risk-need-responsivity model - the risk part says that we should give people a risk assessment when they're entering prison or leaving prison and determine what level of risk are they from reoffending. And we assess these different criteria, like criminal thinking patterns and antisocial friends and substance abuse. So we determine what those factors are and then we design them a treatment program that actually deals with those factors at the individual level. So we're not just giving a blanket rehabilitation program to everybody, and you're providing the most amount of care to the people who most need it or who are the most likely to re-offend. And then once we've done all that, we need to make sure that we're addressing these problems in some sort of a format that we know actually works. The most well-known one, but not as often used, the most well-known within the sort of psychologist and criminological literature is cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT]. So this is pretty popular for dealing with depression and all sorts of eating disorders and substance abuse problems in non-offender populations. Well, those programs also work in offender populations and they work pretty well. So the research shows - again meta-analyses - that when you deal with all these three factors - risk, need, and responsivity - you can reduce reoffending rates by about 26%. So it's a pretty sizeable amount - it's much greater than you're getting by just sentencing people to prison without doing anything. [00:28:42] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and I think you cover in your paper - those things are absolutely true. And you just talked about several administrations' attempts to implement programming and resources to try and help people get jobs, potentially - hey, there's even a CBT treatment, but if that treatment has twice as many people as are recommended being in a session and occurs over half the time that it's supposed to, you really are sabotaging the entire process or really setting it up for failure. And it just seems to be an expensive exercise that we aren't really getting anything out of. Does that seem to be consistent with how you've seen the attempts at introducing this programming within prisons and jails? [00:29:40] Damon Petrich: Yeah, for sure - this is a pretty common finding too - so it's not just about preaching that you're going to do these things. You actually have to implement them well. So just like you said, there's a number of studies that show this - so you've designed some really great program that deals with all of these risk factors that lead people back into reoffending, you give it to them in a cognitive behavioral setting. So all seems good on paper, but in practice, like you said - one of the famous studies there - can't remember the names of the authors offhand right now - but one of the famous studies there showed that they're providing it to people in groups of 30, as opposed to 15, and they're delivering it in a really short amount of time. And they're not maybe giving it to the highest-risk people - so they're just mixing random people in there at varying levels of risk. So when you do all these sorts of things - you implement the program poorly - you can't really expect it to work. And this is often the case - is the government pays people to come up with these great programs, and then not enough funding is provided to actually make sure that they're implemented and evaluated well. So the amount of funding that actually goes into that - developing the programs to begin with - is small, but when you do do that, you're not making sure that you're actually implementing things well. So it's just sort of shooting yourself in the foot, and probably making people come to the conclusion that these things don't work - when they do work, if you just implement them well. [00:31:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and there's also a lot of rhetoric - and you discuss this - there's a lot of rhetoric coming from the government, even coming from leadership within the Bureau of Prisons or leadership in our carceral system, saying we do want to rehabilitate people. We are trying to implement programming that does this. You see - we have these educational opportunities and we are doing evaluations of people. And it may be happening while they're understaffed or other challenges, but one of the biggest, I guess, red flags is that none of the evaluation of their programs and none of the incentives that arise are in any way tied to what is the actual result of what happens. Are you actually succeeding on reducing someone's likelihood for reoffense? It does not seem like any compensation is tied to that, any kind of evaluation of positions or regular reporting - to say, is this program having its intended effect? And if not, what do we need to do to correct for that? Is that what you found? [00:32:33] Damon Petrich: I would say that's probably a pretty fair assessment. A lot of the programs that are implemented are never evaluated at all. And then the ones that are - it's usually once - there's one evaluation of those programs. And then, like you said, there doesn't really seem to be a lot of self-reflection - I don't know what other word you would use - but these programs don't really change on the basis of these evaluations. So, it's kind of disheartening to hear about, I guess. [00:33:14] Crystal Fincher: It feels very disheartening to live in the middle of - and one of the big things about this is that this - we have these conversations and we talk about these studies and we're saying, yeah, it actually - we're not doing anyone any favors right now when it comes to reducing recidivism. And having these conversations oftentimes detached from the cost associated with what we're paying for these. And my goodness are we paying to incarcerate people? It's not just, well, we do lock them up and we keep them away. Or we do a good job of keeping them in - they reoffend, they go back to jail. And lots of people are like, we did our job, they went back to jail - boom, everything is fine. But we are paying through the nose and out the ear for this - just here, we're in the state of Washington, and right now the state spends about $112 per day, or over $40,000 annually, to incarcerate one individual - that's the cost per inmate. In King County - the county that we're in - they spend $192 a day, or $70,000 annually, to incarcerate an individual. That is a huge amount of the tax dollars that we spend - these come out of our general fund, meaning that these are dollars that every service, everything that is not a dedicated source of revenue, is competing for. So when we talk about things and have conversations like, well, we don't have the budget for that and we don't have the money - that is related to how much of that money we're spending on other things. And my goodness, I would think that we want to get our money's worth for that level of expenditure. And it really appears that if we're saying the goal of jail is to get people on the straight and narrow path and becoming contributing members of society and all of the implications of that, it doesn't seem like we're getting our money's worth. And so, if those aren't the goals and if we just want to punish people, it's not like we're punishing people for free. We're punishing people at the cost of $70,000 per day [year], and at the cost of all the other services and infrastructure needs that we have. So it really seems like we're punishing ourselves as much, or more, as others - particularly if we're bringing people back into society that are likely to reoffend in one way or another. And so if our goal is to keep our community safe and that is the North Star, it looks like we need to realign our processes and our expenditure of resources. I guess my question to you, after all that, is - how should we be moving forward? What should we be looking to do? What is shown to work? [00:36:24] Damon Petrich: Well, I would say - yeah, $70,000 a year as just a revenge cost per person seems like a lot. $80 billion in the country as a whole, for a revenge cost, seems like a pretty high price to pay, given we're not reducing reoffending. You could make the argument that these people aren't offending while they're in prison, but that's - there's other reasons why that might not be completely accurate, which I could talk about too, but - [00:36:59] Crystal Fincher: Well, I'm interested in that. Why might that not be accurate? [00:37:03] Damon Petrich: So, obviously the person - if you incarcerate a particular individual, obviously they can't be out in the community committing crimes. So that's obvious, but there's a number of reasons why that might not, en masse, actually reduce crime a whole lot. The research on it - this is a little bit squishy - in terms of whether incarcerating more people leads to lower crime rates, because one influences the other. But for example, if you look at illegal drug markets - a lot of the homicides in the United States and other violent crime that people are really concerned about, and it's plastered all over the media is - homicides, gang-related stuff. So if you take key gang members out and you put them in prison, what ends up happening is that there's competition in that market to take over that person's place, either within the gang or other gangs coming in. So what ends up happening oftentimes is a spike in violence. So that's one reason why just incapacitating, particularly high-crime individuals, might not actually lead to lower crime rates overall. Again, you're lowering crime for that one person, but you might be increasing crime on a more systemic level. Beyond that, these things have broader societal and community level impacts - incarcerating a lot of people. Again, research shows that when you're incarcerating a lot of people in a particular community - so there's a bunch of really good work by Robert Sampson - he has a book that came out a few years ago called Great American City. And he looked at these individual neighborhoods in Chicago over time, and what he finds is that in communities where there's a higher number of people incarcerated in a particular community, this ends up increasing what's called "legal cynicism." And this is done in some other work as well with David Kirk and Andrew Papachristos - but they show that this increases legal cynicism, which means people are skeptical of police helping them out, the police doing a good job. And what ends up happening after that - when people are more cynical of the legal system, they're less likely to report crimes to the police, they're less likely to cooperate with the police. So what ends up happening? You incarcerate more people and people in that community end up being less willing to cooperate with law enforcement. And this leads to sort of an endless cycle where things sort of get out of hand. So there's all these unintended and nonfinancial consequences of incarcerating a lot of people that could potentially end up leading to more crime. [00:40:03] Crystal Fincher: Well, and - speaking as a Black woman - obviously, looking at the impacts of mass incarceration in the Black community and in neighborhoods around the country - where it is almost like the community is responding to the actual outcome and that, Hey, this actually isn't making my community any better. I'm experiencing traumatic impacts from this - whether it's my relative went to prison or a sole breadwinner in the family and now we're thrown into poverty, or I'm in a situation where I don't have a parent who used to be there - who now is no longer there. Or causing instability and impacting the education that people get and the kind of job opportunity, watching someone who's come out have to struggle and be ostracized. And it looks like, Hey, this is just the first step on a long cycle of traumatic and undesirable events - and I don't want to participate in a system that is doing that. With that, as we look forward, and I think this is also related to conversations about just fundamental trust in our criminal legal system and relations with police and throughout the system. It's - if we think about how to turn that around - to me, seems related to thinking about the question of how do we get better outcomes for everyone? 'Cause it seems like right now where we're investing a lot in poor outcomes for people who were already, usually, in pretty poor spots leading to themselves being incarcerated, coming out and not necessarily improving, definitely not improving. And if anything, a chance that it gets a little bit worse. How do we change that entire outcome? And I know you're looking specifically in the incarceration space, but what should be, what could be done differently? Or do we just need a fundamental restructuring of the way we do this? [00:42:17] Damon Petrich: I don't know about a fundamental restructuring - I don't, I'm not great at that high-level thinking stuff, but what I do know is that - we're probably going to continue to incarcerate people. That's something that's done in every country and people seem to love here. So if we actually want to use prison for public safety - because 95% of inmates eventually get out - if we actually want to use it for public safety, then let's actually try wholeheartedly to rehabilitate them while they're in there. And again, there's a lot of theory and evidence-based principles on how we can do this, like the risk-need-responsivity model that I talked about earlier, cognitive behavioral therapy more broadly. If you use these types of things and continue to work on them and develop them over time, then yeah - prison might actually be helpful if people are going there and getting the help that they need. But that's not what's happening currently. So that's one level in incarceration terms - that's the area that I know best. So that's one way you could potentially alleviate some of this stuff is - if people are actually getting resources and stuff when they're in prison, and then when once they're reintegrating, they're not only going to reoffend less, but maybe they're going to contribute to their community more. They're going to be better able to connect with their family and stuff like that. So rather than being a hindrance, it could potentially be a help. Obviously, again, it's not ideal to remove people from their communities and their family and friends. And like I said earlier, if you have the option to sentence them to something community-based instead, I think that's the better route to go. But if you are going to send people to prison, which I think we're going to continue to do a lot of the time, then let's rehabilitate them while they're in there is the main point. And do so based on what actually works to do that. [00:44:23] Crystal Fincher: It's really the investment in the people who are there, and we're - I think up against a lot of societal attitudes and resistance where it just feels wrong to a number of people to be providing services and shifting that investment to things that are seemingly helpful for the inmate, because everything about how we've been conditioned to understand our prison system has been - the punishment is kind of the key, and they'll make rational decisions afterwards to avoid prison based on how bad the punishment is. When it comes to community supervision, things like probation, what are the differences there? If there are better outcomes from that, what accounts for the better outcomes when it comes to probation versus incarceration? [00:45:23] Damon Petrich: I wouldn't say the outcomes are better - they're just pretty much the same as they would be if they're sentenced to prison. So, probation costs less and then it also enables the people to be out in the community doing community things, like being with their friends and families and all that. I mean, you can't quantify, based on a recidivism percentage, what their family members and friends and employers are getting out of it. So that's something we can't really look at - or I guess you could, but something we don't often do - but so there's intangible things that you would get by keeping people in the community. Plus it doesn't lead to all that other stuff I talked about where people become cynical of the legal system and it leads to this cycle of whatever. [00:46:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and so if we're were doing this programming in prison and helping people, I think your research shows it's extremely important to do both the structural, Hey, you need a place to live, you need to be able to pay your rent and your bills - so having a job, having housing, having healthcare, getting those very basic needs met is critical. But also addressing a number of the mental or behavioral health issues that are common among the incarcerated population - and dealing with that is as important. And basically those two things both need to happen hand-in-hand. How do we do a better job of that in our current system? [00:46:57] Damon Petrich: Well, first of all, I'd like to say that you're right there - I think maybe when I was talking earlier about employment, it might sound like giving people jobs is just a waste of time, but that's not the case. It needs - the two things need to be paired - you need to deal with the cognitive and behavioral problems in addition to giving them jobs and housing support and all that. In terms of how you actually go about doing that, there are examples in the literature of programs that do this, so there's examples out there. I think if you're a state or local or even federal correctional department and you're interested in doing this - implementing something that's evidence-based - or if you're just a concerned citizen that wants to rally your local officials to do that - go and talk to researchers like me, or people at universities that have criminology departments or criminal justice departments, because this knowledge is out there. It's widely available. You just have to go and seek it out. So at my university, for example, we have the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute and under the guidance of Ed Latessa, he was - now passed - but he was, over the last 30 years, responsible for disseminating a lot of this evidence-based practices to some of the state and local criminal justice agencies. And they helped with implementation and evaluation in a lot of these places, so the help is out there. You just have to look for it a little bit. [00:48:38] Crystal Fincher: And another question I had - your analysis seemed to suggest that when we're talking about low-risk, medium, and high-risk offenders - or people who have done relatively minor crimes versus those who have done more serious crimes - that these interventions are particularly effective the more serious the offense or crime has been. And that perhaps even sometimes treating someone who is a really low-risk as if they're a high-risk, can worsen the outcomes for that person. Is that the case? [00:49:21] Damon Petrich: Yeah, that tends to be a finding in research - we're not exactly sure why, but providing a lot of really intensive services to people deemed to be low-risk can actually be harmful rather than helpful. We don't know based on research why, but there's a lot of pretty good hypotheses about why. So a low-risk offender is going to be somebody who's a first-timer who's committed some not-that-serious crime. So they probably have a job, they probably have pretty strong connections with their family and all that. So if you're taking them and you're putting them in a program where you have to be there 40 hours a week, they're probably going to get fired from their job, it's going to be harder to stay in contact with friends and families that are sort of tying you into a non-criminal life. And then you're probably going to be associating with all kinds of people who are high-risk, and maybe they're going to draw you towards, oh yeah, I could earn four grand going out tonight and stealing some laptops. There's a lot of reasons why just taking low-risk people and putting them in these programs is going to be harmful rather than helpful. [00:50:31] Crystal Fincher: And so with that in mind, and you talk about, Hey, if we're trying to influence local electeds - one of the interesting things about having a podcast and radio show that caters to extremely politically and civically inclined people is that we actually do have a number of policymakers and politicians who listen, and people who are enacting and in control of this policy. If you were to talk to them and give them advice about how to move forward, especially in the current environment that we find ourselves in, where over the past few years has been increasing awareness of some of the defecits of our system and pushes to change those. And also, as we have seen more recently, a real strong pushback from a lot of people who are invested in our current system saying, Hey, let's not change things too much. Maybe we need to jail more and for longer. And maybe we're just not doing enough incarceration, and that's the answer. In that kind of political environment, what would you tell people who are in charge of this policy, who may be facing pressure to keep going forward with the status quo, about how they should evaluate how they should move forward and the kinds of things that they should do? [00:52:07] Damon Petrich: I know a lot of these politicians get lobbied by correctional officer groups or whatever, and that's whatever, but ultimately you get voted in by voters. So, I'm not an expert on public opinion - I have other friends who are more into that kind of stuff, but I do know from talking with them and from reading that literature, that the public actually does support rehabilitation. So they have for a long time and it's shifted more towards being in support of rehabilitation over time. So right now, most Americans support providing rehabilitation programs to prisoners and offenders. So this is something that's going to please your constituency, people want this kind of thing. And it's not like you're going to be losing all kinds of jobs by getting rid of prison - there's going to be a need for skilled people who can provide these programs and probation officers and all these sorts of things. So it's not a net loss when you're getting rid of prisons. There's a lot of reasons to sentence people to community supervision and things like that - provide rehabilitation. There's public support for it, there's jobs involved, there's cost savings - big time, obviously - it's way cheaper to keep somebody out of prison than it is to keep them in prison. So there's a lot of different reasons why you would want to do that as a politician. [00:53:43] Crystal Fincher: I think that makes sense. Certainly it's a lot cheaper to keep someone out of prison versus in prison. I mean, we talked about the annual costs - in the state of Washington over $40,000, King County over $70,000 - comparing that to how much we invest in a student of $11,500 a year. If we focus more on investing in people, both inside and outside the system, it seems like we set ourselves up for a safer community, fewer people being victimized, and more people leading thriving, productive, tax-paying lives. And we're all happier than we are right now, I would think, I would hope - it seems like the research points in that direction. So I certainly appreciate you taking the time to speak with us about this. Is there anything else that you want to leave with us, in thinking about this study and your research? [00:54:55] Damon Petrich: I think we covered it pretty well. Just to circle back to something you just said - I know this might put me out of a job since I focus on what happens when people's lives go awry, but you really are better off to invest in early prevention programs and giving people a good start on life than trying to correct the program or the problem afterwards. So yeah - politicians spend some money on prevention programs. I know the good effects of that are a long way out, but they're actually good on a societal level. So I guess I would add that, even though it's not good for criminologists, maybe, to put themselves out of a job like that. [00:55:40] Crystal Fincher: Well, much appreciated, and thank you so much for having this conversation with us today. [00:55:45] Damon Petrich: Yeah, thank you very much for having me on. I'm glad that there are people out there interested in this stuff, so thanks again. [00:55:51] Crystal Fincher: I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Cheng. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.

Connie & Alex talk tech news, and then Connie interviews Peter Wagner of Wing Venture Capital about how the VC world is changing in these tougher times. Music: 1. "Inspired" by Kevin MacLeod (https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3918-inspired)2. "Blippy Trance" by Kevin MacLeod (https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/5759-blippy-trance)3. "Dream Catcher" by Kevin MacLeod (https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/4650-dream-catcher)4. "Pamgaea" by Kevin MacLeod (https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/4193-pamgaea)5. "EDM Detection Mode" by Kevin MacLeod (https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3687-edm-detection-mode)License: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license

Eight days before the Capitol Insurrection, on December 29, 2020, a group of 15 apostles and prophets, including Dutch Sheets and Becca Greenwood, two of the members of Peter Wagner's Eagles Vision Apostolic Team, toured around Washington, DC doing spiritual warfare at different monuments.  That afternoon, they had a more than 2-hour meeting with high-level Trump Administration officials in a conference room in the White House. This meeting has never been reported on before. How did these New Apostolic Reformation leaders get that access? What were they doing there in the leadup to January 6? Who did they meet with? Follow Matthew Taylor: @Taylormatthewd Follow Scott Okamoto: RSokamoto Linktree: https://linktr.ee/StraightWhiteJC Join Brad in Costa Mesa, CA - January 13: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/473515687167 Join Brad in Los Angeles - January 14: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/466693531917 Pre-Order Brad's new book: https://www.amazon.com/Preparing-War-Extremist-Christian-Nationalism/dp/1506482163 For access to the full Orange Wave series, click here: https://irreverent.supportingcast.fm/products/the-orange-wave-a-history-of-the-religious-right-since-1960 To Donate: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/BradleyOnishi Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/straightwhiteamericanjesus SWAJ Apparel is here! https://straight-white-american-jesus.creator-spring.com/listing/not-today-uncle-ron Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://swaj.supportingcast.fm

As 2022 comes to a close, Ken Fong and Ken Kemp review a powerful new podcast series produced by their mutual friend, Dr. Brad Onishi (Straight White American Jesus) called Charismatic Revival Fury. Written by Institute for Islamic, Christian and Jewish Studies (ICJS), Dr. Matthew D. Taylor, the series reveals a little-known or understood movement that became a major influence in promoting the "Big Lie" (that the 2020 Presidential Election was stolen) called The New Apostolic Reformation. Founded by C. Peter Wagner and Pastor John Wimber in the 1980s and 90s at Ken Fong's alma mater, Fuller Theological Seminary, the movement emerged as prophetic support for the 45th President. It crowns Donald Trump as the biblical King Cyrus, with prophecies of his return to power for a second term, in spite of the legitimate victory of Joe Biden. While the January 6 Committee, the media, and social commentators have poured over evidence that led to the January 6 Insurrection, few have called out the inescapable religious element. It was pervasive in leading up to the event and then right there in plain view: The Jericho Marches prior the assault on the Capitol; Seven Mountain Dominionism; players like Paula White and Lance Wallnau worship leader Shaun Feucht; politicians like Sarah Palin, Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Michelle Bachman; Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, and Doug Mastriano; all heavily influenced by a massive under-the-radar movement that perverts Christianity into a raw pursuit of political power. And it demonizes anyone who dares challenge the assumptions  of "Apostolic Authority." Ken Fong shares some very personal related moments that shaped his life and ministry then - and to this day.Charismatic Revival Fury: The New Apostolic ReformationOn The Media - The Divided DialBecome a Patron: www patreon.com/beachedwhitemaleSupport the show

Cindy Jacobs is one of the most influential independent charismatic apostles on the planet. And almost no one outside of charismatic circles has any idea who she is or what she does. It was through Cindy Jacobs that C. Peter Wagner came to believe that Christian prayer could be mobilized on a grand scale to affect and open up entire nations to the gospel.  That infamous passage in Ephesians doesn't just talk about little garden-variety evil spirits, but it also refers to “principalities” and “powers” and “spiritual hosts of wickedness.” Wagner and Jacobs and a whole bunch of other Charismatics come to believe that, not only are Christians called to do battle against those demonic “principalities” and “powers,” but that there is a profound interface between the spiritual world and the physical world. Wagner would eventually to call these “principalities” and “powers” “Territorial Spirits,” and he imagined elaborate hierarchies of demons - demon commanders, demon generals - who ruled over actual, physical earthly territories - and Cindy Jacobs is the spiritual warfare general par excellence. Denver SWAJ Event Recording Available Here: https://buy.stripe.com/dR67ty0te2Qq6Gs5ks Join Brad in Costa Mesa, CA - January 13: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/473515687167 Join Brad in Los Angeles - January 14: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/466693531917 Pre-Order Brad's new book: https://www.amazon.com/Preparing-War-Extremist-Christian-Nationalism/dp/1506482163 For access to the full Orange Wave series, click here: https://irreverent.supportingcast.fm/products/the-orange-wave-a-history-of-the-religious-right-since-1960 To Donate: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/BradleyOnishi Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/straightwhiteamericanjesus SWAJ Apparel is here! https://straight-white-american-jesus.creator-spring.com/listing/not-today-uncle-ron Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://swaj.supportingcast.fm

There are two phenomena that we hear a lot about these days in connection to the NAR: The Seven Mountains Mandate and Sean Feucht. The former is a theology, or ideology, or brand depending on who you ask. It proposes that Christians have a call to dominate every sphere, or mountain, of earthly existence--from the economy to entertainment to politics. It was first popularized by Lance Wallnau, a popular figure in NAR circles and one of C. Peter Wagner's closest followers. But before diving into the Seven Mountains and Wallnau, we need to figure out where another ubiquitous NAR phenomenon came from - the Charismatic Troubdaor Sean Feucht. In Part I of this episode, Matt explains Feucht's origin story, his rise to fame, and why he represents the power of the NAR movement. In Part II, Matt connects Feucht's use of mountain imagery to the Seven Mountains theology popularized by Lance Wallnau. Denver SWAJ Event Recording Available Here: https://buy.stripe.com/dR67ty0te2Qq6Gs5ks Join Brad in Costa Mesa, CA - January 13: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/473515687167 Join Brad in Los Angeles - January 14: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/466693531917 Pre-Order Brad's new book: https://www.amazon.com/Preparing-War-Extremist-Christian-Nationalism/dp/1506482163 For access to the full Orange Wave series, click here: https://irreverent.supportingcast.fm/products/the-orange-wave-a-history-of-the-religious-right-since-1960 To Donate: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/BradleyOnishi Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/straightwhiteamericanjesus SWAJ Apparel is here! https://straight-white-american-jesus.creator-spring.com/listing/not-today-uncle-ron Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://swaj.supportingcast.fm

There are two phenomena that we hear a lot about these days in connection to the NAR: The Seven Mountains Mandate and Sean Feucht. The former is a theology, or ideology, or brand depending on who you ask. It proposes that Christians have a call to dominate every sphere, or mountain, of earthly existence--from the economy to entertainment to politics. It was first popularized by Lance Wallnau, a popular figure in NAR circles and one of C. Peter Wagner's closest followers. But before diving into the Seven Mountains and Wallnau, we need to figure out where another ubiquitous NAR phenomenon came from - the Charismatic Troubdaor Sean Feucht. In Part I of this episode, Matt explains Feucht's origin story, his rise to fame, and why he represents the power of the NAR movement. In Part II, Matt connects Feucht's use of mountain imagery to the Seven Mountains theology popularized by Lance Wallnau. Denver SWAJ Event Recording Available Here: https://buy.stripe.com/dR67ty0te2Qq6Gs5ks Join Brad in Costa Mesa, CA - January 13: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/473515687167 Join Brad in Los Angeles - January 14: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/466693531917 Pre-Order Brad's new book: https://www.amazon.com/Preparing-War-Extremist-Christian-Nationalism/dp/1506482163 For access to the full Orange Wave series, click here: https://irreverent.supportingcast.fm/products/the-orange-wave-a-history-of-the-religious-right-since-1960 To Donate: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/BradleyOnishi Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/straightwhiteamericanjesus SWAJ Apparel is here! https://straight-white-american-jesus.creator-spring.com/listing/not-today-uncle-ron Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://swaj.supportingcast.fm

Ché Ahn may be C. Peter Wagner's most dedicated student- and his most successful heir. He leads a network of 25,000 churches and an international superstar known to many simply as Pape Ché. A Korean immigrant raised in Maryland, he has operated from Pasadena, Ca for the last three decades. But he's much more than a pastor. He is an apostle. Or so he says. The story of Ché Ahn is, in many ways, emblematic of the whole Independent Charismatic sphere and what has emerged from it in the past 40 years. If we can come to understand who Ché Ahn is – his long and deep relationship to C. Peter Wagner, his theology, how he got to that stage on January 5th, and how he was thinking about himself in that moment – we'll be a lot closer to understanding what the “New Apostolic Reformation” is all about. The views expressed by Matthew D. Taylor are his own and do not represent the Institute for Islamic, Christian, and Jewish Studies. Denver SWAJ Event Recording Available Here: https://buy.stripe.com/dR67ty0te2Qq6Gs5ks Join Brad in Costa Mesa, CA - January 13: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/473515687167 Join Brad in Los Angeles - January 14: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/466693531917 Pre-Order Brad's new book: https://www.amazon.com/Preparing-War-Extremist-Christian-Nationalism/dp/1506482163 For access to the full Orange Wave series, click here: https://irreverent.supportingcast.fm/products/the-orange-wave-a-history-of-the-religious-right-since-1960 To Donate: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/BradleyOnishi Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/straightwhiteamericanjesus SWAJ Apparel is here! https://straight-white-american-jesus.creator-spring.com/listing/not-today-uncle-ron Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://swaj.supportingcast.fm

This is the first episode in our new series - Charismatic Revival Fury: The New Apostolic Reformation, written and created by Dr. Matthew Taylor. In this episode, Matthew traces the beginning of the NAR to C. Peter Wagner, a former missionary and seminary professor who spent the last part of his life cultivating what he believed to be a new apostolic age in the life of the church. Wagner wanted to go beyond denominations to a new Reformation - one in which modern day apostles and prophets used their spiritual gifts to guide their congregations. Wagner developed a network of charismatic young leaders who he believed would lead the church into its next era. And twenty years later, these apostles and prophets did just that - by forming the background of Christian Trumpism and leading the charge on J6. The views expressed by Matthew D. Taylor are his own and do not represent the Institute for Islamic, Christian, and Jewish Studies. Join Brad in Costa Mesa, CA - January 13: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/473515687167 Join Brad in Los Angeles - January 14: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/466693531917 Pre-Order Brad's new book: https://www.amazon.com/Preparing-War-Extremist-Christian-Nationalism/dp/1506482163 For access to the full Orange Wave series, click here: https://irreverent.supportingcast.fm/products/the-orange-wave-a-history-of-the-religious-right-since-1960 To Donate: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/BradleyOnishi Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/straightwhiteamericanjesus SWAJ Apparel is here! https://straight-white-american-jesus.creator-spring.com/listing/not-today-uncle-ron Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://swaj.supportingcast.fm

We are kicking off a new series on the history of the New Apostolic Reformation with Dr. Matthew Taylor. "Charismatic Revival Fury: The New Apostolic Reformation" will run from the first Monday in December all the way to the January 6th anniversary. The series will explore the history of the NAR through its key figures - starting with C. Peter Wagner, then moving to Ché Ahn, Lance Wallnau, Cindy Jacobs, and Dutch Sheets. Along the way we will see how people like Sean Feucht, Gen. Michael Flynn, Doug Mastriano, and others fit into the NAR matrix. The NAR is the most influential Christian phenomenon that you either haven't heard of, or don't understand. It is much discussed, but rarely explored in depth with a scholar's insight and patience. This series will break down myths and clearly present the origins of the fastest growing component of Christianity in the USA - and maybe the world. The views expressed by Matthew D. Taylor are his own and do not represent the Institute for Islamic, Christian, and Jewish Studies. Join Brad in Costa Mesa, CA - January 13: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/473515687167 Join Brad in Los Angeles - January 14: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/466693531917 Pre-Order Brad's new book: https://www.amazon.com/Preparing-War-Extremist-Christian-Nationalism/dp/1506482163 For access to the full Orange Wave series, click here: https://irreverent.supportingcast.fm/products/the-orange-wave-a-history-of-the-religious-right-since-1960 To Donate: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/BradleyOnishi Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/straightwhiteamericanjesus SWAJ Apparel is here! https://straight-white-american-jesus.creator-spring.com/listing/not-today-uncle-ron Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://swaj.supportingcast.fm

Intercessory Prayer by Dutch Sheets, Part 20 - C. Peter Wagner's Occult Knowledge, presented by Bob DeWaay and Jessica Kramasz. We finish discussing the allegorical use of Scripture and show that it is Christ who returns to defeat His enemies. We then discuss C. Peter Wagner, who wrote the foreword of this book. He claims we need to seek occult knowledge for spiritual warfare. (duration 00:32:57) Click here to play

What does the term 'Environmental Crime' mean to you? Probably something like elephant or rhino poaching. Perhaps the plight of the pangolin, the adorable little armoured mammal, often sighted as the "most trafficked animal in the world". But it is so much more than that - from the illegal wildlife trade to illicit plastic waste, and from illegal mining to timber trafficking.The spotlight on environmental crime has never been more prominent, public consciousness around climate change has seen to that. Indeed, environmental crime was implicated in early theories surrounding the origin of COVID-19.And so, in this episode we'll show you the breadth of research taking place here at the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime. Through the story of our global responses to environmental crime we'll show just how integrated different illicit markets are with one another.(This podcast is based around the paper ‘An analytic review of past responses to ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME and programming recommendations')Speaker(s):Simone Haysom, Thematic Lead on Environmental Crime, Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized CrimeFarai Maguwu, Director at the Center for Natural Resource Governance in Zimbabwe and member of the GI Network of ExpertsVincent Opyene, a state-prosecutor in Uganda, specialising in wildlife crimes and founder of the Natural Resource Conservation Network.Karla Mendes, Investigative Journalist at Mongabay, a non-profit environmental science and conversation news platform.Peter Wagner, Director of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments at the European Commission.Natalie Pauwels, the Head of Unit, Stability and Peace - Global and Trans regional Threats at the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments at the European Commission.Ana Paula Oliveira, Analyst at the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime and presenter of The Ripple Effect podcast, part of the Assassination Witness Project. Lucia Bird, Director of the West African Observatory, Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized CrimeVirginia Comolli, Senior Expert, Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized CrimeJason Eligh, Senior Expert, Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized CrimeAdditional Reading:(GI Paper) An analytic review of past responses to ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME and programming recommendations - Link(GI Paper) A Synthetic Age: The Evolution of Methamphetamine Markets in Eastern and Southern Africa - Link(GI Paper) Deep-rooted interests: Licensing illicit logging in Guinea Bissau - Link(GI Paper) Plastic for profit: Tracing illicit plastic waste flows, supply chains and actors - Link(GI Paper) Branches of Illegality: Cambodia's illegal logging structures - Link(GI Paper) Vietnam's virtual landscape for illicit wildlife trading: A snapshot of e-commerce and social media - Link(GI Paper) Civil Society Observatory of Illicit Economies in Eastern and Southern Africa Risk Bulletin - Issue 25 - Kromah Cartel -

From Concordia University in Montreal, Dr. Andre Gagne joins the VCW hall to share his story with Evangelicalism which included being a pastor for 10 years. We define Christian Nationalism and discuss the growing movement in America. Then we take a deeper dive into the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), the 7 Mountain Mandate, some of the personalities pushing these ideas and how this connects to our contemporary politics. Mentioned on the Pod: NPR's Terry Gross interviews C. Peter Wagner on the New Apostolic Reformation: https://www.npr.org/2011/10/03/140946482/apostolic-leader-weighs-religions-role-in-politics#:~:text=Transcript-,C.,of%20the%20New%20Apostolic%20Reformation. Representative Lauren Boebert says that church should direct the government: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3540071-boebert-says-she-is-tired-of-separation-between-church-and-state-the-church-is-supposed-to-direct-the-government/ Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate, Doug Mastriano, promotes Christian Nationalism: https://www.newyorker.com/news/on-religion/a-pennsylvania-lawmaker-and-the-resurgence-of-christian-nationalism -Check out Zach's music by going to: https://muzach.bandcamp.com -Buy VCW merch: https://www.etsy.com/shop/VCWHall Twitter: Twitter: @vcwpod Zach- @muzach Dave- @Davejlester Podcast music by Zach Malm Logo by Zach Malm

Zach DeWitt is a Partner at Wing Venture Capital, a firm investing in Seed and Series A rounds for transformative enterprise tech companies. Prior to Wing, Zach was CEO and co-founder of Drop, which built two award-winning iPhone apps (Drop Messages and Firefly) before selling the technology and the IP intellectual property to Snapchat in 2016. Zach holds a BA in Economics from Yale University as well as an MBA from the Harvard Business School. In this episode we cover: 00:00 - Intro 01:30 - Explaining CLG & PLG When It Comes To SaaS 09:06 - Big Monolithic Brand Vs Community Led Product 10:30 - Does CLG Work For Every Kind Of SaaS 12:35 - Benefits Of Using Community-Led Growth 15:19 - Where To Start To Spread Your Word 17:43 - The Right Time & Way To Develop A Community 20:36 - How Often & How To Share Updates With The Community 27:52 - How PLG Companies Can Keep The Community Active & Engaged 31:39 - Zackary's Favorite Activity To Get Into a Flow State 32:26 - Zachary's Piece Of Advice For His 20 Years Old Self 33:51 - Zachary's Biggest Challenges at Wing Partner Capital 34:49 - Instrumental Resources For Zachary's Success 36:40 - What Does Success Means for Zachary Today 38:44 - Get In Touch With Zachary Get In Touch With Zachary: https://www.linkedin.com/in/zachary-dewitt-a5a8b816/ (Zachary's LinkedIn) Zachary's Email Mentions: https://www.copy.ai (Copy.ai) https://www.figma.com (Figma) https://www.linkedin.com/in/kyle-poyar/ (Kyle Poyar) https://notoriousplg.substack.com (Notorious PLG) https://www.linkedin.com/in/gagarg/ (Gaurav Garg) https://www.linkedin.com/in/peterwagner414/ (Peter Wagner) https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-bradytb12/ (Tom Brady) Tag Us & Follow: https://www.facebook.com/SaaSDistrictPodcast/ (Facebook) https://www.linkedin.com/company/horizen-capital (LinkedIn) https://www.instagram.com/saasdistrict/ (Instagram) More About Akeel: https://twitter.com/AkeelJabber (Twitter) https://linkedin.com/in/akeel-jabbar (LinkedIn) https://horizencapital.com/saas-podcast (More SaaS Podcast Sessions) https://horizencapital.com/saas-consulting-services/ (SaaS Consulting Services) https://horizencapital.com/how-to-value-saas-business/ (Learn How to Value SaaS Companies)

James Linzey joined The Two Mikes today to discuss the religious laxity that seriously undermines the citizenry's effort to destroy the atheism, sexual depravity, and authoritarianism of the Biden administration, the social and press media, the globalists, the lawyers, the bankers, and the lying climate fanatics. Americans, too, bear a responsibility in this problem. Too many people follow religious leaders who preach the simplicity of salvation; namely, say that you accept the Lord as your savior and say a prayer now and then, and be on your way with all other behaviors remaining the same. Simply accepting the Lord proves little unless there are changes in an individual's lifestyles and habits. Truly changing your life in the Lord's direction takes time, steady hard work, and regular prayer and study of scripture.Mr. Linzey also is the Editor-in-Chief of the updated, new edition of the King James Bible, called The Modern English Version Bible, which was published in 2014. MEV | Modern English VersionA second edition is being published in early 2023. Mr. Linzey led a group of 47 Biblical scholars in doing the work. He provided a quite interesting explanation of the process by which he and his team update the KGB.In addition to being an ordained minister of the Southern Baptist Convention, Mr. Linzey, also is retired Major in the U.S. Army's chaplain's service, and an expert in advanced Greek.In the political sphere, Mr. Linzy is an active opponent of the Biden administration's disastrous handling of the southern U.S. border, which, he argues, threatens the destruction of the American republic.James F. Linzey received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Biblical Studies at Vanguard University of Southern California (1979), and a Master of Divinity degree at Fuller Theological Seminary (1983) where he studied Church Growth under Peter Wagner and Signs and Wonders under John Wimber. He hosted Operation Freedom television and radio programs on the baptism with the Holy Spirit around the world. He authored The Holy Spirit, A Divine Appointment in Washington, DC, and is the chief editor of the Modern English Version Bible translation. He served as an Air Force and Army chaplain for 24 years attaining the rank of Major and authored The Space Force Hymn (Creator of the Universe). www.PearlsofGold.comwww.ModernEnglishVersion.comwww.MilitaryBibleAssociation.comwww.JimLinzey.comPlease go on the www.twomikes.us website Contact page to send questions or inquiries “Listening to Two Mikes will make you smarter!”- Gov Robert L. Ehrlich, JrSponsors

Our Gold Guy: https://www.ourgoldguy.com

EMP Shield: https://www.empshield.com/?coupon=twomikeswww.TwoMikes.us

The New Apostolic Reformation is a Christian movement that most people have never heard of, but it has an out-sized influence in American, and even global, politics and culture. Bruce Wilson has been researching and writing about religion and its influence on politics and culture for decades, and Jennifer Cohn has been working to document threats to democracy and election integrity. They join Dave to discuss the NAR, what it is, where it came from, and the risks it may pose to pluralistic democracy. Read more: Underreported And Massive Theocratic Movement Joins Forces With Michael Flynn And Roger Stone by Jenny Cohn Fighting Demons, Raising The Dead, Taking Over The World by Bruce Wilson Twitter: @brucewilson @jennycohn1 Keywords: New Apostolic Reformation, NAR, Charismatic, Pentecostal, Christian, right, libertarian, libertarianism, WCF, World Congress of Families, Peter Wagner, Lance Wellnau, Lauren Boebert, Jim Garlow, John Eastman, Seven Mountains, Dominionism, apostolic governance.

"People are looking for purpose, but because their own needs seem so stark and so great, they don't get to it. It's a paradox that by focusing on other people's needs, you are going to find that your own needs will be met -- So, sometimes as parents it is important (wherever we are at) to say, 'Hey, let's go find a place to serve'"   Key Takeaways   Pray with your kids and teach them to pray Serve with your kids Make time to play with your kids - gives you a chance to build trust for later things Take mom out on a regular date Date your kids once a week Give mom a break and take the kids out Listen to the hearts of your children   dadAWESOME   We're on a mission to add LIFE to the dad life. We're passionate about helping dads live fully alive as they lead their kids to God's awesomeness.  | YouTube |  Instagram | Facebook   Seth Barnes   Seth Barnes is founder and president of Adventures in Missions, a discipleship and missions ministry that has taken over 125,000 people on mission projects around the world since 1989. The mission of Adventures is to deeply connect people to Jesus and his movement. Their goal is to train 100,000 disciple makers focused on fulfilling the Great Commission. Adventures has ministry training centers around the world that are focused on making that goal a reality. To move toward the fulfillment of the vision, Seth also founded the World Race in 2005. The World Race provides trained teams of young adults the opportunity to engage in 11 international mission contexts in 11 months using an experiential, missional discipleship model. Adventures emphasizes listening prayer, relationships, and servanthood in their work amongst the poor. Both through ministry/training centers and World Race ministry teams, Adventures maintains an active presence in a number of African countries. In addition to overseeing Adventures in Missions, Seth is a speaker, author, and prolific blogger. Seth is married to Karen. They have five children and seven grandchildren.   Conversation Notes (Full Transcript of the Conversation Here)   4:51 - "But I just felt this sense of urgency to do something, whatever it is that I needed to do in terms of impact, in terms of discipleship, in terms of imparting the kingdom of God to my kids... I felt the leading to study the book of Acts and then try and do it." 05:49 - "I just felt God saying, why don't you go and do this somewhere specific? And we prayed about it, ended up hearing Peru go to Peru and see if the Holy Spirit doesn't still heal people, see if he doesn't actually use you to plant churches... 22 total... guys and gals and we planted five churches. We saw so many healings, people that were dying of cancer, radically healed.... but just so fun to see my kids seeing that the Bible is true and it still applies now." 8:44 - "I do think that we have to do business with our our older selves and say, how can I end my life without regrets? Maybe one of the biggest regrets, I think a lot of dads would have to not invest that kind of quality time where your kids can really see your heart." 10:06 - "I remember when we moved... my wife saying, our kids need to serve more, they're becoming narcissistic. Maybe there's a little entitlement creeping in. So she would just take them to the local church and they would clean the toilets.... because we believe that service is important... Acts 1:8 where you begin in Jerusalem and then you go to what's neighboring in Judea and maybe something that's foreign some area and then to the ends of the earth... Begin just in your backyard and find ways to serve... there's so many needy people... just find a few that need a visit, need a human touch and start there." 11:58 - "I would begin with identity to really help right size that and that's where I think a family on mission... where your purpose is greater than just entertainment. And if you're on mission, you're taking the perspective off of yourself and your own needs and putting it on somebody else. And there's a strange thing that happens when you do that... you become less preoccupied with your own inadequacy and identity begins to kind of fit together better..." 12:37 - "But also we're so, self-focused that sometimes we never get out of that space and into a place of service of others... that's the first thing. The second thing would be community. And we think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the need of belonging... we need to belong to others and we need to connect with others... helping young people to connect on mission, I think is a beautiful way to help address that need and ultimately to go on mission and to find purpose beyond just again, meeting your own felt needs, important, but ultimately, you're not going to raise world changers if you're just looking at a belly button all the time." 14:13 - "Sometimes as parents, if we begin wherever we're at... let's go find a small way to serve. When we were in Guatemala, there's a lot of trash around. So I would take the little five year old grandsons that I've got, and we go pick up trash for an hour... I just wanted to help them to see the needs that the community had." 16:21 - "If I'm experiencing something that's life giving, I want to invite others to it... I'm just a beggar that's found a little bread that wants to let other beggars know where that bread is. And for me, I've found that young people and my own grandkids and my kids before them needed the opportunity to give out of their abundance." 19:40 - "Wasn't until I was 31 years old and I'm at a marriage retreat when I actually hear the Lord say that he loves me and... when you hear the Lord speak in a way that it's so obvious, you know, and for that, that changed everything for me... I wanted my kids to have that same experience, to have that same possibility of connection. And what I found is we just need to create space. We just need to sit with them in the morning. And when I say create space, I'm talking about being quiet and asking a question and not answering the question, but letting Him in the silence show up." 25:07 - "You go back and ask them about it and... to see the persistence of their faith now in their thirties... and to see them imparting it to their kids lets you know that this was worth it, that it's something that can last."   Conversation Links   Seth's Blog- Radical Living Seths's Books - The Art of Listening Prayer and Kingdom Journeys C. Peter Wagner's Book - Acts of the Holy Spirit Adventures in Missions The World Race   Links from dadAWESOME   https://dadawesome.org/life/ Make a Donation to dadAWESOME Join the dadAWESOME Prayer Team https://dadawesome.org/tour/

Open calls, questions, and discussion with Matt Slick LIVE in the studio. Topics include---1- Who are the two witnesses in Revelation---2- Matt discusses Matthew 28-18-20.--3- What do you think of psychiatric medications---4- Do you think there's been a spiritual change in our society since COVID---5- Is their prophecy today---6- Do you know anything about Peter Wagner's ministry---7- How can I talk to a JW about holidays-

The daily radio broadcast of CARM.org. Open calls, questions, and discussion with Guest host Matt Slick LIVE in the studio. Topics include: Who are the two witnesses in Revelation? Matt discusses Matthew 28:18-20. What do you think of psychiatric medications? Do you think there's been a spiritual change in our society since COVID? Is their prophecy today? Do you know anything about Peter Wagner's ministry? How can I talk to a JW about holidays?   ==> Subscribe to the CARM Odysee Channel: https://odysee.com/@CARM:8 ==> Watch Matt Slick LIVE on Odysee: https://odysee.com/@CARM:8/MattSlickLive:b ==> Subscribe to the CARM YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/carmvideos ==> Subscribe to the Matt Slick YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/mattslick ==> Like CARM on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Carm.org ==> Visit the CARM Website: https://carm.org ==> Donate to CARM: https://carm.org/about/partner-with-carm/