Will Smith: Rage or Righteous Indignation?

Steve A Johnson, PhD

We have all probably heard multiple times about --The Big Slap—Will Smith “smacked” Chris Rock at the Academy Awards ceremony. Many of us are trying to make sense out of it and are asking questions, such as…

· Was it for real?

· Why?

· Is this an example of poor modelling for children and others who look up to Will Smith as a role model?

· Was Will’s response a warranted and appropriate form of support for his wife in the face of an insensitive and inappropriate joke about her?

· Is it just another example of toxic masculinity in which wives are viewed and treated as property?

· Is it evidence of a possible mental health problem exhibited by Will Smith, something such as poor impulse control, emotional dysregulation, misattribution of threat, or something else?

· Is it appropriate and proportional righteous indignation?

As a psychotherapist who practices Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), I wondered whether this model can help answer some of these questions about the meaning of the event. Let me try.

REBT does distinguish unhealthy anger/rage from healthy anger, sometimes called righteous indignation. Does this distinction help us assess the appropriateness or inappropriateness of Will Smith’s behavior? Both unhealthy anger/rage and healthy anger/righteous indignation begin with an individual attributing a specific meaning to a situation or event, and that meaning is that someone or something violated a value or principle important to the individual. Apparently, Will Smith believed that the joke by Chris Rock violated Will’s principle of fairness, appropriateness, compassion, etc.

However, what distinguishes unhealthy anger/rage and righteous indignation are the beliefs added to the meaning given to the event, i.e., Chris Rock’s joke. The beliefs that contribute to unhealthy anger/rage are as follows (not all need to be held for an individual to exhibit unhealthy anger):

1. My important value/principle must not or should not have been violated.

2. It is utterly horrible or awful that it was violated.

3. I can’t stand that it was violated.

4. The one who violated it is no good, evil, totally unjust, irredeemable, unforgiveable, etc.

The beliefs that contribute to healthy anger/righteous indignation are as follows:

1. I wish that individual had not violated my value or principle.

2. I don’t like that it was violated and wish that it hadn’t happened, but it is not utterly horrible.

3. I don’t like what was done, but I can stand it.

4. The person who violated it did something wrong, perhaps very wrong, but the individual is not irredeemable, unforgiveable, evil, etc.

Also, the behaviors associated with unhealthy anger/rage and righteous indignation are quite different. They are:

1. Behavior associated with unhealthy anger: Attacking or other aggressive behaviors

2. Behavior associated with righteous indignation: Assertive statement that the action was inappropriate and unwarranted, statement of desire that the individual refrains from such behavior in the future, statement that an apology is due, etc.

The bottom line is that the behavior associated with unhealthy anger/rage is aggressive, condemnatory, and tends to break relationships. The behavior associated with righteous indignation is assertive, unapproving of the action, but does not break off relationship.

Did Will Smith exhibit unhealthy anger/rage? It certainly looks like it. But then another question arises, namely, should he be condemned? While his behavior does warrant being declared as inappropriate, unacceptably aggressive, and may warrant appropriate consequences, condemning him might just perpetuate the relational break and not lead to Will getting help for his unhelpful anger, poor impulse control, poor frustration tolerance, and aggressive behavior.

What about those of us who witnessed THE BIG SLAP? The responses seem pretty typical for where America is now about the ethics of violence. We are divided into at least two tribes: One tribe applauds Will and the other tribe condemns him. REBT would not support the responses of either tribe. The ideal is that we are one tribe of individuals connected to each other in ways that protect and support each other for the common good. To maintain those healthy connections, we need to help each other when one among us acts inappropriately, have consequences for that individual, but also have a mechanism to forgive and help those who act inappropriately so they can, in the future, change their ways for the better and contribute to the common good. Instead of having winners and losers, we can begin by holding appropriate beliefs about such a situation so we maximize the possibility that there is a win-win.

As I was thinking through this event in light of REBT, I wondered whether the Bible supports REBT’s distinction between unhealthy anger/rage vs. healthy anger/righteous indignation. Here are some biblical verses I found that, while they don’t use the same terminology seen in REBT, they definitely point to two different realities with respect to types of anger. Take a look at this ancient wisdom which is confirmed by modern science as seen in the REBT model.

· John 16: 33: I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world. · 

· Ephesians 4:26: In your anger do not sin: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry

· Psalm 37:8: Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret—it leads only to evil.

· James 1:19-20: My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.

· Ephesians 4:32: Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you

· Matthew 5:43-44: You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

· Matthew 18:21-22: Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times? Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times

· Ephesians 4:31: Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice

· Proverbs 29:11: A person’s wisdom yields patience; it is to one’s glory to overlook an offense

· Ecclesiastes 7:9: Do not be quickly provoked in your spirit, for anger resides in the lap of fools

· Colossians 3:8: But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.

It matters what we think because the way we think greatly impacts our behavior and this behavior impacts how we live in community—whether we live in harmony or chaos.

Article: The Love of Money is the Root of all Kinds of Evil

 Here is an article that came out last week on Christianity.com on 1 Timothy 6:10.

Connections and Relationships in Mental Health

Here is an interview with Dr. Seth Scott on connections and relationships in mental health. Dr. Scott has a BS in Biblical Studies and Intercultural Studies from Emmaus Bible College, an MA in Community Counseling from Regent University, and a PhD in Counselor Education and Supervision from Walden University. He has been teaching at CIU since 2019.

Unity: A Gift and Obligation (sermon)

 Preaching from Ephesians, I addressed how Christ positionally unified all Christians, but we are obligated to live out that unity.

See the video for the sermon here.

Hospitality in Mission interview

I interviewed Dr. Ed Smither about doing hospitality in mission. Dr. Smither has PhD's from the University of Wales-Trinity Saint David and the University of Pretoria. He has been teaching at CIU since 2012 and is the dean of the College of Intercultural Studies. He served for 14 years as a missionary working primarily among Muslims in France, North Africa, and the USA. 

Trevor Castor on Ministering to Muslim Immigrants

Here is an interview with Dr. Trevor Castor on Ministering to Muslim Immigrants. Dr. Castor is the managing director of the Zwemer Center for Muslim Studies. He received his PhD from the Australian College of Theology. 

Mike Langston on Military Chaplaincy

Here is an interview with Dr. Mike Langston on Military Chaplaincy. Dr. Langston has an MA from the Naval War College, and MDiv from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, a DMin from Bethel Theological Seminary, and a PhD from the University of Aberdeen. He has been teaching at CIU since 2011.

Seth Scott on Christian Integration in Counseling

Here is an interview with Dr. Seth Scott on Christian Integration in Counseling. Dr. Scott has a BS in Biblical Studies and Intercultural Studies from Emmaus Bible College, an MA in Community Counseling from Regent University, and a PhD in Counselor Education and Supervision from Walden University. He has been teaching at CIU since 2019.

Time Management as a Pastor interview

Here is an interview with Andre Rogers on time management as a pastor. Professor Rogers has a ThM from Dallas Theological Seminary and a DMin from Columbia International University. He has been teaching at CIU and pastoring for 21 years.

Reading Scripture Missiologically interview

Here is an interview with Dr. Trevor Castor on Reading Scripture Missiologically. Dr. Castor is the managing director of the Zwemer Center for Muslim Studies. He received his Phd from the Australian College of Theology.

Mission During a Pandemic interview

I interviewed Dr. Ed Smither about doing mission during a pandemic and how his response relates to the current COVID-19 situation. Dr. Smither has PhD's from the University of Wales-Trinity Saint David and the University of Pretoria. He has been teaching at CIU since 2012 and is the dean of the College of Intercultural Studies. He served for 14 years as a missionary working primarily among Muslims in France, North Africa, and the USA.

New PhD in Biblical Studies at CIU

An exciting new opportunity to earn a PhD in Biblical Studies. Read here. Anyone wanting to do a PhD in New Testament, Old Testament, Biblical Theology, Hermeneutics, Greek, or Hebrew should contact me at david.croteau@ciu.edu.

Soon we should be able to announce a PhD in Theological Studies, including Systematic Theology and Historical Theology.

Blessings!
Dave Croteau
Director of the Ph.D. Program
Columbia Biblical Seminary

Unintentional Sin

Introduction

Does the Bible ever distinguish between intentional and unintentional sin? If it does, does it indicate that unintentional sin is less serious, or, maybe even, not serious at all? For example, if someone sins unintentionally, does that person even need to ask for forgiveness from God (or, if against another person, from the one sinned against)? Does God take unintentional sin seriously? There are a few passages in the Old Testament that address this issue explicitly and two I’ll discuss in the New Testament. Sin is defined as a violation of God’s law which leads to a rupture in the sinner’s relationship with God.[1]

            Before diving in to the Old Testament passages, let me make a few comments on the Old Testament law and the Christian. While some people believe that the law for was Israel and has virtually no application to Christians today, I do believe this is a huge mistake. First of all, when Paul says, “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16, CSB), he was, at the very least, including the Old Testament (it was probably primarily about the Old Testament). If Paul believes the Old Testament is profitable or “useful” (NET), then we should as well. Second, while many of the specifics in the Old Testament law do not apply, one of the primary purposes of the laws is to teach us more about the character of God. There are underlying principles to the laws that are eternal, as God’s character never changes. Let’s begin by looking at Leviticus 4–5.

Leviticus 4–5: Unintentional Sin is Forgivable

Leviticus 4:2 says: “When someone sins unintentionally.” We can now say with clarity that unintentional sins, as a category, do exist. Some of the next questions are: what is the definition of an unintentional sin and how were unintentional sins viewed and/or dealt with in the sacrificial system? Leviticus 4:3–12 describes what a priest must do when he unintentionally sins; Leviticus 4:13–21 describes what must take place when unintentional sin occurs by the whole community of Israel; and Leviticus 4:22–26 describes what must happen when a leader unintentionally sins. Finally, Leviticus 4:27–31 describes what must happen when the “common people” commit an unintentional sin: an unblemished female goat must be sacrificed. When a common person has completed that, “he will be forgiven” (Lev 4:31, CSB). This entire chapter communicates the seriousness of unintentional sin. The fact that forgiveness is bestowed after the sacrifice has been completed provides solid evidence that when someone commits an unintentional sin, God views that as a serious offense that needs forgiveness. However, we still haven’t defined unintentional sin.

            Leviticus 5 to the rescue! Verses 2–3 gives an example of someone touching something unclean without realizing it; this would be considered an unintentional sin. Verse 4 says that when someone makes a rash oath, and later realizes it, that would be an unintentional sin. So, these are some examples to help us understand the type of actions that would be considered unintentional sins.

            Leviticus 5:5 is very interesting: “If someone incurs guilt in one of these cases, he is to confess he has committed that sin” (CSB). When someone realizes they have sinned unintentionally, they need to confess that they have, in fact, sinned. Verses 6–13 explain the sacrifice that is necessary to receive forgiveness. The ending of Leviticus 5 discusses the seriousness of unintentional sin. Someone who commits an unintentional sin “bears the consequences of his guilt” (Lev 5:17, CSB). After the appropriate offering is given for “the error he has committed unintentionally … he will be forgiven” (Lev 5:18, CSB). Before he makes that offering, “he is indeed guilty before the LORD” (Lev 5:19, CSB). It appears fairly clear from 5:18–19 that the person is not forgiven until restitution is made.

            That summarizes Leviticus 4–5. It helps answer a few questions: unintentional sin is a valid category and it is considered a serious offense that requires forgiveness. A few examples were provided, but not enough for a full definition to be understood. Sklar concludes that “lack of intent does not mean the sinner is automatically excused.”[2]

Leviticus 6: Intentional Sin is Forgivable

            In Leviticus 6 we appear to transition from unintentional sin to intentional sin. Examples of an intentional sin in Leviticus 6 are deceiving your neighbor, or lying (6:2), and defrauding your neighbor. Then in 6:4–5, Moses says that “once he has sinned and acknowledged his guilt” (CSB) that he must make restitution for the sin he committed. After making restitution with the person he committed the sin against, he then must make the appropriate offering (6:6). Once that is completed, “he will be forgiven” (6:7, CSB). This is a description of an intentional sin that can be forgiven. But, as Sklar concludes: “Provided, of course, that the sacrifice was accompanied by confession of sin and a repentant heart.”[3]          

Numbers 15 and 25: Defiantly Intentional Sin is Unforgivable

            Numbers 15 discusses various offerings connected to the sacrificial system in the Mosaic Law. Starting in 15:22, the topic of unintentional sin begins. Verses 22–29 summarizes the laws discussed in Leviticus 4–5. Verse 30 turns to a closely related but different issue: defiantly intentional sin. Some translations keep the idiom from the Hebrew: sin with “a high hand” (ESV). The NET Bible has a footnote that helps define defiantly intentional sin, which will help us, in contrast, to understand unintentional sin: “The expression means that someone would do something with deliberate defiance, with an arrogance in spite of what the LORD said. It is as if the sinner was about to attack God, or at least lifting his hand against God. The implication of the expression is that it was done in full knowledge of the Law (especially since this contrasts throughout with the sins of ignorance). Blatant defiance of the word of the LORD is dealt with differently.” The NET Bible concludes (when discussing Lev 4:2) that the term “unintentional sin” “refers to sins that were committed by mistake or done not knowing that the particular act was sinful.” If the text of Numbers 15 supports these definitions, then it would be valid to view defiantly intentional, simply intentional, and unintentional sins differently.

            Numbers 15:31 explains the consequence of defiantly intentional sin: “He will certainly be cut off … his guilt remains on him” (CSB). This is immediately followed with a narrative about a man gathering wood on the Sabbath. Connecting narratives with the laws is helpful in understanding both. It appears that the reason this narrative is placed right after the punishment for defiantly intentional sin is to provide an example of this type of sin. There was no sacrifice for defiantly intentional sin in the Mosaic Law. The man gathering wood was put to death. Sklar concludes that a defiantly intentional sinner is “one who has completely rejected the covenant

Lord himself. In short, it is the defiant sin of an apostate that is in view, sin for which no sacrificial atonement is possible.”[4]

            Notice that we now have three categories: unintentional sin (which is forgivable), simply intentional sin (which is forgivable), and defiantly intentional sin (which is unforgivable). The difference between simply intentional sin (see Leviticus 6) and defiantly intentional sin (see Numbers 15) is an issue of attitude and the heart. It’s not just the action that is committed, but the attitude and disposition of the heart. Defiantly intentional sin is committed by someone who has rejected the covenant with God.

Leviticus 19:20–22 mentions an offering to receive forgiveness for someone who has committed adultery, but Numbers 25:6–8 gives a different picture. Numbers 25:6 describes an Israelite man who “came bringing a Midianite woman to his relatives in the sight of Moses and the whole Israelite community.” The context (Numbers 25:1–5) makes it clear that the issue was sexual sin and worship of idols. Notice that the man did this in the “sight of Moses and the whole Israelite community.” The reason this is mentioned is so that the reader recognizes that this is defiantly intentional sin. Phinehas kills both the man and the woman with a spear. Defiantly intentional sin brings with it dire consequences.

Much of the sacrificial system was built upon the sins committed being unintentional. But unintentional and simply intentional (non-defiant) sins are dealt with in a very similar way. It is defiantly intentional sin that is different. King David is an example of someone who sinned intentionally, but was quick to be contrite and repent of his sin. Humility and repentance is a key to knowing whether or not a sin is defiant. That is how we know King David was not defiant in his intentional sin. Part of the reason for the sacrifices in the Mosaic Law was to teach the Israelites about the seriousness of their sin. So, while defiantly intentional sin certainly brought with it much more grave consequences, unintentional sin was viewed very seriously as well. This validates dealing with these categories of sin differently, but it does not validate viewing any category as dismissible.

1 Samuel 14: An Example of Unintentional Sin

            1 Samuel 14 begins by explaining a battle that the LORD won for Israel. Utilizing Jonathan, the LORD handed the Philistines over to Saul and his army. When we get to 14:24, the story takes a fascinating turn. The Israelite troops were “worn out” because Saul had placed them under an oath: any man who ate food before evening was cursed (1 Sam 14:24, CSB). When the troops went into the forest, there was honey flowing on the ground, but none of them ate it because of the oath. Jonathan, however, “had not heard his father make the troops swear the oath” (1 Sam 14:27, CSB) and he ate some honey. After the troops sinned by eating meat with blood still in it, and Saul made an altar and had animals sacrificed to atone for their sin (1 Sam 14:32–35), Saul decided he wanted to attack the Philistines and finish them off. The priest insisted that they consult God first (14:36). Saul inquired, but God did not answer. Therefore, Saul concluded that there must have been a sin that caused God not to answer. Saul declared that whoever sinned, even if it was his own son, that person must die (14:39). Through casting lots, God selected Jonathan as the guilty individual. Jonathan admitted that he ate honey. Saul was ready to kill Jonathan, but the people convinced Saul not to kill him. So, Saul did not pursue the Philistines.

            Interestingly, Jonathan initially defended his action of eating honey (14:29–30). He defended it on the grounds that eating the honey would be helpful for the troops and they could have done much better in the battle with the energy given by the honey. But notice Jonathan’s response when confronted: he quickly admitted to the action and then, in an expression of being contrite, humble, and repentant, said “I am ready to die!” He took ownership for his sin.

            The main point to take away from this story regarding unintentional sin is that God himself viewed the sin (see 1 Sam 14:38) as being so serious that He didn’t respond to King Saul. This is a pretty extreme example of “unintentional,” as Jonathan could not have known that what he was doing was wrong. Yet God Himself still held Israel accountable for the sin, though it was unintentional. God takes unintentional sin very seriously.

What about the New Testament?

            There does not seem to be much discussion about intentional and unintentional sin in the New Testament. That doesn’t mean the distinction is invalid, however. One of the clearest statements regarding unintentional sin was made by Jesus in Luke 23:34.

            Note: I realize that this passage has text-critical issues connected to it. Several early and important manuscripts lack the key statement. Some scholars have concluded it was not original but still an authentic saying of Jesus. This is not the place for a detailed discussion on this issue.

            Luke 23:34a: “Then Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing.” There isn’t too much we can draw from this statement. Denny Burk points out that “Jesus does not treat them as innocents.” Instead, He “plainly says that his opponents need forgiveness, which presumes that they have sin for which they are accountable. Their ignorance does not get them off the hook.” Jesus recognizes that unintentional sin is still sin that needs forgiveness.

            One other passage in the New Testament mentions the concept of unintentional sin in the context of salvation: Acts 3:13–19. After God uses Peter to heal a crippled man at the Beautiful Gate, a crowd gathers. Peter decides that this is a great opportunity to preach and he says that they “denied the Holy and Righteous One and asked to have a murderer given to” them (Acts 3:14, CSB). In 3:17, Peter declares, “I know that you did it in ignorance, just as your leaders also did.” In other words, their sin was unintentional. Then Peter explains how they should respond: “repent and turn back, so that your sins may be wiped out.” Unintentional sin continues to be a valid category, but it is never dismissed as inconsequential. Burk concluded: “They are not excused by their ignorance.”

Conclusion

            The Bible does distinguish between defiantly intentional, simply intentional, and unintentional sin, in both the Old and New Testaments.[5] Unintentional sins do appear to be less significant, as the punishment for them was less severe than the punishment for defiantly intentional sin. However, they are still sin and therefore still significant. It seems as if simply intentional sins and unintentional sins are actually more closely related to each other than defiantly intentional sins.

            Just as God responds to unintentional sin differently than defiantly intentional sin, so should we. If someone intentionally sins against you, that is going to be a much more significant offense and more difficult to deal with emotionally. Forgiveness is still required when the offender repents, but it could be, understandably, difficult to forgive. If someone sins unintentionally against you, forgiving them is much easier. All you should generally need to hear is that they are sorry and they ask for forgiveness. Motives are important in relationships, both vertical and horizontal relationships.

            But what if you’re sinned against, it was unintentional, and the person doesn’t apologize, doesn’t repent, and simply brushes it off as excusable because it was unintentional. I believe that one way you can tell if a sin was unintentional is that when you point out the sin to the offender and they see that is was sin, they are instantly contrite. If they aren’t, it probably wasn’t unintentional. Burk notes that the knowledge that we “commit unintentional sins should cause us to be humble in our relationships with others.” His next comments are very insightful: “How many of us try to justify bad behavior with our spouses and friends on the basis of it being unintentional. ‘I didn’t mean to do it, so you shouldn’t be hurt.’ Oftentimes, words like that reveal the very insensitivity that led to the unintentional sin. This is not to say that there’s no moral difference between intentional sins and … unintentional ones. There is. It’s just that in either case there is still an offense that must be dealt with.”

---

[1] For a very similar definition, see Jay Sklar, “Sin and Atonement: Lessons from the Pentateuch,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 22.4 (2012): 468.

[2] Sklar, “Sin and Atonement,” 470.

[3] Ibid., 481, n. 35. Leviticus 19:20­–22 also discusses an intentional sin where the offending person can receive forgiveness with the appropriate offering.

[4] Ibid., 476.

[5] Possible New Testament references to defiantly intentional sin include Matthew 12:22–32, Mark 3:22–30, Hebrews 6:4–8, 10:26–31, and 12:25–29.

Three New(ish) Interviews

In late December I had the honor of being interviewed on two local TV stations (WIS and WLTX). These stories were picked up by different local TV stations around the country (Missouri, Nevada, Louisiana, etc.).

This first video is from WIS TV, with Dawndy Mercer Plank:

The second video is from WLTX TV:

I was also interviewed by the Stacy Long with the American Family Association. That article can be found HERE.

We Three Kings of Orient Are

Over at Facts & Trends, they have an excerpt from my book, Urban Legends of the New Testament. Check it out here.

Interview with Shaun Tabatt on Urban Legends book

Christmas Urban Legends

CIU just published this article about Urban Legends dealing with the Christmas story and our nativity scenes. See here.

Janet Mefferd Podcast on Urban Legends of the New Testament

This aired yesterday, 10/23/2015. Hope you enjoy it!

John Ortberg and Tithing

A few months ago John Ortberg preached a sermon called "The Main Thing." The general theme was about how to keep the main thing the main thing. In this message (around 22:45 into it) he brings up being generous. Being generous is a great principle for giving clearly advocated in Scripture. I have zero doubts about this. But as he discussed the concept of "generous giving," he reminded them a "The Tithing Challenge" he gave to the church last year. That is, give 10 percent of your income to the church for 90 days. If, at the end of 90 days, that is not financially sustainable, inform the church as they will refund your money. Over a 100 signed up, only 2 said it didn't work. What to make of this?

First, I do believe that the vast majority of American's should be able to give 10 percent of their income to their local churches without it being a huge financial strain. That is what this anecdote demonstrates. But that's all.

Second, the real issue is whether this challenge can legitimately be based upon Malachi 3. A few things to note about Malachi 3:
    1) the tithe discussed was probably meant for the support of the Levites and priests.
    2) the "offerings" discussed were not voluntary but required.
    3) the "storehouse" referred to an actual building (see 2 Chronicles 31:10-12) constructed many, many years after the Mosaic Law of tithing was given.

These three things are the beginning reasons for the issues of directly applying the Malachi 3 passage on tithing to Christians today:
    1) pastors are not Levites nor priests; in the church age we are all now priests, with Christ Jesus as our high priest.
    2) the word "offerings" are used today to reference voluntary gifts rather than required gifts; however, if they were required gifts in Malachi 3, and tithing is required because of the reference to it in Malachi 3, then those offerings would be required today.
    3) the "storehouse" in no way refers to the church today; it was simply a barn-type structure.

Therefore, using Malachi 3 the way that Ortberg does is not justified. Many people in America should be able to give 10 percent of their income without it being too burdensome, but many people in America cannot. There is no justification in Scripture for mandating a tithe. Theological and historical arguments fall short as well.

Podcasts of Recent Interviews

I was asked if I could list some of the podcasts for recent interviews I've done on the Urban Legends of the New Testament book. Here are a few:

Rush to Reason on Tuesday, 9/15, see HERE.

The Chosen Generation on Thursday, 9/17, see HERE.

Sunday Night Live on Sunday, 9/20, see HERE.

Point of View on Tuesday, 9/22, see HERE.