Truth Line

Words, Truth, and Responsibility: A Response to Political Rhetoric and Violence

Sat, 02 May 2026 02:29:42 GMT

When truth is replaced by outrage, the outcome is rarely harmless.

The recent attempted assassination of Donald Trump has once again exposed something deeper than politics—it has exposed a culture where words are no longer treated as weighty, but disposable. Where accusations are made casually, labels are thrown freely, and outrage is often valued more than truth.

And it’s not just one side.

We are watching people across the political aisle accuse each other of “hating America,” being enemies of the state, or representing existential threats to the nation. In some cases, those accusations may have substance—but far too often, they are exaggerated, assumed, or entirely unproven.

That distinction matters.

Because when everything is treated as extreme, nothing is taken seriously until someone acts on it.

From a biblical perspective, this is not just a cultural issue—it’s a moral one. Scripture commands clarity, truth, and accountability in how we speak. Ephesians 4:25 (NASB) says, “ Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth each one of you with his neighbor. ” That standard does not bend based on political affiliation. It does not adjust depending on who we agree with.

Truth is not tribal.

That is a core conviction. Truth does not belong to a party, a movement, or an ideology—it belongs to God. And if we are serious about a biblical worldview, then we cannot excuse dishonesty simply because it benefits “our side.”

At the same time, this does not mean we ignore real issues.

There are individuals and ideas in our culture that are genuinely at odds with both Scripture and foundational constitutional principles. When those exist, they should be addressed—but with precision, not assumption. Claims should be supported.

Arguments should be grounded. If something is truly harmful or unbiblical, it should be demonstrable, not speculative.

That’s where much of the current discourse fails.

Too often, opinions are presented as facts. Suspicion is elevated to certainty. And narratives are repeated until they feel true, regardless of whether they are.

A recent example of this pattern can be seen in how Erika Kirk has been discussed online. Multiple circulating claims have accused her of serious wrongdoing—yet many of those claims rely on inference, anonymous sourcing, or repackaged speculation rather than verifiable evidence.

The issue is not whether criticism is allowed—it is whether the claims being made can be clearly supported. If an accusation is true, it should be demonstrable. If it cannot be demonstrated , it should not be stated as fact .

That is not discernment. It is distortion.

Proverbs 18:13 (NASB) warns, “ One who gives an answer before he hears, it is foolishness and shame to him. ” Yet that is exactly what happens when we rush to judgment without evidence. We speak before we know. We conclude before we verify.

A biblical worldview demands something better.

It demands that we separate what happened from what we think about what happened . Facts must come first. Interpretation comes second. Opinion must be clearly identified—not disguised as truth.

It also demands consistency.

We cannot apply one standard to those we oppose and another to those we support. Proverbs 11:1 (NASB) says, “ A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is His delight. ” If we condemn false accusations on one side, we must condemn them on the other. If we demand evidence in one case, we must demand it in every case.

Anything less is not justice—it’s bias.

And bias, when combined with careless rhetoric, becomes dangerous.

Because words shape how people see others. When we repeatedly describe opponents as evil, corrupt, or enemies of the country—without careful qualification—we begin to dehumanize them. And when people are dehumanized, it lowers the barrier for harmful actions.

Again, this does not justify violence. But it does help explain how a culture gets closer to it.

Jesus made it clear that words are not neutral. Matthew 12:36 (NASB) says, “ But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. ” That includes exaggerations. That includes assumptions. That includes statements we share because they feel right , not because they are verified .

The harder question is not whether we should avoid falsehood—it’s how we handle truth when that truth is uncomfortable, controversial, or politically explosive.

Scripture does not give us permission to avoid difficult truths. In fact, it demands that we confront them. But it also defines how we do it.

Ephesians 4:15 (NASB) calls us to “ speak the truth in love. ” That is not a suggestion to soften truth—it is a command to align both the content and the spirit of our words with God’s character.

Speaking truth with grace does not mean withholding facts. It means refusing to distort them, exaggerate them, or weaponize them for effect. It means presenting what is accurate , necessary , and supported —without adding speculation or inflammatory language to strengthen the reaction.

There are times when the truth will sound sharp. There are times when it will confront, expose, or challenge deeply held beliefs. Grace does not remove that tension—but it governs our posture within it.

Grace asks:
– Is this true?
– Is it clearly supported?
– Is it being said in a way that reflects integrity rather than outrage?

Courage says we must speak. Wisdom says we must speak carefully.

This is the standard: not silence, not softness—but truth delivered with discipline .

For me, the standard is ultimately the Bible. It defines what is true, what is right, and what is just. But even with that conviction, I will still choose grace.

Because truth without grace becomes harsh. And grace without truth becomes meaningless.

We are called to hold both.

And in a culture driven by reaction, that may be the most countercultural stance we can take.

Louisiana Suspends Congressional Primaries Following Supreme Court Ruling

Sat, 02 May 2026 00:56:45 GMT

State halts U.S. House elections after high court blocks use of contested district map

Louisiana has suspended its U.S. House primary elections scheduled for May 16, 2026, following a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that prevents the state from using its current congressional district map. The decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that found the map to be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

On April 29, 2026, the Court ruled 6–3 in Louisiana v. Callais, with Justice Samuel Alito writing the majority opinion. The Court determined that Louisiana’s map, which created a second majority-Black district, was not required under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a result, the state lacked a compelling legal justification to use race in drawing the district, rendering the map unconstitutional. The ruling allows the lower court’s decision barring the map’s use to stand, effectively preventing Louisiana from conducting congressional elections under the current lines.

In response, Governor Jeff Landry and Attorney General Liz Murrill confirmed that the state cannot proceed with U.S. House elections until a new, legally compliant map is established. State officials are now working with the legislature and election authorities to determine next steps and a revised election timeline.

The decision drew criticism from members of Louisiana’s congressional delegation, including Rep. Troy Carter and Rep. Cleo Fields, both Democrats. Carter described the ruling as a “devastating blow” to equal representation, expressing concern that it weakens protections for Black voters and their ability to elect candidates of choice.

The suspension applies specifically to U.S. House primaries. Other elections scheduled for May 16, including the U.S. Senate race involving Sen. Bill Cassidy and Rep. Julia Letlow, are expected to proceed as planned.

Beyond Louisiana, the ruling is influencing discussions in other states. In Mississippi, Governor Tate Reeves has called a special legislative session primarily focused on redrawing state Supreme Court districts, though broader redistricting conversations may follow. In Alabama, Governor Kay Ivey has indicated the state is preparing for potential action depending on the outcome of ongoing federal litigation related to its congressional maps.

The ruling underscores the continuing legal battles over redistricting nationwide. States such as California and Texas have already pursued mid-decade map adjustments, while Virginia continues to face both political and legal scrutiny over its recently adopted congressional districts.

Louisiana officials now face the immediate challenge of redrawing district lines and rescheduling U.S. House elections, highlighting the broader national tensions surrounding redistricting law, race, and representation.

Zeldin Challenges Democrats on Environmental Policy During Senate Hearing

Sat, 02 May 2026 00:41:57 GMT

Budget hearing exchange with Whitehouse underscores broader clashes over EPA priorities

A contentious exchange took place on April 29, 2026, during a Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing in Washington, D.C., as Lee Zeldin, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, faced sharp questioning from Sheldon Whitehouse over the agency’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal.

The hearing was primarily focused on the EPA’s proposed budget, including how the agency evaluates the costs and benefits of environmental regulations. A central point of contention between Zeldin and Whitehouse involved whether broader societal costs—such as hospital bills and insurance claims tied to pollution—should be included in regulatory calculations, particularly in relation to coal plant emissions.

Whitehouse criticized Zeldin’s leadership, arguing that he had “executed the fossil fuel industry’s agenda” and warning of an eventual “reckoning” tied to climate policy decisions. He emphasized what he described as a strong consensus around the urgency of transitioning toward renewable energy sources.

Zeldin rejected the premise of Whitehouse’s claims, defending the administration’s approach to regulatory analysis and questioning the assumptions behind incorporating indirect societal costs into EPA decision-making. He argued that such methodologies can be selectively applied and may distort policy outcomes.

The exchange escalated when Zeldin turned to Whitehouse’s personal affiliations, referencing his membership in Bailey’s Beach Club—formerly known as the Spouting Rock Beach Association—which has been widely reported as an all-white club with a history of excluding minorities. Zeldin stated he would not “take morality lessons” from individuals associated with such institutions, intensifying the tone of the hearing.

The confrontation with Whitehouse was one of several tense moments during a series of budget hearings that week. Zeldin also engaged in sharp exchanges with other Democratic lawmakers, including Bernie Sanders and Ed Markey, reflecting broader partisan disagreements over environmental policy, regulatory frameworks, and federal spending priorities.

Following the hearing, Zeldin continued his criticism on social media, using the nickname “Sheldon WhiteClub” and extending his critique to other prominent Democratic figures such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Al Gore, and John Kerry.

The hearing highlighted not only disagreements over environmental policy but also deeper divisions over how regulatory impact is measured, how climate risks are communicated, and how political credibility factors into those debates. As budget negotiations and environmental policy discussions continue, such exchanges illustrate the increasingly sharp tone shaping the national conversation.

New York City Faces Budget Crisis Under Mayor Mamdani

Fri, 01 May 2026 01:19:22 GMT

Mayor cites inherited deficit as state rejects key funding request

Zohran Mamdani, the newly elected mayor of New York City, announced on April 28, 2026, that the city is facing a budget crisis of what he called “historic magnitude,” warning that officials “cannot close this deficit with savings alone.”

Mamdani stated the city inherited a deficit “larger than any since the Great Recession,” though estimates of the shortfall vary. Some reports place the fiscal year 2026 gap at roughly $6 billion, while Mamdani has previously suggested it could reach at least $12 billion. The administration has not yet finalized a single official figure.

Rather than requesting a general bailout, Mamdani and City Council Speaker Julie Menin have called on state leaders in Albany to finalize the state budget in a way that delivers additional funding to the city. A key component of that request includes changes to the Passthrough Entity Tax Credit (PTET), a move city officials say could generate approximately $1 billion in revenue.

However, Kathy Hochul has publicly rejected that proposal, stating, “It’s not happening. We’re not changing PTET,” and pushing back against the idea that delays in the state budget should dictate New York City’s fiscal timeline.

Mamdani has attributed the current deficit to what he described as “years of mismanagement and chronic under budgeting” by the prior administration, as well as broader structural imbalances in the city’s financial relationship with the state. This framing places the origins of the crisis before his time in office, though critics continue to scrutinize his policy approach moving forward.

Separately, economic concerns have intensified around a major development project tied to Citadel. The firm is currently involved in plans for a 62-story, approximately 1.9 million square foot skyscraper at 350 Park Avenue, a project expected to create around 6,000 construction jobs and more than 15,000 permanent roles.

Tensions escalated following a Tax Day video released by Mamdani in which he filmed outside a Manhattan property owned by Citadel CEO Ken Griffin while promoting a proposed pied-à-terre tax. Griffin criticized the move as a “personal attack” and a “profound lack of judgment,” and Citadel’s COO subsequently raised the possibility of abandoning the project.

The city has also extended its executive budget deadline from May 1 to May 12 as officials continue negotiations and attempt to close the gap.

As the situation develops, Mamdani faces the challenge of balancing campaign priorities with fiscal realities, while navigating strained relationships with both state leaders and major private-sector stakeholders. The outcome of these negotiations will likely shape the near-term economic outlook of New York City.

FCC Challenges Disney’s Broadcast Licenses

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 18:50:01 GMT

Early Review Raises Questions Over Regulation, Media Content, and Compliance

The Federal Communications Commission has initiated an early review of broadcast licenses held by The Walt Disney Company’s American Broadcasting Company (ABC), marking an unusual acceleration of a process that typically occurs on a fixed multi-year schedule. The move comes amid increased scrutiny from the Trump administration and public pressure surrounding ABC’s programming decisions.

On April 28, 2026, an FCC official confirmed that ABC’s broadcast licenses are undergoing an early review. Broadcast networks such as ABC rely on federal licenses to operate over publicly owned airwaves, making compliance with FCC standards a requirement for continued operation. While license reviews are routine, the timing of this review is notable, following heightened political attention toward major media organizations and their influence.

The FCC is currently examining whether Disney has violated provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, particularly in relation to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) hiring practices. According to David J. Brown, Chief of the FCC’s Video Division, the agency is focused on whether ABC’s practices align with federal prohibitions against unlawful discrimination. As part of the process, Disney is required to submit license renewal applications for its television stations by May 28, 2026.

A spokesperson for Disney stated that the company remains confident in its compliance with FCC regulations, emphasizing its longstanding record of operating within federal guidelines and its willingness to address concerns through the appropriate legal channels.

If the FCC’s review results in regulatory pressure or enforcement action, local ABC affiliates could face operational changes. These may include adjustments in hiring practices or shifts in programming decisions. Because local stations depend on network affiliations, any corporate-level changes could affect the type of content distributed to regional audiences.

The situation has been further complicated by controversy involving late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. Kimmel faced backlash after making a joke about First Lady Melania Trump, describing her as resembling an “expectant widow” shortly before an assassination attempt targeting Donald Trump. The remark drew criticism, including a public response from the First Lady, who characterized the comment as “corrosive,” while Donald Trump called for Kimmel’s removal from ABC.

Kimmel later addressed the controversy during a monologue, declining to apologize and describing the remark as a “light roast.” He also reiterated his broader stance on political commentary and opposition to gun violence.

The FCC’s actions and the surrounding controversy highlight ongoing tensions between federal regulators, major media companies, and public figures. As the review process continues, its outcome may shape how broadcast networks approach regulatory compliance, employment practices, and editorial decision-making in the future.

Assassination Attempt on President Trump

Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:56:30 GMT

Trump Addresses Nation After Attempt on His Life at Washington Hotel

An assassination attempt targeting Donald Trump unfolded in the lobby of the Washington Hilton, prompting a swift response from law enforcement and immediate national attention. The suspect, identified as Cole Tomas Allen, allegedly carried out the attack, though authorities have not yet publicly confirmed a detailed motive as the investigation remains ongoing.

Less than two hours after the incident, Trump appeared before the media at the same location, offering remarks that struck a notably composed and at times light-hearted tone given the severity of the situation. Referencing the moment of the attack, he stated, “It was either a tray, or a bullet. I was hoping it was a tray. It wasn’t.” The comment drew attention for its attempt to frame the experience with levity while acknowledging the seriousness of the threat.

The incident occurred during a public appearance at the Washington Hilton, a venue historically associated with major political events. Security personnel responded quickly, and Trump was not reported to have sustained life-threatening injuries. Federal and local agencies are continuing to review surveillance footage, witness accounts, and the suspect’s background to determine intent.

In his remarks, Trump pointed to the inherent risks of the presidency, noting that a small percentage of U.S. presidents have been killed while in office. “I’m here to do a job. It’s part of the job. It’s very dangerous,” he said, emphasizing that the threat would not deter him from continuing his responsibilities.

Despite the disruption, Trump confirmed plans to move forward with upcoming engagements, including rescheduling the White House Correspondents’ Dinner within the next 30 days. He also described reaching out personally to members of the press following the incident, including journalists who have been critical of him, to check on their safety after the chaotic scene.

This marks the third reported assassination attempt against Trump during his presidency. Officials have not released additional verified details regarding the suspect or potential affiliations. As the investigation develops, the incident highlights the ongoing security challenges surrounding the presidency and the heightened tensions present in the current political climate.

Further updates are expected as authorities provide additional information.

Mass Shooting in Bloomington, Indiana Leaves Nine Injured During Little 500 Weekend

Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:24:33 GMT

A mass shooting early Sunday morning in Bloomington left nine people injured, sending shockwaves through a crowded weekend event tied to Indiana University traditions. The shooting occurred just after midnight on Kirkwood Avenue during the university’s well-known Little 500 weekend.

Event Background: Little 500 Weekend

The Little 500, established in 1951, is the largest collegiate bike race in the United States. Often called “The World’s Greatest College Weekend,” the event draws tens of thousands of visitors to Bloomington each year.

Held at Bill Armstrong Stadium, the race features 33 teams competing in a relay-style format on a quarter-mile track. The weekend surrounding the race has become a major social gathering, with large crowds filling the streets near campus.

Incident Details

According to the Bloomington Police Department, officers were already monitoring large crowds on the 400 block of East Kirkwood Avenue when gunfire erupted around 12:25 a.m.

Witnesses described a sudden shift from a festive atmosphere to panic, as people fled the area seeking safety. Some ran toward nearby parts of the Indiana University campus, while others took cover in businesses and side streets.

Preliminary witness reports suggest the incident may have stemmed from a physical altercation involving two individuals, with one allegedly producing a firearm and firing into the crowd. Authorities have not confirmed a motive and continue to investigate the sequence of events.

Injuries and Emergency Response

Emergency personnel responded quickly to the scene. Authorities confirmed that nine individuals were injured:

Six were transported by ambulance
One was taken in a police vehicle
Two arrived at hospitals via personal transportation

One victim was located at a nearby gas station after the incident. Officials have not yet clarified how many injuries were caused directly by gunfire versus indirect factors such as ricochets or crowd movement.

University Alerts and Safety Measures

Indiana University Police Department and university officials issued multiple emergency alerts through the IU Notify system, advising students to shelter in place during the unfolding situation.

While the shooting occurred close to campus, officials confirmed that no shots were fired on university property.

Ongoing Investigation

Law enforcement agencies, including the Bloomington Police Department, Indiana State Police, and the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office, are actively investigating.

Authorities are utilizing drones and helicopters to document the scene and assist in identifying suspects. As of now, no arrests have been made.

This marks the second shooting near a Big Ten university in recent days, following a separate incident near the University of Iowa that left five people injured.

Broader Context

The incident highlights continued concerns about public safety during large gatherings, particularly in high-density areas tied to major events. Officials are expected to release additional information as the investigation progresses.

Jeremy Hogan | Getty Images

Intensified Protests in Iran Demand End to Ayatollah Rule

Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:31:53 GMT

What’s Happening

Protests across Iran have intensified throughout April 2026, with citizens calling for an end to clerical rule. Demonstrations have spread across multiple cities, reflecting growing frustration with the country’s political system and economic conditions.

Who Is Leading the Protests

The demonstrations are being led by Iranian citizens, including students, workers, and activists. Protesters are not just opposing individual leaders but are challenging the broader clerical system established after the Iranian Revolution. Many are calling for systemic political change and greater personal freedoms.

Where Protests Are Occurring

Unrest has been reported in several major urban centers, including Tehran, Isfahan, and Shiraz. These cities have historically been hubs for political activism, and recent demonstrations there have drawn significant attention.

Why Citizens Are Protesting

The protests are rooted in long-standing grievances, including political repression, economic hardship, and restrictions on personal freedoms. Rising costs of living and limited economic opportunity have added to public frustration, particularly among younger generations.

Government Response

Iranian authorities have responded with a strong security presence in key areas. Reports indicate confrontations between protesters and law enforcement, with efforts to disperse crowds and maintain control. The situation remains fluid as demonstrations continue.

U.S. Response

The U.S. Department of State has stated support for the Iranian people’s right to peaceful protest while urging the government to avoid excessive force. The White House has also indicated it is closely monitoring the situation, emphasizing the importance of human rights and stability in the region.

At this stage, the U.S. response has been primarily diplomatic, focusing on public statements and continued observation as events develop.

Conclusion

As protests continue across Iran, the situation remains uncertain. The scale of the demonstrations highlights significant internal pressure on the country’s governing system. How Iranian authorities respond—and whether protesters achieve meaningful change—may shape the nation’s political future in the months ahead.

SEC Proposes Reforms to Boost IPO Activity Under Chair Paul Atkins

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 17:52:41 GMT

Introduction of Changes

WASHINGTON — Paul Atkins has outlined a regulatory agenda aimed at increasing the number of Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) in the United States. As head of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Atkins pointed to a roughly 50% decline in the number of publicly listed companies over the past four decades as a central concern driving reform efforts.

Reasons for Declining Public Companies

According to Atkins, the shrinking number of public companies stems from several long-term trends, including corporate mergers, bankruptcies, and fewer firms choosing to enter public markets. He emphasized that regulatory burdens may be discouraging private companies from pursuing IPOs, limiting broader participation in public equity markets.

Regulatory Reforms

Under directives associated with the administration of Donald Trump, Atkins is advocating for a more deregulatory approach. One proposal under consideration would allow companies to shift from quarterly to semi-annual financial reporting.

Atkins argues that quarterly reporting requirements impose significant legal and compliance costs, particularly for smaller firms, and may deter companies from going public. A reduced reporting frequency, he suggests, could lower barriers to entry while still maintaining transparency for investors.

Public Input

The SEC plans to open these proposals to public comment before implementing any changes. Atkins noted that adjustments to reporting requirements would likely remain optional, enabling companies to choose structures that align with investor expectations and business needs.

Historical Context

Atkins highlighted that quarterly reporting is a relatively modern development. When the SEC was established in 1934, companies were only required to file annual reports. Semi-annual reporting was introduced in 1955, and quarterly reporting became standard practice in 1970.

Targeting Different Company Sizes

The SEC is also exploring a tiered regulatory framework that differentiates requirements based on company size. This approach would aim to ease compliance burdens on smaller and mid-sized firms by removing provisions considered disproportionately costly relative to their scale.

Core Mission of the SEC

Atkins reaffirmed the SEC’s foundational mission: protecting investors, maintaining fair and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation. As part of this shift, the agency has moved away from defending certain previously proposed rules—such as expanded climate-related disclosures—and from what critics have described as a “regulation-by-enforcement” strategy.

Collaboration with the CFTC

In coordination with Mike Selig of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the SEC is working to clarify jurisdictional boundaries between the two agencies. This effort is particularly focused on emerging sectors like digital assets, where regulatory ambiguity has previously led some firms to relocate operations outside the United States.

Balancing Innovation and Protection

Atkins has emphasized the importance of balancing regulatory oversight with market innovation. His approach seeks to maintain investor protections while fostering an environment that encourages business growth and public market participation.

Conclusion

The SEC’s proposed reforms represent a significant shift in regulatory strategy, aimed at revitalizing IPO activity and modernizing financial oversight. As these proposals move through the public comment process, they are expected to play a key role in shaping the future of U.S. capital markets.

Tennessee Lawmakers Pass Bill Allowing Deadly Force for Property Protection

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 16:24:15 GMT

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — April 23, 2026

The Tennessee House of Representatives has passed legislation that would expand the legal use of deadly force to include protection of property, marking a significant shift in the state’s self-defense laws.

House Bill 1802, approved on April 23, now heads to the desk of Bill Lee, who is expected to sign the measure into law. If enacted, the law will take effect on July 1, 2026.

What the Bill Does

The legislation permits property owners to use deadly force in response to certain crimes involving their property. These include:

Trespassing
Burglary
Theft
Arson
Aggravated cruelty to animals

Under current Tennessee law, the use of deadly force is generally justified when an individual reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death, serious bodily injury, or certain violent felonies. House Bill 1802 expands that standard to include specific non-violent property-related offenses.

Supporters of the bill say the change addresses what they view as gaps in existing law, particularly in situations where property crimes occur but do not immediately threaten a person’s life.

Legislative Support

Representative Kip Capley, one of the bill’s sponsors, argued that current statutes can place property owners at a disadvantage during criminal activity.

Capley stated that the legislation is intended to allow individuals to respond more quickly and decisively when their property is targeted, rather than requiring them to wait until a situation escalates to a direct threat against personal safety.

Supporters also frame the bill as reinforcing property rights and deterring criminal behavior by increasing potential consequences for offenders.

Opposition Concerns

Democratic lawmakers in the Tennessee legislature voiced opposition to the bill, raising concerns about its potential consequences.

Critics argue that expanding the use of deadly force to include property protection could increase the likelihood of violent encounters in situations that might otherwise be non-lethal. Some lawmakers expressed concern that the law could be applied in disputes where the level of threat is unclear.

Opponents also questioned whether the legislation creates ambiguity around when lethal force is justified, particularly in cases involving trespassing or theft without direct physical danger to the property owner.

Senate Action and Broader Context

The Tennessee Senate passed a related measure, Senate Bill 1847, on April 21, 2026. The alignment between the two chambers indicates broad legislative support for expanding self-defense laws in the state.

Tennessee has previously enacted laws considered favorable to self-defense rights, including stand-your-ground provisions that remove the duty to retreat in certain situations.

The passage of House Bill 1802 reflects a continued trend among some states to broaden legal protections for individuals using force in defense of property and personal interests.

What Happens Next

The bill now awaits final approval from Governor Lee. If signed, Tennessee will join a limited number of states that explicitly allow deadly force in defense of property under certain conditions.

Legal analysts note that the law’s real-world impact will likely depend on how it is interpreted by courts and applied by law enforcement agencies.

As with other self-defense statutes, future legal challenges and case law may further define the boundaries of when deadly force is considered justified under the new standard.

Key Takeaways

House Bill 1802 allows deadly force in defense of property under specific circumstances
The bill passed the Tennessee House on April 23, 2026
A related measure passed the Tennessee Senate earlier in the week
The legislation awaits the signature of Governor Bill Lee
If signed, the law will take effect July 1, 2026

War and the Justice of God: A Biblical Examination of When Force Is Justified

Thu, 23 Apr 2026 21:07:07 GMT

The Question Christians Can’t Avoid

War remains one of the most pressing and morally complex realities in the modern world. Nations continue to engage in conflict, each claiming justification, necessity, or moral ground. For Christians, however, the question cannot be answered by political allegiance or emotional reaction. It must be answered biblically. The issue is not simply whether war exists, but whether it can ever be justified before God.

The Old Testament Pattern of Judgment

The Old Testament provides a necessary starting point. Scripture does not avoid the reality that God, at times, brought judgment upon nations through conflict. In Deuteronomy 9:4–5 (NASB), Israel is explicitly told that the dispossession of the Canaanite nations was not due to Israel’s righteousness, but because of the wickedness of those nations. This establishes a critical theological framework: divine judgment is not arbitrary, nor is it ethnically motivated. It is moral.

The Moral Conditions That Precede Judgment

When the Old Testament describes the societies that came under judgment, it consistently identifies patterns of persistent and systemic corruption. These include extreme sexual immorality (as seen in Sodom and Gomorrah), the ritualized sacrifice of children (Deuteronomy 12:31), and idolatrous systems that produced exploitation, violence, and social decay. These were not isolated acts of wrongdoing, but deeply embedded cultural norms that shaped entire societies.

The Patience of God Before Judgment

Importantly, judgment was not immediate. As Genesis 15:16 indicates, God delayed judgment until “the iniquity… is complete.” This demonstrates both patience and moral consistency. Time was given. Repentance was possible. Even cities such as Nineveh were spared for a time when they turned from their wickedness.

Mercy Within Judgment

Divine judgment in Scripture is never indiscriminate. Individuals such as Rahab were spared on the basis of their response to God. This underscores that the issue was not ethnic identity, but moral and spiritual posture. Judgment and mercy operate together, revealing a God who is both just and responsive to repentance.

A Shift in Perspective, Not in Truth

Any Christian analysis of war must also account for the New Testament, which introduces a crucial shift in emphasis. In Ephesians 6:12 (NASB), Paul writes that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against… spiritual forces of wickedness.” This does not eliminate the reality of physical conflict, but it reframes it. The ultimate source of evil is not merely human behavior, but a deeper spiritual corruption.

The True Nature of the Conflict

This perspective is reinforced by James 4:1–2 (NASB), which identifies the source of conflict as disordered desires within the human heart. War is not merely geopolitical—it is moral and spiritual. The enemy, in the ultimate sense, is not the individual, but the sin and deception that operate within human life. This distinction prevents the dehumanization that so often accompanies conflict.

The God-Ordained Role of Authority

At the same time, the New Testament does not abolish the role of civil authority in confronting evil. In Romans 13:4 (NASB), governing authorities are described as “a minister of God… an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” This affirms that while the Christian’s personal posture is one of love and restraint, the state retains a God-ordained responsibility to uphold justice and restrain wrongdoing. This includes, though does not automatically justify, the use of force.

A Biblical Framework for Evaluating War

When these biblical threads are held together, a coherent framework for evaluating war begins to emerge. A war cannot be considered just simply because it is politically advantageous, widely supported, or emotionally compelling. Instead, it must be evaluated on moral grounds.

First, there must be a real and objective evil being confronted—such as violence, oppression, or the destruction of innocent life. Second, the motivation must be free from the corrupting influences of pride, revenge, or the pursuit of power. Third, war must function as a last resort, consistent with the biblical pattern of patience preceding judgment. Finally, its aim must be the restoration of order and the restraint of evil, rather than the perpetuation of destruction.

The Danger of Misjudging Justice

This framework also exposes a significant danger. The same sins that brought judgment upon nations in the Old Testament—pride, violence, moral corruption, and idolatry—are not confined to history. They remain present in every age. Moreover, the New Testament’s emphasis on the sinful nature of humanity warns that conflict often arises from disordered desires within the human heart. This means that even actions taken under the banner of justice can be compromised by sinful motives.

The Question That Remains

The question of war cannot be reduced to allegiance or ideology. It must be measured against the character and justice of God. The Old Testament demonstrates that God judges real evil in real history. The New Testament reveals that this evil is rooted in a deeper spiritual reality that transcends human conflict.

The question, then, is not simply whether war is permissible.

It is whether a given war reflects the justice of God—or the corruption of man.

And that is a question that demands careful, honest, and biblical judgment.

Progressive Overload and Faith Development

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 15:44:18 GMT

��

Did you know the only way to grow muscle is by progressive overload? When you add more weight to your usual workout routine, it introduces mechanical and metabolic stress that disturbs muscle homeostasis. Your body interprets this disturbance as a signal that its current muscle size/strength is insufficient, and it adapts by making the muscle larger and stronger.

Just like muscles, faith only grows with resistance training. If the load never increases in our life, faith will not grow—only when the pressure mounts does our spirit learn that it must attain a new level of trust and dependence on the Lord. When the resistance is turned up, the old level of faith no longer cuts it. The uncomfortable feeling of being pressed on all sides is the stimulus that triggers the growth response. We seldom rise to new levels until the hour requires it of us. And just like muscle memory makes it easier to lift a heavy load next time you encounter it, a faith that has been tested is better prepared to carry the burden of similar trials ahead. Have you ever noticed that people who have overcome great adversity tend to have the strongest faith? That is not an accident.

Progressive overload can be discouraging for goal-oriented people because when you increase the weight you have to lower your reps until your body can handle the new load. Yet what feels like a setback is actually growth. Many Christians lose heart in the trial because it feels like their faith is coming undone and they cannot handle the new load life has placed upon them. But that pressure is growth in disguise.

James seems to have understood this principle when he writes: “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing” (Jas 1:4–6). These sentiments are echoed in Paul’s writing as well: “Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Rom 5:3–5).

I have noticed many parents never want their kids to experience hardship. This is problematic because hardship is the tension that triggers the growth of our “faith muscles.” The unpleasant truth is that suffering and hardship are critical to the discipleship process. Part of the problem in the church is that we send students out into a world where they need to “bench” far more weight than we have prepared them for—then they are ultimately crushed by the pressure and deconstruct their faith. Youth who have never had their faith tested are weak. The popular adage rings true: “A faith that hasn’t been tested can’t be trusted.”

We need to train students (and all believers) to have a faith that can sustain the resistance they will experience when they are released into the world. We need to expose them to faulty worldviews, help them think biblically and logically about the world, and yes, even let them be in situations where they might fail and experience difficulty. They have a safety net in their younger years that will not always be there (assuming parents take their discipleship responsibilities seriously, which I realize is a big assumption).

Sometimes I am asked why I never attended a biblically faithful, orthodox institution where correct doctrine is taught. Honestly, that’s a fair question. My youth ministry experience was so phenomenal that I knew I could handle hostile environments and that these opportunities would grow my faith through resistance training. My teachers showed me both how to study Scripture and have a vibrant relationship with Christ, and because of their investment, I was ready to be tested at the next level. The secular indoctrination of the University of Virginia’s religious studies program was met with the apologetics I had rigorously studied in high school. My faith and resolve were tested and strengthened in those years. Passing that test allowed me to move on and confront the theological progressivism of Princeton Seminary. Later, I moved on to the humanistic and pluralistic context of the University of Chicago and the intense philological environment of Johns Hopkins. At every stage, I refused to surrender what Archibald Alexander called “the lively and deep impression of divine truth” (Alexander was afraid Charles Hodge would surrender orthodoxy after he sent him to Germany to study under critical German professors). All this was possible only because people intervened and trained me theologically early in life. We must teach our students to lift heavy weights if they are going to make it in this world.

We must not be afraid to train students up in the Scriptures because as the German poet writes: �� —“the truth of the ancient Scriptures withstands every battle.”

Amen.

Does Christianity Cost Anything?

Thu, 12 Feb 2026 20:58:51 GMT

Does Christianity actually cost anything anymore?

Or have we redefined following Christ into something that demands belief but never surrender?

If we’re honest, modern Christianity in the West costs very little. It costs a Sunday morning when it’s convenient. It costs a few dollars when we feel generous. It costs a post, a like, maybe even a theological opinion.

But biblically speaking, Christianity has always cost something.

And at the center of that cost is sacrifice.

What Sacrifice Actually Is

In modern language, sacrifice usually m eans giving up something valuable for something else. Skipping comfort. Giving money. Rearranging time.

But in Scripture, sacrifice was not symbolic sentiment.

It was blood.

The Hebrew and Greek understanding of sacrifice referred to the slaughter of an animal — a victim offered so that something else could live. It was costly. It was visible. It was irreversible.

Then Jesus entered history.

When we say Christ paid the ultimate sacrifice, we are not being poetic. We are making a theological claim. Hebrews 10:10–14 (NASB) makes it clear that His death was the final atoning sacrifice. No more bulls. No more goats. No more blood offerings for sin.

The cross was sufficient.

But here’s where we’ve subtly drifted:

The end of blood sacrifice was not the end of sacrifice.

It was the beginning of a different kind.

Living Sacrifices, Not Dead Religion

Paul writes in Romans 12:1 (NASB):

“Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.”

Notice the shift.

Not attend.
Not agree.
Not affiliate.

Present your bodies.

That language is total. It’s embodied. It’s personal. It’s daily.

A living sacrifice climbs onto the altar willingly. And because it’s living, it has the ability to crawl back off. Which means sacrifice in the New Testament isn’t a one-time emotional moment. It’s continual surrender.

And that’s where the cost shows up.

We’ve Traded Surrender for Strategy

If we’re not careful, we begin measuring Christianity by what it gives us instead of what it calls us to give.

How does this grow my platform?
How does this increase my influence?
How does this improve my comfort?
How does this protect my reputation?

We live in a culture of gain. Christianity, however, is rooted in loss — the right kind of loss.

John 15:13 (NASB) says:

“Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.”

Love is measured by what you are willing to lay down.

Not optimize.
Not curate.
Not protect.

Lay down.

That’s sacrifice.

The First Thing That Usually Has to Die: Reputation

For many believers, the first real cost is reputation.

If you speak clearly about sin, repentance, and Christ as the only way (John 14:6, NASB), it will cost you something socially.

If you refuse to bend Scripture to cultural trends, it may cost you approval.

If you prioritize obedience over optics, it may cost you opportunity.

The question becomes: are we more concerned with being received, or being faithful?

If the power truly belongs to the Holy Spirit — and it does — then our job is not to protect our image. It is to present Christ clearly and let Him draw people.

Reputation is often the first sacrifice.

Time, Money, and Submission

We have minimized sacrifice down to attendance.

And even that has become negotiable.

But sacrifice shows up in very tangible ways:

Giving your time — something you can never get back.
Giving your finances — relinquishing control.
Submitting to a local body and shepherd — surrendering autonomy.

That word, submit, feels offensive in a culture obsessed with independence. But Christianity has never been about radical self-rule. It has always been about joyful surrender to Christ and His design for the body.

Sacrifice is not gloomy obligation.

It is joyful offering.

When you give God your first and your best, you are declaring that He is worth more than what you are surrendering.

That is worship.

The Misconception: “It’s Not Necessary”

Most Christians don’t outright reject sacrifice.

They just quietly assume it’s optional.

We believe Jesus died for us. We believe grace covers us. And slowly, we begin to treat comfort as the goal.

But grace does not eliminate sacrifice.

It empowers it.

Philippians 3:8 (NASB):

“I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.”

When Christ becomes the surpassing value, sacrifice stops feeling like deprivation and starts feeling like alignment.

You are not losing something ultimate.

You are gaining Someone greater.

So — Does It Cost Anything?

Jesus was clear in Luke 9:23 (NASB):

“If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.”

Deny himself.

Daily.

That is not comfortable language. It is costly language.

Christianity costs your self-rule.
It costs your priorities.
It costs your reputation.
It costs your autonomy.
It costs your comfort.

But what it gives in return is Christ Himself.

And if He is truly who we claim He is, then no sacrifice is ultimately loss.

So maybe the better question isn’t, “Does Christianity cost anything?”

Maybe the question is:

Are we actually following the version that does?

Cosmic Warfare and the Church: Spiritual Gifts as Weapons

Fri, 12 Dec 2025 20:14:45 GMT

While it is impossible to reduce Ephesians to a single theological theme, the most prominent interest developed by Paul that threads the entire letter is the unfolding spiritual conflict between good and evil. But the battle is not simply God versus evil, or angels versus demons. God recruits His church to the frontlines, enlisting His people into the cosmic conflict against every “ rule and authority and power and dominion ” that exalts itself against Christ. The church is an active participant in dethroning the god of this world. But this invites further questions. How exactly does the church engage in spiritual warfare? More specifically, what relationship exists between the overarching theme of spiritual warfare and Paul’s discourse on the gifts Christ gives His church in Eph 4:8–16?

Paul writes under the inspiration of the Spirit: “ He who descended is the one who also ascended far above the heavens, that He might fill all things. And He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds, and teachers, to equip the saints for work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God… ” (Eph 4:10–13). The gist of Paul’s argument here is that Christ, having descended and defeated the power of sin and death, has now ascended to the heavenlies and sits in a place of authority over the entire created order (Eph 4:8–10; see also Eph 1:20–23). Paul continues by stating that Christ executes this authority in the heavenlies by calling and empowering His people with spiritual gifts. The resurrection leads to the ascension, and the ascension leads to birth of the church and its attendant gifts (weapons). Spiritual warfare is not some ethereal practice where we march in circles and shout down principalities (although some charismatic groups do this). Spiritual warfare is accomplished by enacting the gifts Christ has given His church. We wage war when we preach the gospel, intercede for others, teach doctrine, disciple others to obey the commands of Christ, break the bread of Communion, cast out demons, heal the sick, prophesy a timely word to the hurting, and so on. Spiritual warfare is far less mystical than many make it out to be (although it is also far more real than many make it out to be)—on the most basic level, we battle when we discern our gifts and use them for the kingdom.

When a believer operates in their spiritual gifting, they participate in cosmic warfare. Some people are surprised that when they begin praying for others or walking in their gifts, spiritual attacks against them seem to increase substantially. Yet if a believer is caught off guard, it likely reveals they did not fully understand the magnitude of what they were engaging in. What else should we expect to happen when we wade into the cosmic arena? These dark principalities and forces will not go down without a fight. The kingdom of God grows through spiritual conflict, and we have a role to play in the expansion and prevailing of Christ’s rule. This is not good news for those lulled to sleep by consumer Christianity, but it remains an encouraging word for those who sense that their purpose exists beyond themselves.

Violence Falls, But Political Attacks Surge

Thu, 11 Dec 2025 14:26:51 GMT

A Decline in Mass Killings Masks a Surge in Politically Motivated Violence

This year, the United States is thankfully trending downward in overall violence and mass killings. According to the AP/USA TODAY/Northeastern database, there have been 17 mass killings in 2025 , the lowest number since tracking began in 2006. That represents roughly a 24% drop from 2024 and about a 20% drop from 2023 , and nearly a 60% decrease from the 2019 peak , when more than 40 such events were recorded. Homicides and violent crime nationwide are following a similar trajectory, continuing to fall after the COVID-era spike, putting the national murder rate on track for the lowest levels in decades.

This year, the nation is experiencing a rare moment of relief from the unrelenting surge of the past decade. Detailed numbers make the decline clear and measurable, offering a hopeful signal that interventions, policing, and societal shifts are having a positive effect on general crime trends.

The Decline in Overall Violence

To understand the significance of this year’s numbers, it’s important to place them in context. In 2019, the U.S. recorded over 40 mass killings , marking the highest point in recent history. Violent crime spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic, with lockdowns, economic stress, and social disruption supposedly contributing to a sharp rise in homicides. Since then, there has been a consistent decline in overall violent crime, a trend that continues in 2025.

Homicides, aggravated assaults, and other forms of violent crime have all shown measurable declines. Analysts point to a combination of factors: increased law enforcement efficiency, targeted crime prevention programs, and even demographic shifts in urban areas. While no drop in violent crime is ever “enough,” the numbers indicate that we are moving in the right direction.

Mass killings (4+ fatalities excluding the perpetrator): 17 in 2025, down from 22 in 2024 and 21 in 2023
Year-over-year decrease: ~24% from 2024, ~20% from 2023
Homicides: Falling consistently nationwide, with rates approaching the lowest in decades

This decline is welcome news. For years, headlines about shootings and mass killings dominated media cycles. While any loss of life is tragic, the overall trend is finally moving toward lower violence.

A New Trend: Politically Motivated Violence on the Rise

Typically, when overall violent crime decreases, politically motivated violence follows a similar pattern. Historically, as society stabilizes and murders drop, attacks carried out for ideological reasons also decline. Not this year.

In 2025, politically motivated violence — attacks, plots, and murders driven by ideology — has increased sharply , breaking the usual correlation.

Attacks and plots: ~150 politically motivated attacks recorded in the first half of 2025, nearly double the ~75 attacks during the same period in 2024
Politically motivated murders: 23 reported so far in 2025

The data alone is alarming. For the first time in recent history, the usual “safety buffer” created by declining overall violence does not extend to politically motivated violence. Something is different.

Why Is Political Violence Rising While Overall Violence Falls?

The rise in politically motivated attacks is not happening in a vacuum. Multiple factors are converging to create a permissive environment for violence rooted in ideology:

Ideological Extremism: Political polarization has intensified to levels not seen in decades. Extremist groups, both organized and informal, are openly encouraging aggression toward perceived enemies. Online forums, social media platforms, and even political rhetoric have amplified these voices.
Targeting Government Officials: Many attacks in 2025 have targeted public officials or government institutions. While these attacks are small in absolute numbers, they carry symbolic significance and send a message to others who may be ideologically motivated.
Media Amplification: Coverage of political disputes and labeling opponents as existential threats can encourage copycat incidents. The more attention these attacks receive, the more likely others may be inspired to commit similar acts.
Political Polarization: This is perhaps the most insidious factor. When political discourse becomes about demonizing opponents, it lowers the societal barriers against violence. People begin to feel that extreme measures are justified.

The combination of these factors creates a unique environment in which politically motivated violence can rise even as general violent crime falls.

The Role of Left-Wing Political Violence

In analyzing the patterns of 2025, it is clear that much of the rise in politically motivated violence has been perpetrated by the left . This includes attacks inspired by ideological extremism, targeting of political opponents, and attacks on public officials. There is a growing permissive structure — cultural, media-driven, and political — that allows or even encourages these behaviors.

We are not exaggerating. When someone is labeled a “Nazi” or “Hitler” in mainstream discourse, and that language is amplified across social platforms, it creates a dangerous perception: that violence against the labeled individual is somehow justified. The statistics prove the danger: the sharp rise in attacks and murders reflects a tangible, measurable outcome of political rhetoric.

Breaking the Historical Pattern

Historically, politically motivated violence tracks overall crime trends. If murders go down, politically motivated murders generally follow. But 2025 breaks this pattern. While the rest of society is benefiting from a decline in overall violence, political violence is accelerating.

This divergence is significant. It signals a breakdown in traditional social norms that once constrained politically motivated acts. We are no longer seeing a natural correlation between decreasing crime and decreasing political violence. Instead, we see a rise in attacks driven by ideology, rhetoric, and perceived permission structures.

The Numbers Are Clear

Mass killings: 17 in 2025, down 24% from 2024
Overall homicide rate: Falling nationwide
Political attacks/plots (first half 2025): ~150, nearly double the first half of 2024
Politically motivated murders (2025 so far): 23 deaths

The data paints a picture of a society that is safer overall but increasingly dangerous for those targeted by ideological extremism.

The Dangers of Rhetoric

The 2025 trend is a stark warning: words have consequences . Political leaders, media figures, and cultural influencers who label opponents with extreme terms or frame them as existential threats contribute to an environment in which politically motivated violence is not only possible but increasingly likely.

The combination of ideological extremism, targeting government officials, media amplification, and political polarization has created a perfect storm. It’s no longer safe to assume that declining general crime will protect against politically motivated attacks.

A Call for Awareness

For Christians and concerned citizens, this is a time to speak the truth clearly while understanding the real consequences of rhetoric and ideology. The rise in politically motivated violence is not abstract; it is measurable, deadly, and connected to a cultural climate that normalizes aggression toward perceived enemies.

We must be vigilant. We must acknowledge the improvement in overall violence — mass killings and general crime are down — but we must not ignore the dangerous rise in politically motivated attacks. 2025 is teaching us a difficult lesson: while society can improve, ideological extremism can still thrive if we do not confront it honestly and decisively.

Idols, Power, and Access: A Few More Notes on Ephesians

Mon, 08 Dec 2025 02:41:08 GMT

Whatever you follow after is your god, and whatever is your god has authority over you. The Scriptures teach that you are either owned by Christ or Satan—there is no middle ground. When Yʜᴡʜ freed the Israelites from their bondage in Egypt, He did not simply destroy Pharaoh and their armies—He transferred the Israelites’ allegiance to Himself. In essence, Israel went from being a slave of Pharoah to being a slave of Yʜᴡʜ (the Hebrew word עֶבֶד/ʿ��̱��̱, “slave,” is used to describe Israel’s relationship to Yʜᴡʜ in, e.g., Lev 25:55; Isa 41:8–9; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 49:3). Paul repeatedly draws on this theme to show that we can either be slaves of sin or of Christ/righteousness (Rom 6:6–11; 6:15–23; Gal 5:1). The point is that whatever you worship owns you and has real power over you. Like Israel in Egypt, if you are owned by sin, you cannot free yourself—you are helplessly bound unless you ask Christ to set you free. The moment you are set free, your allegiance must shift from sin to Him. But if you are owned by Christ, you have real power over Satan and sin.

In the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, the phrase "to walk after" signifies allegiance—what you pursue is what you worship. This is why Yʜᴡʜ commands the Israelites not to “walk after” (הלך אחר; �� ʾ��), or “give their allegiance to,” other gods (see Deut 6:14; 8:19; 11:28; 13:2, 6–9; 28:14, 26; Judg 2:12, 17, 19, et al.).

In Eph 2:2, when Paul writes that we used “to walk after” the “ course of this world” and “the prince of the power of the air ,” he is using a Hebraism to state that our allegiance was once to sin and Satan. Those who live in sin, apart from Christ, are not neutral parties—Scripture teaches they worship the devil and that he maintains power over them. Thankfully, the text does not stop there. Paul writes: “ But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ ” (Eph 2:5a). For those who now belong to Christ, we were once disciples of Satan, following in his footsteps, but praise be to God, who has redeemed us by defeating the powers of darkness.

Paul’s argument does not stop there, however. He not only contends that have we been set free from our previous taskmaster, Satan, but that the tables have turned—we now are the ones with power over him. Since God the Father has exalted us above every demonic authority by seating us with Christ (Eph 1:19; 2:6), we are participants with Him and wield “ the immeasurable greatness of His power ” (Eph 1:19). In fact, the themes of our “ access ” (προσαγωγή; Eph 2:18; 3:12) to Christ and our ability to tap into divine power (δύναμις; Eph 1:19; 3:16, 20; see also 6:10) are central to theological profile of Ephesians. We are called to partner with Christ, the divine warrior, in combating evil powers. When Paul describes the “ armor of God ” in Eph 6:10–20, he is building off Isa 59:17, where Yʜᴡʜ “ [puts] on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on his head; he put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and wrapped himself in zeal as a cloak ” (ESV). In Isaiah 59, Yʜᴡʜ goes to war by Himself because He can find nobody to join Him in the cause of righteousness. In Ephesians 6, He calls His church to suit up with the same armor and join Him on the front lines.

When you are in the throes of spiritual warfare, you need to remember that Jesus is far more than the gentle, shepherd often seen in artwork. The following passage is an equally inspired description of Christ: “ Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords ” ( Rev 19:11–16; ESV ). Just like Yʜᴡʜ in the Old Testament, Christ is described as the divine warrior who conquers evil. We are fools if we neglect Christ’s power and authority that are available to us.

As believers, I fear we are largely unaware of the access we have to Christ's immeasurable power. Prayer in the name of Jesus is a powerful weapon that is not utilized by most believers in our age of spiritual lethargy. Prayer is not only immensely effective against the evil one, it is often our only hope for deliverance. I was praying for a group of people I hold close in intercessory prayer this afternoon. My closing argument to the Lord was that unless He came and intervened for these individuals, all hope would be lost. Everything rises and falls on His response. That may sound like a precarious situation to be in, but it’s not—He will not spurn the faithful requests of His saints. He will not suffer the evil one to prevail if we pray His will. He will have complete dominion. To Him belongs all power, glory, and honor. Amen.

Why the Church Must Stop Bowing to Public Opinion

Tue, 02 Dec 2025 20:20:21 GMT

How the Fear of Public Opinion Beca me the Church’s New Theology

There is nothing more countercultural than Christ. He upset the Pharisees. He upset the crowds. He upset Rome. He upset His own disciples. He upset everyone. If you read the Gospels honestly, you walk away seeing a Savior who refused to fit into anyone’s expectations—and that is exactly why both the religious and the irreligious wanted Him dead.

No one today—left, right, conservative, progressive—is ever fully “in the right.” Only Christ is. And yet churches act as if their job is to fit into whichever public lane seems the safest in the moment. We drift with the currents. We pick a side. We absorb our favorite influencers. And we tell ourselves we’re following Jesus when, in reality, we’re following the algorithm.

This is the sickness of the modern church: we choose comfort over conviction and public opinion over Scripture.

Progressive Theology Isn’t Creeping In—It’s Flooding In

Let’s be honest: there is an aggressive influx of progressive theology dismantling the authority of Scripture inside American churches. TikTok theologians. Instagram “pastors.” Christian influencers whose entire doctrinal formation comes from trending audio and self-help phrases.

We’ve created a substitute religion where:

Online validation replaces discipleship
Influencers replace pastors
Self help clips replace the pursuit of sanctification

Social media was never designed to shepherd a soul. It was designed to addict one.

And while I support political engagement—I’ll say it plainly: the conservative platform aligns with Christian values far more often—the Republican or Democratic party is not the foundation of my beliefs. Christ is. The moment the Republican Party becomes your Bible, you’ve traded the Word of God for someone else's agenda.

The Real Reason Churches Stay Silent: Fear

Churches don’t bow because they don’t know the truth. They bow because they’re scared to speak it.

We live in a time where the threat of cancellation is enough to muzzle entire pulpits. Pastors soften sermons so they don’t offend the loudest members of their congregation. They avoid culture so they don’t get clipped, posted, and harassed online. They avoid clarity so they can keep attendance numbers up.

Bowing to public opinion is simply not saying what you know is true because you feel pressured to make everyone feel good.

But Christ never called us to fit in. Paul makes that unmistakably clear:

“ Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. ” — Romans 12:2 (NASB)

Conformity is the reflex of a fearful heart. Transformation is the evidence of a surrendered one.

When the Fear of Man Replaces the Fear of God

The greatest danger isn’t cultural backlash. It’s that the church stops speaking what God actually says.

When we fear the public more than we fear the Lord, we stop preaching truth and start preaching survival.

The fear of God has been replaced with the fear of:

Losing members
Losing donors
Losing influence
Losing approval
Losing political favor

But Christians were never called to live safe. We were called to live faithful.

God is bigger than every cultural threat, every social media mob, every news cycle, every lawsuit, and every insult the world can throw. If we don’t believe that, we don’t believe in the God of Scripture—we believe in the god of public opinion.

The United Methodist Collapse: A Warning

If you want proof of where bowing to culture leads, look at the UMC. When churches began bending on gender, sexuality, and the authority of Scripture, it didn’t stop at “inclusion.” It escalated to outright heresy.

LGBTQ pastors in pulpits
Denial of biblical authority
Redefinition of sexual ethics
A complete theological fracture
A public split that shocked the world

This wasn’t “innovation.” This was abandonment.

You can only bend for so long before you are torn apart.

Silence in Crisis Is Not Christlike

We’re seeing a new trend where churches believe being “non-political” means being silent—even when their own communities are in crisis.

A perfect example: the murder of Iryna Zarutska was right near one of the largest megachurches in the nation: Elevation Church. Yet, not a word from the pulpit. Not a statement. Not even clarity for their own members.

This isn’t neutrality. I believe it is negligence.

The church doesn’t need to become a cultural entity. But it absolutely must commentate on culture. Scripture speaks to real life, real issues, real sin, and real suffering. When churches refuse to address what is happening around them, they stop pastoring the people sitting in front of them.

Truth Doesn’t Bend—And Neither Should the Church

Public opinion changes hourly. Christ does not.

Truth does not.

The mission of the church does not.

If we want revival, clarity, strength, and power in the American church again, it won’t come from trying to fit in. It will come from returning to the only One who never once bowed to anyone’s expectations.

The world is desperate for truth.

The church is tasked with declaring it.

And we cannot declare what we are too afraid to say or even think.

Christ's Cosmic Sovereignty and the Authority of the Church

Sun, 30 Nov 2025 13:58:46 GMT

Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians is steeped in deep theology about Christ and His exaltation over the forces of darkness that rule in the present age. The Ephesians worshiped the goddess Artemis, a patron deity they believed had cosmic sovereignty, and this colors much of what Paul has to say to believers in his epistle. The Ephesians believed that Artemis controlled all aspects of the universe and could alter the destiny of those who worshipped her. Yet in chapter one of Ephesians, Paul makes very clear that Christ is the preeminent one who rules sovereignly over the cosmos. God the Father, not Artemis, is the one who “ works according to the purpose of His will ” (κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ; 1:5; see also 1:9, 10, 11 [x 2], 19). Only the will of the true God prevails.

Chapter one culminates in one of the most beautiful confessions of Christ’s identity and sovereign power:

“ For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which He has called you, what are the riches of His great might that He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things under His feet and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. ” Ephesians 1:15–23; ESV

When Paul says that Christ has been exalted and given authority over “ all rule and authority and power and dominion ” and “ above every name that is named, ” he is principally talking about spiritual powers, not human institutions (although all human power also comes under His rule). The god of this age and all his fell legions must bow prostrate before the exalted Christ, heeding His every command. Scholar Andrew T. Lincoln writes: “ The scope of the victory God has secured by exalting Christ is made clear by the enumeration of the defeated cosmic powers ” (WBC, ��, 62). Christ reigns supreme over Satan and all who are beneath him on the spiritual hierarchy.

Paul’s high view of Christ shapes his view of the church. Paul writes that God the Father “seated [Christ] as His right hand in the heavenly places” far above all spiritual beings (Eph 1:20). Yet in one of the most jolting verses of Scripture, Paul takes this logic one step further: “ [God the Father] raised us [the church] up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places ” (Eph 2:6). Do not pass this over. As believers, we are seated with the preeminent, exalted Christ in the heavenlies. As an extension of His body, we are granted authority over all nefarious powers through His name (see Mark 16:17; Matt 7:22; Luke 10:17; John 14:13). This comports with many verses from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament that suggest the saints will rule alongside the Most High (Dan 7:18, 27; 1 Cor 6:2–3; 2 Tim 2:12, Rev 2:26–27; esp. 3:21; 5:10; 20:4, 6; 22:5). For Paul, high Christology is paired with a high ecclesiology.

On a very practical note, I am waiting for the day Christians realize they have authority over evil spiritual forces in the name of Christ. We would pray different if we really believed Paul’s inspired theological reflection in this passage. How much bolder we would become as believers if we knew that alongside Christ we are seated “ far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come .” Positionally, we have been placed above our enemies. We look down on them when we pray. Or as my pastor so often says, “ we battle from a place of victory. ”

Targeted Attack Near White House Forces Halt to Afghan Immigration Requests

Thu, 27 Nov 2025 17:05:30 GMT

Shooting Near White House — What We Know So Far

Political Fallout — Government Response and National Debate

The shooting comes amid heightened tensions over the deployment of federal forces, including National Guard troops, in major U.S. cities — a policy intended to curb rising crime in urban areas. Critics have questioned the efficacy and constitutionality of such deployments; supporters argue they are necessary to restore order.

In direct response to the attack, the administration ordered an additional 500 National Guard troops into Washington, D.C., reinforcing a multi-thousand troop presence that was already under scrutiny.

Moreover, voices across the political spectrum — especially from conservative policymakers and commentators — are likely to seize on this incident to press for stricter immigration vetting and broader security measures.

What Christians & Citizens Should Consider

Scripture calls believers to love the foreigner (e.g. Leviticus 19:34; Hebrews 13:2), yet it also mandates the protection of innocent life and the maintenance of public order. To ignore threats that exploit open-door policies would be irresponsible stewardship of our nation's laws and the protection of those who live within.

This event demands careful discernment, not knee-jerk reactions. While there may be many Afghan immigrants who genuinely seek peace and opportunity, ones who pose a danger cannot be overlooked. A robust vetting system, sensible immigration law enforcement, and accountability for failures in national security — all are reasonable, even necessary.

Love and safety are not mutually exclusive. As citizens, we must demand that our government safeguard law-abiding Americans, including those who commit to defend them, such as National Guard members.

Conclusion & What to Watch

The investigation is ongoing. Officials haven’t publicly confirmed a motive, but treatment of the shooting as a potential act of terrorism signals seriousness.

This incident could mark a turning point in national security and immigration policy debates. For Christian-voices in media and politics, it’s a wake-up call — a moment to press for justice, safeguard the innocent, and demand accountability while still honoring godly compassion.

On Wednesday afternoon, just blocks from the President’s residence — near 17th and I Streets NW, close to the Farragut West Metro station — two members of the West Virginia National Guard were shot in a brazen attack.

According to law-enforcement officials, both guard members were critically wounded. A suspect is in custody, and authorities say he was also treated for injuries that are not believed to be life-threatening.

The attack has been described by city and federal officials as a “targeted ambush.”

Suspect Identified — Immigration and Security Implications

Authorities have identified the suspect as Rahmanullah Lakanwal — an Afghan national who reportedly entered the United States in 2021 under the resettlement program initiated following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, all of which came from the Biden administration.

In response, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it is immediately halting all immigration and visa requests related to Afghan nationals, pending a broader review of vetting protocols.

That swift reaction underscores the fragile balance between humanitarian immigration efforts and national security — a topic Americans have debated for years. For many, this incident will fuel the argument that lax immigration policies pose a direct risk to public safety and national security.

Scripture, Exegesis, and Abortion: Refuting the Lies of Progressive “Christianity”

Wed, 19 Nov 2025 18:59:56 GMT

Claim: So-called “Christians” who support ab*rtion are willfully ignorant, lie purposefully, or do not know how to exegete Scripture.

One of the saddest consequences of social media is the emergence what I call “TikTok theologians”—individuals who lack exegetical training yet feel qualified to speak on matters of Scripture. Yet false teachers are nothing new, and neither is the fact that they “ exploit [people] with fabricated arguments ” (2 Pet 2:3) and “ entice unsteady souls ” (2 Pet 2:14). An interesting feature about Peter’s discourse on false teachers in 2 Peter 2 is that these false teachers emerge from within the church, pushing a moral code that contradicts apostolic teaching. Despite claiming to be “Christians,” Peter calls these people “ irrational animals, creatures of instinct born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant ” (2 Pet 2:12). Peter warns that these individuals “ feast among you ” (2 Pet 2:13) yet are not true servants of the Lord. These are people who take part in communion, the shared meal of the church, yet denounce Christ through their teachings.

So it remains today, especially on matters of morality. You may have heard uninformed people claim that Scripture does not prohibit ab*rtion and has nothing to say on this issue, but this is a well-crafted lie. The biblical case is clear: Life begins at conception and killing a child in the womb is murder. There is no serious exegetical case that defends ab*rtion, as we will see momentarily.

The best place to begin our analysis on this issue is in the Covenant Code (Exodus 20:22–23:19), a legal text nestled within the larger Exodus narrative. Scholars have noted similarities to other ancient Near Eastern legal texts as well as some very important differences. The Codex Hammurabi, the best-preserved ancient Near Eastern legal text, written in Akkadian and composed in Babylon ca. 1755–1750 BC, is especially important here. Compare the following two texts, one from Scripture and the other from Codex Hammurabi:

�� §��

��̌�� ̄�� ̄�� ̄�� ̮��̣�� ̌�� ̄��̌�� ̌��̄��̌�� 10 ��̌�� ̌�� ̄��̌�� ̌��

“If a man strikes the daughter of a man and thereby causes her to miscarry her fetus, he shall weigh and deliver ten shekels of silver for her fetus.”

�� :��–�� (�� )

וְכִי־יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוֹן עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה וְנָתַן בִּפְלִלִים׃ וְאִם־אָסוֹן יִהְיֶה וְנָתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפשׁ׃ עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן יָד תַּחַת יָד רֶגֶל תַּחַת רָגֶל׃ כְּוִיָּה תַּחַת כְּוִיָּה פֶּצַע תַּחַת פָּצַע חַבּוּרָה תַּחַת חַבּוּרָה׃

“If men struggle with each other and strike a pregnant woman so that her children come out, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined according to what the wife’s husband imposes upon him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

��

The legal logic of the Codex Hammurabi makes a human fetus little more than personal property that can be compensated with monies offered by the guilty party. The ten-shekel penalty is also telling. In the preceding sections, 30 shekels is required for the accidental murder of Babylon’s privileged class (i.e., the ��̄�� class; see CH §207) and 20 shekels were required for the accidental death of a commoner (i.e., a ��̌��; see CH §208). Therefore, according to the legal code of King Hammurabi, a human fetus was worth 1/3 of a societal elite and ½ of a commoner. Does this remind you of anything? (Think Three-Fifths Compromise).

The Covenant Code, however, operates by a very different legal logic. Instead of imposing a financial penalty on the aggressor, the Covenant Code operates on the principle of �� —an eye for an eye. The Covenant Code, unlike Codex Hammurabi, does not view the fetus as subhuman, but as a full living creature—so much so that killing a fetus results in the loss of the aggressor’s life. The phrase נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ “life for life” implies that the fetus enjoys the ontological status of a full living being. Furthermore, the penalty in the Covenant Code is not transactional like it is in the Codex Hammurabi. One might argue that in Codex Hammurabi restitution occurs only to offset the financial loss of the family who lost the child, but the Covenant Code concerns itself with a loss of life, a crime that must be punished with a symmetrical force.

More stunning is that in the Covenant Code, a fetus enjoys the same protection as the societal elite and other members of society: “ Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death ” (Exod 21:12; מַכֵּ֥ה אִ֛ישׁ וָמֵ֖ת מ֥וֹת יוּמָֽת). In fact, in the Covenant Code, the death penalty is reserved for gross infringements on human life, including slave trafficking (Exod 21:16).

��

The Scriptures are replete with other texts that teach children are fully human from the time of conception. In Luke 1:41, a pregnant Mary comes to greet her sister Elizabeth, and the narrator tells us, “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb.” Three verses later, Elizabeth reports the same thing: “For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.” Importantly, Elizabeth’s baby, John the Baptist, is here ascribed agency while he is still in the womb through the active verb ἐσκίρτησεν/��̄�� “leaped.” Moreover, the child in Elizabeth’s womb is able to experience ‘joy’ (ἀγαλλιάσει), an emotion characteristic of animate beings. The term used to describe the in-utero John the Baptist is βρέφος/ ��, which elsewhere in the New Testament is used to describe infants who have already been born (Luke 2:12, 16; 18:15) and newborn babes (1 Pet 2:2). There is no hard distinction between the two in ancient Jewish thought. Old Testament texts also speak of children in the womb as having agency. In Gen 25:22, Rebekah conceives twins, Jacob and Esau, and the narrator tells us that “ the babies jostled each other within her. ” When Rebekah inquires of Yʜᴡʜ, He tells her that their wrestling in the womb is indicative of the fighting that will occur between them later in life. Once again, human attributes are assigned to preborn Jacob and Esau.

Other texts emphasize God’s active role in creating children in the womb, and these passages usually emphasize their intrinsic worth and purpose from the moment of conception. Yʜᴡʜ famously tells Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations” (Jer 1:5). Yʜᴡʜ is the one who actively creates (יצר) Jeremiah in the womb and sets him apart as a prophet. Interestingly, the same verb used to describe Yʜᴡʜ forming Jeremiah in the womb appears in Gen 2:7, where God forms (יצר) a fully mature Adam and Eve. There is thus no ontological distinction to be made between the fetus (the Latin word for “offspring”) and an adult human—both are created (יצר) by Yʜᴡʜ. Yʜᴡʜ not only creates children in the womb, He endues them with purpose. To kill a child in the womb is to commit an act of violence against an image-bearer, and thus to commit violence against God Himself (cf. Jas 3:9). Paul picks up on the prophetic motif of being called from the womb (see also Isa 49:1–6) when he writes in Gal 1:15–16: “ But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles… ” In Judg 13:3–5, the angel of Yʜᴡʜ states that Samson is to be consecrated as a Nazarite “

The psalmist is even more explicit: “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them” (Ps 139:13–16). Other texts that affirm the same point abound (see, e.g., Job 10:8–12, Ps 71:6; et al.)

The church fathers also consistently denounced ab*rtion as murder—the consistent witness throughout the history of Christianity has been to stand against the evil of killing preborn children. Another lengthy post would be required to address this issue in early Christianity and beyond, but for now take a look at the article from scholar Michael J. Gorman in the comments.

To sum up, then, there is no biblical basis for support of ab*rtion. Any individual who supports the murder of unborn children does so against the Scriptures and is morally culpable before God for their complicity with this grievous evil. Even worse are those who lie and claim that Scripture supports ab*rtion. Per Scripture, these false teachers are ignorant and unstable, and they twist the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Pet 3:16). In this hour, the church needs to break with weak, beta pastors who are unwilling to stand up for the unborn. The “let’s just all get along and sing kumbaya” type pastor is useless in our cultural context. God send us prophetic leadership from the highest ranks of the church down to the lay teacher!

Missouri Pastor Tries To Justify Polygamy—But Does the Bible Back Him Up?

Wed, 12 Nov 2025 21:14:04 GMT

At the heart of the debate: can the Bible truly support plural marriage? Tidwell says yes, but Scripture and history say otherwise.

Pastor Rich Tidwell of Canton, Missouri, recently drew attention after questioning whether polygamy can be biblically justified. The discussion, reignited by Tidwell’s sermon exploring whether polygamous families should be welcomed in church, has resurfaced an age-old theological argument — one that Scripture has already settled.

Let’s make it plain: polygamy cannot be biblically justified. The fact that it appears in the Bible doesn’t mean God condones it. Scripture records sin to reveal its consequences, not to provide moral cover for it.

The Biblical Record Is Clear

Throughout the Old Testament, we see polygamy — Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon — but never with God’s approval. Every instance ends in jealousy, conflict, or tragedy.

Abraham’s family fractured when Sarah and Hagar turned against one another.
Jacob’s home became a battleground between Leah and Rachel.
David’s many wives led to rivalry and rebellion among his sons.
Solomon’s hundreds of wives turned his heart away from God.

Polygamy isn’t a story of success — it’s a story of sin. It’s a record of what happens when humanity tries to rewrite God’s design.

God’s Design Hasn’t Changed

When Jesus was asked about marriage, He didn’t reference Abraham or David. He went back to the beginning — to Genesis:

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24, NASB)

One man. One woman. One covenant.

That’s not cultural. That’s divine.

Polygamy Never Works — Then or Now

Even in modern history, attempts to normalize polygamy fail. Look at Mormonism. The movement’s early practice of plural marriage produced not holiness, but abuse and division. The mainstream LDS Church abandoned it long ago, yet splinter groups that persist in it continue to bear the same destructive fruit Scripture warned about.

Pastor Tidwell’s recent remarks may sound compassionate, but they follow a familiar pattern: justifying sin under the guise of grace.

The Sermon and the Backlash

During his sermon, Tidwell suggested churches should reconsider how they treat polygamous families, framing it as a question of inclusion. But Pastor and Bible teacher Mike Winger called the sermon “a misrepresentation of Scripture and church history,” noting that grace never changes God’s design — it calls us back to it.

That’s the key point many miss. The church is called to welcome sinners, not validate sin. Compassion without correction isn’t grace—it’s compromise.

The Danger of Twisting Scripture

This approach isn’t new. People have misused the Bible for centuries to justify all sorts of behavior—slavery, greed, and sexual immorality among them. But Scripture doesn’t hide human failure to normalize it; it reveals it so we can learn from it.

When pastors cite David or Solomon to defend moral confusion, they’re forgetting something crucial: David wasn’t a pastor . He was a king living under an ancient covenant, not a church leader accountable to the standards of the New Testament. Comparing modern ministry standards to David’s failures isn’t just misguided—it’s absurd.

Truth and the Foundation of Society

If the Church begins reshaping God’s Word to fit modern comfort, truth becomes relative. And when truth becomes relative, society crumbles with it.

The same biblical truths that define marriage also shaped the foundations of justice and law in this country. The Constitution itself was built upon moral principles rooted in Scripture. The farther we drift from those principles, the easier it becomes to justify anything—so long as it feels right.

That’s exactly how sin works.

Final Word

Pastor Rich Tidwell’s attempt to give polygamy a biblical defense isn’t new—it’s a recycled argument with a modern twist. But truth doesn’t evolve. God’s standard hasn’t changed since Eden, and neither has His definition of marriage.

Polygamy isn’t biblical. It’s broken.

And the Church must have the courage to keep saying so.

The Senate Votes To End The Shutdown — But Don’t Expect Washington To Fix Your Life

Tue, 11 Nov 2025 01:20:32 GMT

After weeks of gridlock and finger-pointing, the U.S. Senate has voted to move forward on legislation that would reopen the federal government. But let’s be clear — the government isn’t open yet. And even when it is, the damage has already been done.

Families across America have gone weeks without pay. Flights have been canceled, leaving travelers stranded. The economy has slowed, small businesses have been hit, and everyday Americans are paying the price for Washington’s dysfunction.

Now, after weeks of chaos, the same politicians who caused the mess are congratulating themselves for “solving” it.

Government Has A Purpose — But It’s Not Redemption

God isn’t anti-government. He’s the one who established it. Romans 13 reminds us that governing authorities exist to preserve order and punish evil. Systems matter — especially when they serve God’s purposes.

The problem isn’t that systems exist; it’s that we keep expecting them to do what only God can.

Political solutions can’t be applied to spiritual problems.

You can pass every bill, sign every order, and elect every “right” candidate — but none of that will fix a heart problem. Because the issue isn’t just leadership; it’s lordship.

Politicians Can Manage Policy. Only Jesus Can Change People.

Psalm 118:8 (NASB) says, “It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man.”

That verse hits harder during a shutdown. Every election cycle, we’re told that the next law or leader will finally fix it — and every time, it ends the same way: disappointment. Because politicians can manage policy, but only Jesus can change people.

The left believes more control will bring peace. The right believes better policy will. But peace doesn’t come from control or policy. It comes from repentance — and you can’t legislate that. More government control takes power away from the individual, and even the best policy means nothing without people willing to live it out.

Stop Waiting For Washington To Save You

While the Senate fights to reopen the government by sending this funding package to the House of Representatives, families are struggling to reopen their lives.

The single dad who missed two paychecks doesn’t need another press conference — he needs hope. The mother who can’t afford groceries doesn’t need another talking point — she needs help.

That help won’t ultimately come from the government. It comes from God working through people who take responsibility, serve their communities, and live out their faith.

If you’re waiting for the government to save you, you’ll be waiting forever.
Jesus doesn’t need a Senate vote to start working.

Let’s do something ourselves — partner with a food bank, get plugged into a local church, and start meeting needs right where we are.

While Washington Debates, Heaven Still Rules

So yes — let’s hope this bill passes. Federal workers are waiting on relief. Families are praying for stability. But don’t mistake a reopened government for a healed nat ion.

Because while Washington debates temporary fixes, Heaven still rules with eternal ones.
Jesus never shut down. His Kingdom never paused.

So pray for your leaders. Vote. Engage. But don’t be fooled — no party, no president, and no policy can do what only Jesus can do.

Because the government might reopen, but only Jesus can open your eyes.

A Wake-Up Call: Mamdani’s Win and What It Means for Christians

Sun, 09 Nov 2025 01:54:06 GMT

The election of Zohran Mamdani as New York City’s mayor is more than just a political upset—it is a cultural signal. A self-described “democratic socialist,” Mamdani ran on radical policies: rent freezes, fare-free buses, universal childcare, and city-run grocery stores. His victory shows that socialist ideas are no longer on the fringe—they are winning major offices in America’s largest cities. For Christians who care about truth, freedom, and moral clarity, this is a moment to think carefully about how to engage the culture.

The Facts

Zohran Kwame Mamdani, 34, has served in the New York State Assembly representing Queens. He defeated Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary and went on to win the mayoral race. His campaign relied heavily on grassroots mobilization and emphasized policies that fundamentally expand the role of government in daily life.

Mamdani’s platform includes:

Rent freezes for rent-stabilized apartments
Fare-free public transportation
Universal childcare
City-run grocery stores
Higher taxes on high earners

While he does not explicitly identify as a Marxist in the historical sense, his policies and political philosophy place him squarely in the democratic socialist camp—leftist ideology focused on redistribution, collective provision, and the critique of capitalist structures.

Understanding “Socialism” in This Context

For clarity, “socialist” does not always mean hostile to Christianity. Christians care about justice, the poor, and the marginalized—these align with certain socialist principles (James 1:27 NASB; Proverbs 31:8–9 NASB). But democratic socialism, especially when infused with Marxist ideas, elevates the state above other institutions, promotes collectivism over individuality, and often prioritizes material solutions over spiritual ones.

Christians need to evaluate ideology not just by its surface compassion, but by its long-term effect on freedom, the church, and society.

Why Christians Should Take Notice

1. Worldview Implications

Mamdani’s victory is a reminder that Christians live in a culture that is increasingly skeptical of biblical authority. Policies that seek to expand government control over every aspect of life risk marginalizing the church and faith-based institutions. When the state becomes the primary provider, it can subtly—or overtly—replace God as the ultimate source of hope and justice.

The biblical calling remains clear: “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15 NASB) and holding fast to life and doctrine (1 Timothy 4:16 NASB). Christians must evaluate political movements not by popularity, but by alignment with God’s moral order.

2. Civic and Cultural Engagement

While Christians should never anchor their hope in politicians, civic engagement remains crucial. A few considerations:

Understand the policies : For example, a rent freeze might sound compassionate, but what are the economic trade-offs?
Discern the ideological framework : Democratic socialism often emphasizes class identity and collective solutions over individual responsibility and freedom.
Engage responsibly : Voting, speaking, and acting with discernment is a biblical duty (Romans 13:1–7 NASB). Faithful Christians influence culture not through fear, but through informed, principled participation.

3. Opportunities for Witness

Even in a political landscape that shifts left, Christians can shine by:

Modeling mercy, generosity, and truth in practical ways
Teaching the next generation to evaluate ideas through a biblical lens
Remaining a source of hope and stability amidst uncertainty (Colossians 1:13 NASB)

Red Flags and Cautions

A Marxist-leaning political philosophy can introduce challenges that Christians need to recognize:

The state as ultimate authority : When the government becomes the final arbiter of human flourishing, the church may be sidelined.
Reduction of human beings to economic units : Marxist-influenced ideology often prioritizes class identity over the fact that humans are image-bearers of God (Genesis 1:27 NASB).
Suppression of dissenting voices : While U.S. protections remain strong, movements rooted in radical leftist ideology have historically shown intolerance toward churches that challenge state narratives.

Hope and Strategy for Christians

Christians should view Mamdani’s election as a moment to ground themselves in truth and calling, not panic. The biblical response is twofold:

Anchor in God, not government : Our hope is in the Kingdom, not political programs (Colossians 1:13 NASB; Ephesians 2:8–10 NASB).
Engage faithfully : Civic participation, cultural discernment, and moral witness are all part of the Christian calling. Obedience comes before political outcomes, not after.

Christians are called to evaluate policies, maintain moral clarity, and act with courage. A leftist, socialist mayor may challenge freedoms and reshape public discourse, but Christians remain called to be the salt and light of society (Matthew 5:13–16 NASB).

Final Thoughts

Zohran Mamdani’s election is a wake-up call, not a reason for fear. His platform shows that socialist ideas are gaining traction in America’s largest cities. For Christians, this is a moment to clarify worldview, engage responsibly in culture, and anchor hope in God’s unchanging Kingdom. The tides of politics shift, but faithfulness, truth, and biblical witness endure.

Mid Vermont Christian School Re-enters Athletic League Amid Broader Legal Battle

Sat, 08 Nov 2025 16:20:01 GMT

In September 2025, a federal appeals court granted a preliminary injunction, allowing the school to regain participation rights while the case continues. The court found that the ban possibly was rooted less in neutral enforcement and more in hostility to the school’s religious beliefs. ( AP News )

“They removed us from the VPA, kicked us out of the league, kicked us out of girls basketball, kicked us out of every sport that they run.” — Coach Chris Goodwin, MVCS girls’ basketball. ( WPTZ )

“The government cannot punish religious schools — and the families they serve — by permanently kicking them out of state-sponsored sports simply because the state disagrees with their religious beliefs.” — David Cortman, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom (representing MVCS). ( AP News )

The Athletics Front

For nearly 30 years MVCS had competed in the state’s association. But after the forfeit, the VPA ruled that the school violated gender-identity and discrimination policies, and issued a blanket ban.
In its brief, MVCS argued that the punishment was “ wildly overbroad ,” pointing to the fact that the VPA excluded it from all sports, not just the single contested game. ( https://www.wcax.com )

The appeals court flagged the VPA’s executive director’s statements to the legislature, noting that they displayed hostility, making the ban look less like policy enforcement and more like punishment for faith.

With the injunction in place, the school is back in the league—for now. But the broader lawsuit remains in motion, and the final decision will still determine whether the act of forfeiting was protected by the Free Exercise Clause, or whether the VPA’s policies trumped the school’s convictions.

The Funding & Education Front

Simultaneously, MVCS has expanded its legal strategy. They are challenging Act 73, a Vermont education-reform law enacted July 2025, which places tougher eligibility rules on private (“independent”) schools for receiving state tuition dollars. Under Act 73, independent schools must be in districts without a public school for certain grades and must have had at least 25% of their students publicly funded in the prior year. ( Seven Days )

MVCS argues that the law effectively “weeds-out and excludes religious approved independent schools.”

In its complaint the school states:

“The public-funding floor was created by Vermont legislators so that certain, favored, secular approved independent schools would continue to be able to receive town tuition funding and religious schools could not.” ( VTDigger )

If this front succeeds, it could reshape how states approach public funding tied to private and religious schools, and whether religious conviction remains a defensible consideration in eligibility for taxpayer-funded programs.

Why This Matters

For faith-based schools, the twin fronts of sports participation and public-tuition eligibility represent a watershed moment. The athletic case tests whether a school can be punished simply for acting in accordance with its convictions about sex, gender and competition fairness. The funding case tests whether a state may impose criteria that are neutral in form but exclude religious institutions in effect.
The outcome may echo beyond Vermont—into national freedoms, education policy, and how religiously grounded institutions engage with public associations and funding.

Scripture reminds us: “And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.” (Galatians 6:9 NASB) This case invites believers to act courageously, knowing that the good fight includes the legal and cultural dimensions of faith.

What’s Next

MVCS will continue participating in state athletics under the injunction, but the final ruling will determine whether the VPA’s ban is lawful.

The case over Act 73 will advance in federal court, likely testing how “neutral” eligibility rules can be before they become exclusionary in practice.

Watch for how the legal arguments unpack: neutrality vs. hostility, general applicability vs. tailored exclusion, religious freedom vs. policy enforcement.

QUECHEE, Vt. — A significant turn in a fight for religious liberty: Mid Vermont Christian School (MVCS) has, for now, regained its place in Vermont’s state athletic-association competitions—while simultaneously pressing a high-stakes legal challenge over public funding for faith-based schools.

In 2023, MVCS forfeited a girls’ basketball playoff game rather than play a team that included a transgender athlete. The governing body, Vermont Principals’ Association (VPA), responded by banning the school from all state-sponsored athletics and activities. ( Boston.com )

When Culture Lies: Exposing Three Dangerous Modern Fallacies

Tue, 16 Sep 2025 20:13:53 GMT

��

I seldom write publicly two days in a row—my workload simply does not allow for it. In fact, right now I should be reading a cognitive psychology article for my dissertation, but the wide proliferation of erroneous claims has caught my attention. This list is not exhaustive, but every item on this list I have seen repeated multiple times in differing forms.

(��) “�� ”

No, the Scriptures do not teach this, and I am a little surprised that I have to address this point. In 1 Samuel 11, Nahash the Ammonite besieges Jabesh-gilead, and he tells the people of the city that he will make a treaty with them if each person gouges out their right eye. When word of Ammonite oppression against God’s people reaches Saul, we read a very interesting and important note: “ When Saul heard these words, the Spirit of God rushed upon him and his anger was greatly kindled ” (ותצלח רוח אלהים על שאול בשמעו את הדברים האלה ויחר אפו מאד). The result of YHWH’s Spirit coming upon Saul is that he becomes enraged at the unjust attack of the enemy, and he rallies the forces of Israel to fight and address the problem. Anger can actually be the result of being in sync with God’s Spirit. Said otherwise, anger can emerge because God’s Spirit is stirring you to action on behalf of the kingdom. Some people would do well to be angrier at the evil that permeates this world. Let me get more specific: passive, emotionless, effeminate men who are either calloused or scared to address the growing evil of our day is how we got here in the first place. Yes, heed the biblical warnings on anger (e.g., Jas 1:19–20; Eph 4:26–27; Col 3:8), but if you are never angry and stirred to confront evil with prophetic witness, you may be complacent and useless to the Kingdom. God’s people may suffer because you refuse to speak truth about the ideologies that have poisoned our culture.

(��) “�� ”

Once again, the Scriptures do not teach this. In fact, this belief suggests that somehow the physical world can be separated from spiritual realities, the two never overlap, and must be kept apart. This strange belief sounds more like the first-century heresy of Gnosticism than orthodox Christianity. The Gnostics thought the material world was evil and that the human spirit needed to escape it through secret knowledge. Usually this phrase is parroted by people who do not want to engage in cultural issues because they desire to look impartial and sophisticated spiritually.

What we see in the Scriptures is a God who cares deeply about the world He created, and that He continually acts to suppress the forces of chaos by sustaining creation Himself (Jer 33:20-22). Even when the ungodly seem to reign unfettered, God does not allow them to tear asunder the seams of the created order. The Lord does not merely want a people of His own, He desires the general welfare of all people (Matt 5:45). He desires order and justice to prevail everywhere. This is why Paul writes that God has given human government the sword to maintain justice and order (Rom 13:1–7).

So, while the church should not be the arm of any human institution, it is decidedly false that God only cares about those agendas we deem “spiritual” matters. God cares that socialism bankrupted Venezuela and families have been starving there for years. God cares that babies in the womb are ripped limb from limb (and please note, modern science tells us that these children can feel pain). God cares about modern slavery in China and human trafficking here in the States. God cares about human atrocities committed by those who have no regard for the rule of law. God cares about the opioid crisis that has killed unnamed thousands of people.

Our founding fathers did not draw a firm line between religion and politics either—they saw the cause of liberty as God’s general grace to humanity—a grace worth dying for. Here is Patrick Henry: “An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! … Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.”

(��) “�� ”

After the assassination of Charlie Kirk, we were quickly told that radicals exist on both sides of the political spectrum. This is somewhat obvious, but it is also an exercise in missing the point. The argument is not that only the far-left is violent; rather, the argument is that political violence has become �� on the left, and the data backs up this point. The Rutgers University social lab and the NCRI recently released a study showing that 45% of liberals think killing Elon Musk is at least somewhat justified and 55% said the same thing of Trump. To quote the findings of the study itself: “Political violence appears to have surged, especially among politically left-leaning segments of the population.” The results mean that more than one in two self-identifying liberals believe that political violence is justified. Any movement whose �� believes violence is the answer is not putting out “fringe” crazies who want to kill their political opponents—they have made political violence mainstream.

A different YouGov poll found that liberal Americans, particularly young liberals, are far more likely to consider political violence acceptable. Among “very conservative” individuals, 90% of those polled said that celebrating the death of political opponents is always or usually unacceptable. Only 56% of those who identified as “very liberal” could say the same—a very wide margin of difference. Likewise, 88% of “very conservative” individuals said political violence is never justified, while only 55% of “very liberal” individuals were opposed to political violence. Here, one need not think beyond the recent assassination of the UnitedHealthcare CEO, which spurred on excessive celebration and excitement among younger liberals (on this point, see also the discussion in the Rutgers/NCRI study).

Furthermore, if political violence on the left is not mainstream, why are there thousands of liberals celebrating Kirk’s death on social media? Conservatives have never celebrated the death of liberal politicians in mass numbers like this. Yes, there are always a few idiots who make ridiculous statements, but again, the point here is the mainstream nature of the support for political violence. Thousands upon thousands of people on the left have been celebrating the death of a husband and father on social media, and they are not from the periphery of society—they are teachers, lawyers, professors, doctors, politicians, firefighters, and other seemingly “normal” members of society. Even classical liberals like Bill Maher (who has earned the ire of the radical left for his rejection of transgenderism and other woke policies) have denounced the far left for its violent tendencies. When I was in high school, Bill Maher was about as liberal as you could get, which illustrates just how radical the far left has become.

Here is Maher: “Charlie Kirk was a guy who was always willing to talk — and I talked to him here [on this show]. The right-wingers — say what you want about them — but they talk to you…The left really has much more of a ‘I don’t talk to you, I don’t want to deal with you, you’re deplorable, I can’t break bread with you’ attitude…Charlie Kirk and I certainly don’t agree on much politically — but he sat here, he’s a human being, he’s not a monster!”

The difference is also starkly evident on college campuses, which just happens to be where Charlie Kirk was murdered. Progressive professors and students can say whatever they want without fear of retribution. They do not need to hire security detail. Liberals say things conservatives disagree with every day, yet the conservatives do not attack them, shout down their speakers, tear down their posters, trash their opponents’ tables, and the like. It just doesn’t happen. But progressive students do it all the time and the administrators play nice with them. We also do not see conservatives on campus calling for and celebrating the death of their political opponents. We don’t see them burning down buildings and looting stores. There are no violent Antifa-like protests. All they want is the freedom to speak freely without having a sniper take them out.

But none of this is surprising given the Marxist ideology that undergirds a majority the current progressive movement. In this thought system, the world is made up of “oppressors” and the “oppressed,” and the oppressed must be liberated by any means necessary, even violence. Said otherwise, when it comes to “tearing down systems of oppression,” the means justify the ends. When I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago, a foreign student in my “ethics of war” class told me that terrorism was justified if it attacked those who supported “systems of oppression.” Of course, all the Marxist students nodded in agreement. And so here we are. Behold, the consequences of worldview.

What is Truth?

Fri, 29 Aug 2025 21:37:44 GMT

Truth Isn’t a Trend. It’s a Person.

We live in a world that keeps telling us: “Speak your truth” & "live your truth." It’s on TikTok captions, Instagram reels, and TED Talks. It sounds empowering, doesn’t it? Be bold. Be authentic. Don’t let anyone silence your truth.

But here’s the question I can’t shake: what happens when your truth collides with mine?

If “truth” is something we all get to define individually, then it’s not really truth at all—it’s just preference dressed up as authority. Scripture doesn’t give us that wiggle room. Truth isn’t flexible. Truth isn’t created inside me. Truth is revealed by God .

Let’s start there.

The Bible on Truth

Jesus said it as plainly as possible:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6 NASB)

Truth isn’t abstract. It isn’t relative. Truth is embodied in a Person—Jesus Christ.

The Bible doesn’t once invite us to “find our truth.” Instead, it tells us to submit to the truth that already exists.

“Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.” (John 17:17)
“The sum of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous judgments is everlasting.” (Psalm 119:160)

Truth is not subjective; it’s objective . God defines it, not us.

Why “Your Truth” Sounds Good (But Isn’t)

I get why people are drawn to the phrase. It feels safe. It gives you dignity. It gives you a sense of power in a world that often tries to take your voice away.

But if we zoom out, “your truth” is really the cultural child of postmodernism. In the 20th century, philosophers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida began dismantling the idea of objective truth, arguing that truth was tied to power structures. Fast forward to now, and that trickled down into slogans like “live your truth” or “speak your truth.”

At the sociological level, this shift makes sense. When institutions (governments, churches, schools) break trust, people stop looking outward for truth and start looking inward. We elevate personal experience above any outside authority.

But here’s the problem: if truth is self-defined, it can never correct me. It can never call me to repentance. It can never save me.

The Early Church and Truth

This isn’t a new battle.

The early church fathers fought hard against relativism, even if they didn’t call it that.

Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century) warned the church against false teachers who distorted truth for their own gain. He wrote, “Do not be deceived by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are worthless.”
Irenaeus , in his work Against Heresies (around 180 AD), argued that truth is consistent and rooted in apostolic teaching passed down from Christ and His disciples. He wasn’t interested in “my truth” or “your truth.” He was interested in the truth once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).
Augustine later made the famous point: “If you believe what you like in the gospel, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”

The church fathers understood something we’re in danger of forgetting: if truth is flexible, then the gospel collapses.

The Physiology of “Your Truth”

Here’s where it gets fascinating. Even at the biological level, “your truth” doesn’t hold.

The human brain is a meaning-making machine. Neurologically, when we experience something, we don’t store it as raw fact—we store it as memory shaped by emotion, context, and bias. That’s why two siblings can grow up in the same house and remember the same event totally differently.

In psychology, this is called subjective perception . It means our personal experience is real but it isn’t the same thing as reality.

When culture says “speak your truth,” it’s really just saying: “Tell us your perspective.” But perspective and truth are not the same thing.

Truth must exist outside of me, or else I’m trapped in my own bias forever.

History’s Warning

Every time a society abandons objective truth, chaos follows.

In the Book of Judges, Israel fell into moral and spiritual anarchy because “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). Sound familiar?
In the Roman Empire, truth became increasingly fluid. Paganism allowed for multiple “truths,” but the result wasn’t freedom—it was moral decay. Eventually, the empire collapsed under the weight of its own relativism and corruption.
Even in modern history, ideologies like fascism and communism rose on the claim of being “truth,” but they were truth severed from God. And when truth is ripped away from God, it leads to oppression, not liberation.

Why This Matters for Us

This isn’t just theory. This is personal.

If I get to define “my truth,” then my anger is justified, my lust is excused, my bitterness is validated, my pride is celebrated. Nobody can challenge me—because I’m living my truth.

But the gospel doesn’t give me that option. The gospel says:

“Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Me.” (Luke 9:23)
“Repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1:15)
“Be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” (Romans 12:2)

Truth isn’t about expressing myself—it’s about submitting myself to Christ.

Living Out The Truth

So what do we do with this?

Check yourself against Scripture. When you hear “live your truth,” stop and ask: Does this align with God’s Word, or just my feelings?
Engage culture with grace and clarity. Don’t mock people who say “your truth.” Instead, ask them: What do you mean by truth? Questions open doors that arguments can’t.
Root your life in Jesus. Not just intellectually, but practically. Let His truth shape your identity, your relationships, your ethics, your purpose.

Jesus doesn’t just tell the truth. He is the truth. And if He is the truth, then freedom is found not in discovering “my truth,” but in surrendering to His.

“You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” (John 8:32)

Final Thoughts

The phrase “your truth” might sound harmless, even encouraging. But if we chase it far enough, it becomes a dead end.

There is no “your truth” and “my truth.” There is only the truth —and His name is Jesus.

The invitation of Christianity isn’t “find what works for you.” It’s “repent, believe, and follow Him.” That’s not popular. It’s not trendy. But it’s the only thing that leads to life.

So the next time you hear someone say, “I’m just living my truth,” remember: truth isn’t found inside of you—it’s found in the One who made you.

What Is Fasting and Should I Do It?

Mon, 11 Aug 2025 22:33:11 GMT

Exploring the Biblical Call and Modern Invitation to Fast

Introduction

In today’s culture of instant gratification and comfort, the spiritual discipline of fasting may seem outdated or extreme. But for centuries, believers have practiced fasting as a powerful way to seek God, deepen their relationship with Him, and break through spiritual barriers. Scripture is filled with examples of how the people of God fasted.

So, what is fasting? Is it something every believer should do? And what might we expect when we fast? This article will explore these questions through biblical insight, practical application, and the teachings of Jentezen Franklin’s acclaimed book Fasting.

What is Fasting?

At its core, fasting is voluntarily abstaining from food (or other sources of pleasure/benefit) for a spiritual purpose. Unlike dieting or detoxing, biblical fasting is never merely about physical benefits. It is a sacred act of surrender and dependence on God.

In his book Fasting, Franklin defines it simply:

“Fasting is not about getting something from God. It’s about getting to God.”

- Jentezen Franklin, Fasting

Fasting involves denying our flesh in order to seek God more intimately. When we fast, we align our spirit with His Spirit, quiet distractions, and humble ourselves before Him.

Biblical Foundation of Fasting

Fasting is not a fringe idea. It is deeply rooted in Scripture, practiced by the prophets, kings, disciples, and Jesus Himself. Here’s what the Bible says about fasting:

1. Fasting Was Expected

Jesus says:

“When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

- Matthew 6:16-18 (ESV)

Notice Jesus doesn’t say “if you fast”, He says “when.” Fasting was not an option but assumed in the life of a disciple. Like prayer and giving, it was part of a normal rhythm of devotion.

2. Fasting as a Tool for Breakthrough

Throughout the Old and New Testament, people fasted for divine help in times of crisis. For example:

- Jehoshaphat proclaimed a fast when Judah faced annihilation (2 Chronicles 20:3).

- Ezra fasted for protection before a dangerous journey (Ezra 8:21-23)

- Esther called for a national fast before going to the king to save her people (Esther 4:16).

Fasting was used to seek guidance, deliverance, repentance, and miracles.

“When you deny your body food, you’re feeding your spirit the things of God.”

- Jentezen Franklin, Fasting.

3. Jesus Fasted

Perhaps the most powerful endorsement of fasting is found in the life of Jesus. Before beginning His public ministry, He fasted for 40 days in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11). This time of fasting prepared Him for the challenges and spiritual battles ahead.

If Jesus needed to fast, how much more do we?

Why Should I Fast?

Fasting is not about earning God’s favor. It’s not a hunger strike to manipulate Him. Instead, it’s about preparing our hearts for what God wants to do in and through us.

Here are a few biblical reasons to fast:

1. To Deepen Your Relationship with God

Fasting removes distractions and makes space for intimacy with the Father; it is a time to press into prayer, worship, and scripture.

“Fasting separates you from what contaminated you and draws you closer to God.”

- Jentezen Franklin, Fasting.

In Joel 2:12, God calls His people to return to Him with fasting:

“Even now,” declares the Lord, “return to me with all your heart, with fasting and weeping and mourning.”

- Joel 2:12 (NIV)

2. To Hear God’s Voice More Clearly

Fasting tunes your spiritual ears. In Acts 13:2, we read:

“While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

- Acts 13:2 (ESV)

When we fast, we silence other voices- social media, food cravings, the rut of daily life—and make room for the voice of God.

3. To Break Strongholds

Fasting is a powerful weapon against the strongholds of sin, addiction, and spiritual oppression. Jesus told His disciples that some demonic powers can only be cast out by prayer and fasting (Mark 9:29, NKJV)

“Fasting is a secret source of power that is overlooked by many Christians.”

- Jentezen Franklin, Fasting.

4. To Seek God’s Direction

In times of decision, fasting can bring clarity. In Judges 20:26, the Israelites fasted before battle to seek God’s will. When Paul and Barnabas were appointed for ministry, the leaders fasted and prayed (Acts 14:23).

5. To Express Repentance and Humility

Fasting can be a posture of humility and sorrow over sin.

“Yet when they were ill, I put on sackcloth and humbled myself with fasting…”

- Psalm 35:13 (NIV)

Franklin’s “Threefold Cord”

Jentezen Franklin emphasizes the power of combining fasting, prayer, and giving. He calls it the “threefold cord” based on Ecclesiastes 4:12

“And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him—a threefold cord is not quickly broken.”

- Ecclesiastes 4:12 (ESV)

Franklin writes:

“When you fast, you get heaven’s attention. When you pray, you align your heart. When you give, you activate blessing. Together, they become a force.”

- Jentezen Franklin, Fasting

Types of Fasts

Fasting doesn’t always look the same. Here are several types found in Scripture:

1. The Absolute Fast

No food or water (Esther 4:16, Acts 9:9). Usually done for a short period and with great caution.

2. The Normal Fast

No food, only water (Luke 4:2). This is what Jesus did during His 40-day fast.

3. The Partial Fast (Daniel Fast)

This involves removing specific types of food (Daniel 10:3). Many believers today do this by eating only fruits, vegetables, and water for a set time.

“The Daniel Fast is not just about eating differently; it’s about praying differently.”

- Jentezen Franklin, Fasting

4. Soul Fast

Abstaining from things like social media, entertainment, or other distractions to focus on God.

How to Begin Fasting

If you’re new to fasting, start small. Here’s a basic plan:

1. Set Your Objective: Are you fasting for breakthrough, direction, or deeper intimacy with God?

2. Decide the Type of Fast: Choose one that fits your current physical and spiritual capacity.

3. Prepare Your Heart: Repent, forgive, and set time aside for prayer and reading the Word. This is the foundation of your fast.

4. Make a Commitment: Write down your fast dates and goals. Tell a trusted friend for accountability. The accountability helps you stay the course in your fast.

5. Expect Spiritual Warfare: You will face temptation, discouragement, or fatigue. Rest in the power of the Holy Spirit for strength.

6. Break the Fast Gently: Especially after a food fast—ease your body back slowly.

Common Obstacles to Fasting

“I don’t have time.”

Fasting doesn’t require more time- it requires a shift of how you use your time. Replace meals or screen time with prayer and Scripture.

“I’m afraid I’ll fail.”

Failure is not the end. If you mess up, don’t give up. Grace is a part of the process.

“God honors desire even more than performance.”

- Jentezen Franklin, Fasting

“It seems too intense.”

Start with a partial fast or a one-day fast. God sees the heart, not just the level of sacrifice.

The Rewards of Fasting

Fasting is not about twisting God’s arm; it’s about aligning with His heart. And there are blessings to follow.

“Your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.”

- Matthew 6:18 (NIV)

Jentezen Franklin often speaks of people in his church who experienced:

- Healing from chronic illness

- Reconciliation in broken families

- Freedom from addiction

- Financial breakthrough

- Spiritual renewal and purpose

“Every time you fast, heaven takes notice.”

- Jentezen Franklin, Fasting

Should You Fast?

The answer is: Yes-you want more of God.

Fasting is not reserved for spiritual giants or church leaders. It’s a gift for every believer who wants to draw near to God and experience His power in a deeper way.

You should fast if:

- You feel spiritually dry.

- You need breakthrough in an area.

- You’re hungry for more of God.

- You’re seeking direction.

- You’re desperate to see God move.

Final Thoughts

Fasting is more than just skipping meals. It’s an invitation to deeper intimacy, increased sensitivity to the Spirit, and powerful breakthrough. Through fasting, you make room for God’s presence and power to manifest in your life.

As Jentezen Franklin writes:

“Fasting is a secret source of power. It unlocks doors and releases destinies.”

- Fasting

So, should you fast?

Yes, not out of obligation, but out of hunger for the ONE who satisfies.

Resources

Fasting by Jentezen Franklin

The Bible, especially Matthew 6, Isaiah 58, Joel 2, Daniel 1 & 10, and Acts

What do Christians Believe about Illegal Immigration?

Sat, 12 Jul 2025 22:22:11 GMT

Start With the Word, Not Your Feelings

Let’s be honest—our emotions run high with topics like this. Whether it’s compassion for struggling families, anger about injustice, frustration with the system, or fear about what might happen to our country… we all feel something. And feelings aren’t bad. But they can’t lead.

As Christians, we don’t follow our feelings. We follow God’s Word.

Let the Bible Set the Tone

In 1 Peter 2:13–17, Peter lays out something that should stop every one of us in our tracks:

“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right... Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.”

This command wasn’t written in a free, democratic nation with fair courts and a constitution. It was written to Christians scattered under Roman rule. And not just any Roman rule—under the likely reign of Nero, one of the most violent, erratic, and ungodly emperors in human history. The same Nero who would later burn Christians alive and blame them for the fire in Rome.

Yet Peter doesn’t say, “Resist the emperor.”
He doesn’t say, “Obey only when it makes sense.”
He says, submit—for the Lord’s sake.

That’s a hard word. But it’s Bible.

Submission Is About Trusting God, Not Trusting Government

This is where we miss it. Submission isn’t about trusting the government to get it right. It’s about trusting God even when they get it wrong. That doesn’t mean we agree with unjust systems or blindly accept everything leaders say. But it does mean that when we can’t respect the person, we still honor the position—because God told us to.

That’s what Peter was trying to teach. That’s what Jesus modeled. Remember when Jesus stood before Pilate and said:

“You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above.” (John 19:11)

He didn’t fight. He didn’t beg. He didn’t rage. He submitted—even unto death. Why? Because His trust wasn’t in Rome. It was in His Father.

Our Theology Can’t Be Situational

One of the greatest dangers in the Church today is situational theology—when we apply Scripture selectively based on how we feel, who’s in office, or what fits our cause. We preach submission when we like the law, and we preach justice when we don’t. We throw out Romans 13 until it contradicts our politics. That’s not obedience. That’s manipulation.

If we’re going to call ourselves Bible-believing Christians, we have to be consistent. That means we don’t just quote the Word—we live it, even when it costs us. Even when it hurts.

So before we say, “It’s not fair,” or “This system is broken,” or “We just need to show grace,” let’s ask:
What does the Word actually say?

And what it says is clear: Submit to the authority God has allowed—for His sake.

Real Compassion Begins With Real Conviction

I want to love people well. I want to advocate for the hurting. But if I do that without standing on Scripture, then I’m building my compassion on sand. That’s not love—that’s sentiment.

And sentiment can’t hold up under the weight of truth.

The people we’re trying to help don’t just need our emotions. They need our conviction. They need to know that our compassion doesn’t come from social pressure or public outrage—but from a deep, immovable trust in God’s Word.

So that’s where we start.
Not with what feels right.
Not with what’s popular.
Not with what makes sense to us.

We start with the Word.

Rebellion Isn’t Righteousness

We need to say this clearly: breaking the law isn’t automatically a righteous act just because it’s wrapped in compassion or good intentions. We’re not living in an age where people are wrestling with obedience vs. sin—we’re living in a time where rebellion is being rebranded as virtue. But calling it virtue doesn’t make it holy.

Somewhere along the way, we’ve confused standing up for people with tearing down authority. But Scripture never gives us permission to rebel just because we feel like we’re right.

Obedience Doesn’t Always Feel Good

Let’s go back to the context of 1 Peter 2. Peter’s writing to Christians under Roman oppression. Their government was corrupt. Their religious freedoms were limited. Their culture was hostile.

And Peter’s command? Submit.

Not because Caesar was righteous. But because God is.

Submission to authority—especially authority we don’t like—isn’t weakness. It’s worship. It’s us saying to God, “I trust that You’re sovereign, even over leaders who don’t honor You.”

And yes, there are moments when Christians are called to disobey men in order to obey God (Acts 5:29). But that disobedience is never flippant. It’s not self-serving. It’s not an emotional reaction. It’s done with reverence, humility, and a willingness to suffer the consequences.

Rebellion vs. Obedience

Let’s draw a line here—because there’s a difference between rebellion and obedience.

Rebellion says, “I don’t recognize your authority and I won’t answer to you.”
Obedience says, “I answer to a higher authority, and I’m prepared to face the consequences of my obedience to Him.”

One is rooted in pride. The other is rooted in submission to God.

Let’s not pretend those are the same thing.

Daniel refused to stop praying—even though it meant being thrown into the lions’ den. But he didn’t hide. He didn’t protest. He didn’t rally others to fight the king. He obeyed God and submitted to the penalty with peace and trust.

The Hebrew boys refused to bow to the idol—and they walked willingly into the fire.

Peter and John kept preaching Jesus—and they went straight to jail with joy on their faces.

God’s people have a long history of disobeying human law for the sake of a higher law—but they never did it with arrogance, entitlement, or bitterness. They didn’t demand their rights. They laid them down.

They were willing to suffer because they knew who their true King was.

Illegal Doesn’t Equal Unjust

Here’s where we have to be careful. Just because a person breaks a law out of desperation doesn’t mean the law itself is unjust. Compassion for someone’s situation doesn’t give us permission to ignore the system God has put in place.

If we start deciding which laws to honor based on whether or not we agree with them, then we’re not submitting to authority—we’re replacing it with ourselves.

That’s the heart of rebellion.

And before you say, “Yeah, but Jesus broke laws too,” let me stop you.

Jesus didn’t break the law—He fulfilled it. He called out corruption. He challenged religious hypocrisy. But He never disrespected civil authority. When asked if taxes should be paid to Caesar, He said, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (Mark 12:17)

He never led a revolt. He never ran from judgment. He stood before Pilate silently and endured the cross.

Feelings Don't Justify Disobedience

It might feel right to resist. It might feel wrong to send someone back. It might feel like we’re failing to love people if we don’t fight the system on their behalf.

But feelings don’t justify disobedience.

God’s Word does. And His Word calls us to submit—to laws, to leaders, and most of all, to Him.

If we’re going to help people who are walking through immigration issues, we need to do it with clarity. We don’t help them by pretending rebellion is righteousness. We help them by walking with them through the hard road of accountability, submission, and faith.

That’s the gospel way.

You Can’t Justify Both

Here’s the bottom line—if you’re going to break the law, and still claim to follow Jesus, you better be ready to submit to the consequences. You cannot say, “I had to disobey” and then also say, “I don’t have to pay for it.”

That’s not how this works.

That’s not obedience. That’s self-justification.

It’s a dangerous thing to try and use the name of Jesus to excuse sin, rebellion, or lawlessness. If we’re going to walk in the tension between mercy and justice, we have to be honest with ourselves and with God. And that means asking hard questions.

The Two Questions Every Believer Must Answer

If someone is involved in illegal immigration—whether they’re the one crossing the border or the one advocating for it—there are two questions that must be answered before the Lord:

Is this law truly unjust or unbiblical enough that breaking it is necessary for me to honor God?
Am I willing to submit to the consequences of breaking that law?

If the answer is yes to the first, then the second answer must also be yes. That’s what biblical submission looks like in tension. If you say yes to breaking the law, but no to accepting the penalty, then you’re not walking in obedience—you’re walking in pride.

Obedience Without Accountability Is Incomplete

Let me give you an example:
If someone comes to Christ in prison, we rejoice. We say, “Thank You, Lord! You’ve redeemed what the enemy meant for evil.” But we don’t expect that person to be released the next day just because they’re saved. Redemption doesn’t mean release. It means peace in the process.

Salvation restores the soul. But justice still plays out in time.

That’s the framework we see in Scripture over and over again. Think about the thief on the cross. Jesus didn’t take him down from the cross. He took him home from the cross. The man submitted to his punishment while also surrendering to his Savior.

That’s what faith and repentance look like in the real world.

Onesimus Didn't Get a Free Pass

Let’s go back to Philemon. Onesimus had run away. That was illegal. He meets Paul, gets saved, becomes useful to the ministry—and Paul doesn’t say, “Great, now let’s forget the past.” No. He sends Onesimus back to Philemon.

Paul appeals for grace, yes. He asks Philemon to receive him not as a slave, but as a brother. But Paul still honors the system in place. He doesn’t try to get Onesimus out of it—he steps into it with him.

Paul says, “If he owes you anything, charge it to me.”

He didn’t try to erase the debt. He offered to pay it.

That’s the posture of gospel advocacy. Not, “He’s saved, so ignore the law.” But, “He’s saved, so I’m stepping in with him. I’ll walk with him. I’ll bear the cost.”

That’s the kind of Christian we’re called to be.

Someone Has to Pay

We want the person to be forgiven. We want them to be protected. We want them to have a chance. But if that means ignoring the rule of law and acting like there are no consequences, then we’re not offering the gospel—we’re offering cheap grace.

And grace is never cheap.

Grace costs someone everything. Either the person pays the price, or someone else steps in and absorbs it. But someone has to pay.

So if you’re going to advocate for someone in an illegal immigration situation, go all the way. Don’t just post about injustice. Don’t just write a letter. Be willing to do what Paul did—step in, stand beside them, and say, “If there’s a cost to be paid, I’ll help pay it.”

But don’t pretend obedience and evasion can live together. You can’t justify both. That’s not how Jesus lived. That’s not how His followers are called to live either.

The Gospel in the Book of Philemon

If you want to see how grace and justice work together without canceling each other out, you need to read Philemonslowly. It’s a short letter. You can read it in five minutes. But it holds more gospel theology than most sermons can do in an hour.

This letter isn’t a theological treatise—it’s personal. It’s written from one man of God to another, about a real situation involving real people. And that’s why it’s so relevant to this conversation.

Let me break it down.

Onesimus Was a Fugitive

Onesimus was a slave who had run away from his master, Philemon. Now, before we try to map modern American slavery onto Roman slavery, understand this: Roman slavery wasn’t based on race, but it was still a brutal and dehumanizing system. And in that system, a runaway slave could face serious punishment—beatings, imprisonment, even death.

Onesimus broke the law. There’s no debate about that.

But somewhere along the line, by what can only be the providence of God, Onesimus ends up with Paul. And not just with Paul—but in Christ.

He gets saved.

He becomes a believer. He becomes a brother. He serves Paul, grows under his mentorship, and proves himself to be useful—his name, Onesimus, literally means “useful.” And now Paul has a decision to make.

He could hide him. He could keep him. He could justify it.

But he doesn’t.

Paul Sends Him Back

This is the part that wrecks me.

Paul sends Onesimus back to Philemon.

Not because he’s siding with the Roman system. Not because he’s affirming slavery. But because the gospel never dodges accountability—it redeems it.

Paul understands something we often forget: real reconciliation doesn’t happen when we run from the mess—it happens when we face it, in Christ.

So Paul writes Philemon and pleads:

“Receive him back—not as a slave, but as a beloved brother.”
(Philemon 1:16)

He’s saying, “Yes, he wronged you. Yes, the law is on your side. But now you both belong to Jesus. So deal with this as brothers in the Lord.”

And then Paul puts action behind his words in saying:

“If he has wronged you at all or owes you anything, charge that to my account.”
(Philemon 1:18)

That’s the gospel in a sentence.

Paul didn’t pretend nothing happened. He didn’t try to erase Onesimus’ debt with words. He offered to pay it himself. That’s what grace looks like when it walks into the courtroom and stands beside the guilty.

That’s what Jesus did for you and me.

The Gospel Doesn’t Ignore Consequences. It Enters Into Them.

Too many Christians today want to fight for people by skipping over the hard part. We want to post the hashtag. We want to write the letter. But we don’t want to step into the story and say, “If there’s a cost, I’ll pay it. If there’s shame, I’ll carry it. If there’s a penalty, I’ll walk with them through it.”

That’s what Paul did. And that’s what Jesus did.

Jesus didn’t just advocate for you from heaven. He came down. He took on flesh. He stood in your place. And when the debt of your sin came due, He didn’t cancel the payment—He paid it in full with His own blood.

This is why we can’t twist the gospel to mean “no consequences.” Because someone always pays.

The gospel doesn’t offer escape from justice. It offers restoration in the midst of it.

How This Applies to Illegal Immigration

Let’s bring it full circle.

If someone has crossed a border illegally, and now they’ve come to faith in Christ, praise God. But the next step isn’t to hide them from the consequences. The next step is discipleship—walking with them through the process of accountability, trusting God with the outcome, and helping them live with integrity as a new creation in Christ.

And if God’s calling you to help—like He did with Paul—then help for real.

Write the letter.
Offer to pay the fine.
Plead for mercy, not exemption.
And be ready to walk with that person through the process—not just around it.

You don’t love someone well by pretending sin doesn’t cost anything. You love them by showing them that Jesus paid the highest price—and because of that, they can face whatever comes next with courage and peace.

Justice and Mercy Are Not Enemies

If there’s anything we’ve lost in the modern Church, it’s the ability to hold two truths in tension.

We’re either justice people or mercy people. We either stand for truth or we stand with the hurting. But very few of us know how to do both. We quote Micah 6:8 like a slogan:

“He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God?”

But we rarely live it in balance.

Some of us are so focused on justice that we forget mercy even exists. We want laws followed, rules enforced, and order kept. But we forget that people are more than their paperwork. We forget that God didn’t just hand out commandments—He put on flesh and dwelled among the broken.

Others of us are so focused on mercy that we ignore truth altogether. We say, “But they’re hurting,” or “But their intentions were good,” as if that’s all that matters. We want to be kind, but at the expense of what’s right. We forget that God is not just a Father—He’s also a Judge.

But here’s the truth: God never asked us to choose between justice and mercy. He told us to walk in both.

Look at the Cross

If you want to see how justice and mercy work together, just look at the cross.

The cross wasn’t just a symbol of love. It was a symbol of justice being carried out. Jesus didn’t die to erase justice—He died to fulfill it. Your sins weren’t waved off. They were paid for. The punishment didn’t disappear—it was absorbed by the Son of God.

So when we say, “God is merciful,” we mean He’s merciful because He’s just. And when we say, “God is just,” we mean He’s just because He’s merciful. Those two aren’t opposites. They’re married at Calvary.

Now take that truth, and walk it into the immigration conversation.

Don't Let Compassion Become Compromise

Compassion is a beautiful thing. Jesus was full of it. He wept at tombs. He embraced the outcast. He touched the leper. He fed the hungry. He saw people that society overlooked.

But He never compromised truth to make them feel better.

He told the rich young ruler to sell everything.
He told the woman caught in adultery, “Go and sin no more.”
He told Peter, “Get behind me, Satan.”
He told entire cities that judgment was coming if they didn’t repent.

Jesus was the most compassionate man to ever walk the earth—and He never lied to make people feel safe in their sin.

So if we think the gospel means helping people avoid the consequences of sin or lawbreaking, we’re not showing mercy—we’re enabling destruction.

Mercy without truth is not love. It’s cowardice.

And truth without mercy isn’t holiness—it’s cruelty.

A Word for Both Sides

If you're someone who leans heavy on justice, hear this: People matter. Their pain matters. Their stories matter. We are called to care. We are called to listen. We are called to see them, not just their offenses.

But if you're someone who leans heavy on mercy, hear this: Truth matters. Order matters. Laws matter. And if we encourage people to ignore the systems God has put in place, then we’re not loving them. We’re helping them walk into judgment.

We need to be people who hold both tightly.

Who say “yes” to upholding the law
While saying “yes” to walking with the broken
Who call people to accountability
While stepping into their mess with grace

This is how Jesus did it.
This is how Paul did it.
And this is how we are called to do it.

What Should We Do?

At this point, some people might still be asking, “Okay, I hear all that—but what am I supposed to do?” Maybe you know someone facing deportation. Maybe you’re mentoring a student who came here illegally with their parents. Maybe someone in your church is quietly navigating the immigration process in fear.

Here’s the good news: You don’t have to guess how to respond.

The Word of God doesn’t just tell us what to believe. It shows us how to live.

Here are a few things I believe we must do as Christians navigating the issue of illegal immigration.

1. Tell the Truth

Start with truth. Always.

Tell the truth about the law. Don’t act like it doesn’t exist. Don’t twist it. Don’t ignore it because it feels inconvenient. If someone entered illegally, don’t sugarcoat it. And if someone broke the law and is now afraid of the consequences, don’t promise them protection you can’t give.

Truth is the foundation of trust. If we lose that, we lose everything.

2. Walk in Compassion

Truth doesn't mean coldness. If someone is in the wrong, and they know it, the worst thing we can do is throw shame on top of fear. That’s not justice. That’s condemnation.

Look them in the eye and say, “I know this is hard. But you don’t have to face it alone.” That’s what Jesus does for us, and that’s what we should do for others.

We don’t abandon people because they made a wrong choice. We disciple them through the consequences.

3. Advocate with Integrity

If God’s placed someone on your heart to advocate for—then advocate. But do it the right way.

Write to your representative.
Learn the process.
Help them get legal assistance.
Go with them to court.
Speak up for mercy, but don’t pretend justice isn’t part of the process.

And don’t just advocate with your voice—advocate with your life. Say what Paul said: “If he owes anything, charge it to me.” That’s gospel-shaped love.

4. Be Willing to Carry the Cost

If you’re going to stand in the gap for someone, understand something—it might cost you.

It might cost you time.
It might cost you money.
It might cost you relationships.
It might even cost your reputation in some circles.

But that’s what gospel love does. It steps in. It pays the price. It doesn’t just say, “I’m praying for you.” It says, “I’m walking through this with you.”

Remember what Jesus said?

“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” (John 15:13)

That’s the standard.

5. Call People to Submission, Not Just Survival

If someone comes to Christ after breaking the law, don’t just celebrate their salvation. Call them into the next step of obedience—submission.

Submission doesn’t mean giving up. It means trusting God through the process. That could mean turning yourself in. That could mean cooperating with immigration authorities. That could mean preparing to go back and rebuild your life from a different country—as a disciple of Jesus.

That’s not weakness. That’s courage. That’s faith.

6. Preach the Full Gospel

Don’t preach a gospel that promises freedom without repentance.

Don’t preach a gospel that says, “Jesus paid it all, so you never have to face consequences.”

Preach the gospel that says: “Jesus paid it all—so now you can face this with hope, with peace, and with the assurance that whatever happens, your eternity is secure.”

Remind them: Someone did pay the ultimate price. Jesus stood in our place. He took the wrath. He bore the shame. And now He calls us to walk the narrow road—not the easy road. The right one.

Final Word

Illegal immigration is not just a political debate. It’s a discipleship issue. It’s a test of whether we really believe the Word of God is true, even when it’s hard. It’s a test of whether we’ll hold justice and mercy in tension, the same way God does. And it’s a test of whether we’re willing to pay the cost for someone else, just like Jesus did for us.

So how do Christians respond to illegal immigration?

With truth.
With grace.
With humility.
With submission.
With the cross as our model.

We don’t ignore the law. We don’t pretend consequences don’t matter. And we don’t run from messy stories. We step in, we speak up, and when needed, we say, “If there’s a cost, charge it to me.”

That’s what Jesus did.
That’s what Paul did.
That’s what we’re called to do.

Truth Line

Words, Truth, and Responsibility: A Response to Political Rhetoric and Violence

When truth is replaced by outrage, the outcome is rarely harmless.

Louisiana Suspends Congressional Primaries Following Supreme Court Ruling

State halts U.S. House elections after high court blocks use of contested district map

Zeldin Challenges Democrats on Environmental Policy During Senate Hearing

Budget hearing exchange with Whitehouse underscores broader clashes over EPA priorities

New York City Faces Budget Crisis Under Mayor Mamdani

Mayor cites inherited deficit as state rejects key funding request

FCC Challenges Disney’s Broadcast Licenses

Early Review Raises Questions Over Regulation, Media Content, and Compliance

Assassination Attempt on President Trump

Trump Addresses Nation After Attempt on His Life at Washington Hotel

Mass Shooting in Bloomington, Indiana Leaves Nine Injured During Little 500 Weekend

Event Background: Little 500 Weekend

Incident Details

Injuries and Emergency Response

University Alerts and Safety Measures

Ongoing Investigation

Broader Context

Intensified Protests in Iran Demand End to Ayatollah Rule

What’s Happening

Who Is Leading the Protests

Where Protests Are Occurring

Why Citizens Are Protesting

Government Response

U.S. Response ﻿

Conclusion

SEC Proposes Reforms to Boost IPO Activity Under Chair Paul Atkins

Introduction of Changes

Reasons for Declining Public Companies

Regulatory Reforms

Public Input

Historical Context

Targeting Different Company Sizes

Core Mission of the SEC

Collaboration with the CFTC

Balancing Innovation and Protection

Conclusion

Tennessee Lawmakers Pass Bill Allowing Deadly Force for Property Protection

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — April 23, 2026

What the Bill Does

Legislative Support

Opposition Concerns

Senate Action and Broader Context

What Happens Next

Key Takeaways

War and the Justice of God: A Biblical Examination of When Force Is Justified

The Question Christians Can’t Avoid

The Old Testament Pattern of Judgment

The Moral Conditions That Precede Judgment

The Patience of God Before Judgment

Mercy Within Judgment

A Shift in Perspective, Not in Truth

The True Nature of the Conflict

The God-Ordained Role of Authority

A Biblical Framework for Evaluating War

The Danger of Misjudging Justice

The Question That Remains

Progressive Overload and Faith Development

Does Christianity Cost Anything?

What Sacrifice Actually Is

Living Sacrifices, Not Dead Religion

We’ve Traded Surrender for Strategy

The First Thing That Usually Has to Die: Reputation

Time, Money, and Submission

The Misconception: “It’s Not Necessary”

So — Does It Cost Anything?

Cosmic Warfare and the Church: Spiritual Gifts as Weapons

Violence Falls, But Political Attacks Surge

A Decline in Mass Killings Masks a Surge in Politically Motivated Violence

The Decline in Overall Violence

A New Trend: Politically Motivated Violence on the Rise

Why Is Political Violence Rising While Overall Violence Falls?

The Role of Left-Wing Political Violence

Breaking the Historical Pattern

The Numbers Are Clear

The Dangers of Rhetoric

A Call for Awareness

Idols, Power, and Access: A Few More Notes on Ephesians

U.S. Response

Final Word

��