Tag Archive for: Biblical Worldview

‘What Makes a Man?’ Christian Coalition Publishes Statement on Godly Masculinity

While Pride Month is busy promoting homosexuality and gender confusion, a coalition of Christian men is proclaiming a doctrine of biblical masculinity. On Monday, the men’s chastity and marriage ministry Promise Keepers led a number of other Christian organizations and individuals in issuing “A Proclamation on Godly Masculinity,” which “seeks to establish where leaders and pastors nationwide fall in their position on masculinity, femininity, gender roles and most specifically, Godly masculinity and the role of men in our culture.” The “Proclamation” clarifies God’s design for masculinity, what masculinity is (and is not), and what men are called to do.

Speaking to Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Monday night’s “Washington Watch,” former Major League Baseball player-turned-entrepreneur David Benham — who, along with his brother Jason, was one of the co-authors of the “Proclamation” — explained that Satan “does not want men to be godly men, biblical men, to embrace masculinity as God designed it.”

“The reason why masculinity is controversial in 2024 is because the world system has set itself against the very design and the image of God for manhood,” he explained. “And so what the world system has done is it elevates perversion and greed and promiscuity and dominance and chauvinism. And then it flips it around and calls its own invention toxic.” Benham further clarified:

“When the church forsakes its conscience and we don’t train up men to be biblical men, to lay their lives down, and then men turn around and use the same power and strength God has given us to stand against injustice — men are using it now to perpetrate evil, to be greedy, to be chauvinist, to dominate, and to do all kinds of evil around this world. And so in the absence of good men, evil men have risen. And that’s where we find this issue with toxic masculinity and all these things that we desperately need to set straight with good male leadership.”

The “Proclamation on Godly Masculinity” explains that “maleness (masculinity) and femaleness (femininity) are essential to building God’s world according to His purposes. The combination of masculinity as expressed by men and femininity as expressed by women reflect the image of the Creator and thus are wholly perfect.” Due to sin, “a man departs from the Godly masculinity in which he was created,” and that “can lead to a multitude of destructive outcomes such as exploitation of others, the pursuit of feminine traits, passivity in the face of injustice and/or oppression of those who are weaker.” But since Christ is God become man, “He is the best embodiment of both humanity and masculinity. By believing in Jesus as God who died and came back to life, and repenting of sin, a person is restored in their relationship to God.”

Thanks to the redemption purchased by Christ’s blood, the statement explains, men can fulfill their masculine purpose “as perfectly demonstrated in the man, Jesus Christ.” The redemption and restoration offered in Christ afford men the opportunity for sanctification, which is deepened as they “deny their sinful desires, pray, study Scripture, and actively look to serve others. They begin to live in the identity their Creator intended. Their desires align with God’s will, causing the peace, joy, unity, and power that Jesus promised to become reality.”

Benham explained that it is necessary to define the terms of Godly masculinity, saying, “We have to define what a true biblical man is. What is manhood? What is masculinity?” The proclamation he co-authored explains that masculinity is “the eternal foundational value present in men who live out the identity, order, and purpose that gives meaning to their lives as God intended.” It necessitates practicing servant leadership, exercising authority in the home and submitting to the authority of God, and living a life of self-discipline.

Godly men are called, the statement reads, to be peacemakers, to act with courage, to promote justice, to display controlled strength, to practice interdependence, and to exercise biblical conviction. “Being a peacemaker requires healthy, humble, and gracious confrontation,” the proclamation explains. “A man is not called to be a peacekeeper, simply trying to keep the peace at all costs. Sometimes, being a peacemaker requires personal risk — confronting the wicked for the sake of the innocent.”

As David pointed out, “In today’s culture, leadership is often associated with dominance. … It’s your way or the highway. That’s not the type of leadership we’re looking at. The type of leadership that we define in Scripture is the leadership of Jesus Christ, the servant leader who sacrificed himself for us, who laid his life down. And that’s truly the essence of biblical masculinity,” he emphasized, “is that a man is tasked, number one, to provide and to protect, to lay his life down, to be the first line of defense. … Thank God for all those moms who are out there doing wonderful things, especially in the absence of good men. But men are tasked with that responsibility. And so now, during Pride Month, especially, now is a time to clearly define what a man is.”

As the declaration explains, “All people experience fear, but courage is standing boldly for Truth anyway.” “Because of the unique call to men to defend and protect, masculinity requires an extra measure of courage. It must come from the core of a man’s character.” It continues, “As the leader in the war against Satan, man has a unique role in confronting injustice, the primary indicator of God’s enemy’s presence and effect.” To do this, men must learn to control their strength, using it “to protect the innocent, defend the oppressed, and stand for justice.”

Interdependence, the proclamation clarifies, is a sort of teamwork among men. “Because of their call to lead, each man must understand his strengths and limitations, recognizing his need to work in relationships and teamwork with others.” The document continues, “Wisdom understands the call to work with others as a team to rescue as many people as possible from sin and bring them to the gift of forgiveness in Christ.”

Finally, the proclamation states, biblical conviction “is a belief that is not negotiable. A man of God refuses to relent on his biblical convictions, no matter what it costs him.” Echoing St. Paul in Philippians 3:8-10, the document concludes, “A man of God considers money, fame, security, and admiration worthless compared to the immeasurable value of standing for Truth, no matter the cost.”

Men can visit WhatMakesAMan.org to sign the proclamation and “demonstrate your commitment to godly masculinity.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Acceptance of Men in Women’s Sports Declining: ‘A Hopeful Sign’

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘If You Can Keep It’: America’s Foundation Is Crumbling but Not Lost

Pride Month is once again upon us — that special time of the year when governments, corporations, and seemingly every major institution band together to noxiously celebrate the chief of all sins, as well as a whole legion of sexual perversions, degeneracies, and aberrations.

As absolutely everything about it makes clear, Pride Month is not a matter of fostering tolerance nor even a misguided notion of affection for a marginalized minority (the very claim that the LGBT crowd is “marginalized” puts to shame even the most egregious cases of George Orwell’s “doublespeak”) but rather of insufferably demanding submission to grave depravity and psychologically browbeating the masses into accepting as “normal” that which is diabolically deviant. From leather bondage gear and public nudity at Pride parades to the mutilation of children’s genitals in surgical theaters, the accoutrements of Pride Month would have appalled generations past.

The top-down adoration of the LGBT agenda (for, of course, Pride Month is not a grassroots achievement but an innovation of the elite) is symptomatic of the decadence of America. Nigh-unfettered immigration pouring millions of third-world denizens across the border, rampantly rising lawlessness seeping out of urban hellscapes, the debilitating decline of both marriage and birth rates plaguing society, the stentorian campaign to slaughter untold thousands of unborn children, and the more recent corruption and subversion of the justice system to target lawful political figures like former President Donald Trump are also indicative of the impending demise of the Land of the Free.

While many on the political, social, and cultural Left like to hypothesize that America’s Constitution is out of date, designed uniquely for a people who lived and labored over 200 years ago and thus in need of revisions and updates according to modern standards, that is by no means the case. Certainly, America’s Founding Fathers likely never imagined the nightmare scenario of “doctors” chopping off the healthy breasts of teenage girls and the healthy penises of adolescent boys, blithely calling the whole barbaric affair “lifesaving,” but they were far from ignorant of degeneracy. Those on the Left pretend that the Founders never imagined or possibly foresaw the advent of such things as pornography, abortion, or the LGBT agenda.

Certainly, it is difficult to imagine the Founding Fathers sitting around their desks in Philadelphia, New York City, or Annapolis, Maryland and discussing whether or not there would be a time when “doctors” would cut off adolescent children’s sex organs, but the provisions they placed in the Constitution were intended to prevent such nightmares from ever becoming reality — by addressing the principles which could either prevent or permit such nightmares. But those principles rested upon and rest upon still certain conditions. When asked in 1787 what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had agreed upon for the fledgling American nation, Benjamin Franklin famously answered, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

We have not kept it. But we can perhaps reclaim it. Franklin himself intimated how. In a speech before that Continental Convention on September 17, 1787, the scientist-turned-statesman proclaimed:

“I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and [I] believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government.”

At the time, Franklin was nominally addressing the Convention’s president, the legendary George Washington. But the content of his speech was directed to three delegates present who expressed doubts about the form of government which their colleagues were crafting. In earnestly encouraging his fellow Americans to sign the Constitution, Franklin wisely observed that while other forms of government may devolve into despotism at one man’s whim, the American government was structured in such a way that only the will of the people could corrupt it. Franklin’s fellow Founder and America’s first Vice President John Adams put it more pointedly when he said, “Our [C]onstitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

America was once comprised of a moral and religious people, but no longer. Now, Pride Month is close to becoming a state-mandated religious observance, child sacrifice via abortion is a protected anti-sacrament across numerous states, drag queens preach the gospel of gay to children, the rank stench of marijuana hangs over most major metropolitan centers, the soul-sucking scourge of pornography is available at the click of a button on every cell phone and laptop, heartless hookup culture and DIY prostitution have their own trending apps, and all manner of godlessness is accepted and touted in the public square while Christianity is ostracized and shushed. This is the present state of the people.

Is it any wonder then that the American government — of those people, by those people, and for those people — is hurtling headlong into the very despotism that the Founders warned against? The Justice Department is abdicating its duty to the virtue it is named for and targeting pro-life Americans for the crime of standing up for the unborn; courts award government-run schools carte blanche to secretly transgenderify children, leaving American moms and dads in the dark; government “health” agencies commit fraud against the American people to bolster pharmaceutical sales; the legitimacy of authorities is smeared and castigated in pursuit of radical, unamerican agendas; and the dominant political party shields its own when the law is broken and just as wantonly breaks the law in persecuting its political opponents.

In establishing the American republic, the Founding Fathers also articulated how to reclaim it: morality and religion. The American government was, in fact, predicated upon morality and virtue, as the writings of the Founders evince — America’s foundation is morality and religion. This was not a novel concept, nor singularly unique to the new American government. The Founders were no simpletons: they were well-read men with a profound depth and breadth of knowledge of history and philosophy. Many of the Founders had enjoyed classical educations in the Christian West and were thus familiar with the most significant works of the ancient Greeks and Romans, as well as the Bible and the writings of Christian saints and heroes over the previous centuries. All of these sources upheld virtue as a necessary prerequisite for a functioning society.

Greco-Roman political philosophy, shaped by men like Plato and Aristotle, Cicero, and Marcus Aurelius, considered virtue paramount and even fundamental to the city, state, nation, and empire. These pagan ideas were perfected upon by Christian thought. In his voluminous treatise “The City of God,” penned shortly after the Sack of Rome, Augustine of Hippo concluded that for any earthly nation to survive and eventually thrive, its people must be virtuous, as are the citizens of the Heavenly City. Almost 1,400 years later, Franklin’s speech before the Continental Convention closely echoed Augustine when the saint wrote:

“In this world, therefore, the dominion of good men is profitable, not so much for themselves as for human affairs. But the dominion of bad men is hurtful chiefly to themselves who rule, for they destroy their own souls by greater license in wickedness; while those who are put under them in service are not hurt except by their own iniquity. For to the just all the evils imposed on them by unjust rulers are not the punishment of crime, but the test of virtue. Therefore the good man, although he is a slave, is free; but the bad man, even if he reigns, is a slave, and that not of one man, but, what is far more grievous, of as many masters as he has vices; of which vices when the divine Scripture [2 Peter 2:19] treats, it says, ‘For of whom any man is overcome, to the same he is also the bond-slave.’”

Indeed, Augustine’s words perfect upon not only the philosophy of the pagan Greeks and Romans, but even upon the American ideals of Franklin and his fellow Founders.

Sadly, as the rampant degeneracy and lawlessness of today make clear, we have not kept the republic given to us by the Founders, the foundations of America are crumbling — but we can reclaim the republic, we can restore the foundation upon which America rests. To do so, we must mount a crusade of virtue, we must model ourselves after the citizens of Heaven, we must become again a moral and religious people.

We may very well, as Augustine warned and as our Founders themselves experienced, live for a time under the rule of the unjust, of the vicious and licentious, but if we keep our eyes fixed upon God and the Heavenly City, such trials will serve as “the test of virtue” and will become for us a strength. The nation is not lost, so long as we keep alive virtue in our hearts.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEO: It’s Not a Republic. We Couldn’t Keep It. | TIPPING POINT

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The Ten Commandments Make Wise Laws

The Louisiana legislature has passed a bill that “requires schools that receive public money to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said on Thursday’s “Washington Watch,” and “the anti-Christian Left is convulsing.”

It isn’t hard to imagine their cry: “But what about the separation of church and state?” Posting the Ten Commandments in school classrooms “was common,” Perkins countered, “until the Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that such a display was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.” Of course, the Establishment Clause was in effect for 189 years before that, and for most of that time no one objected to the Ten Commandments in schools. Doing so does not establish any religion.

“We’re focused on the historical aspect of the Ten Commandments, which all of our laws are derived from,” bill sponsor Louisiana Rep. Dodie Horton (R) explained to Perkins. “We also included that, if a school would like to put up other historical documents like the Mayflower Compact, the Northwest Ordinance, the Bill of Rights, they’re able to do so.” In other words, displaying the Ten Commandments will teach Louisiana schoolchildren about American history and about how American law developed.

Skeptics will still ask, but why are the Ten Commandments displayed and not other religious ethical statements, like the writings of Confucius or Native American myths? One answer is America’s historical development. This great nation was not built by Confucians or Muslims, but by people informed by the Bible and the moral teachings found therein.

A second answer is that the moral principles found in the Ten Commandments are so wise that even people from other nations, religions, and cultures will recognize the wisdom they contain. “See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the Lord my God commanded me,” declared Moses.

“Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?” (Deuteronomy 4:5-8)

After this exhortation, Moses proceeded to recite the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5. These form the outline for the rest of the laws set forth in Deuteronomy 6-26, which simply apply these 10. The Ten Commandments, in turn, can be reduced to two: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37), and “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39).

Who could dispute this? Who would take issue with laws that prescribed, “You shall not murder, and you shall not commit adultery, and you shall not steal, and you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Deuteronomy 5:17-20)? None of America’s problems are from people following these rules too closely. “When we look at what’s happening in our schools, we look at what is happening in our culture, and we wring our hands, and policymakers try to figure out what they’re going to do,” Perkins said, “it’s pretty simple: go back to the Ten Commandments.”

Of course, real life offers endless applications for these commandments, and people will differ on exactly when and where they apply. Some people would affirm these principles in theory but then deny obvious practical implications.

For example, some people would assent to the statement, “murder is wrong,” but also support abortion, the premeditated, unjust killing of an unborn human being. “I’ve operated on babies that were 25, 26, 27, 28 weeks gestation, and you have to give them anesthesia. They can feel everything,” said retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson on “Washington Watch” Thursday. “What about all those people who are trying to save snail darters? Now a snail darter is considerably less complex than a fetus, even at a few weeks. So, why are you trying to save the one and not the other?” Caring for animal life is arguably related to the prohibition on murder, but caring for unborn human life certainly is.

Yet this backwards reasoning is more common than might be expected. At this week’s World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, Family Research Council Vice President for Policy and Government Affairs Travis Weber reported on “Washington Watch” that national representatives were giving speeches with “references to animal health, about the rights of animals to receive relief,” but also about “reproductive health,” a “euphemistic phrase that includes abortion.” Animals’ lives are never more important than human lives.

Granted, the commandments against murder, adultery, stealing, and false testimony are less controversial in our culture than the rest. But the others provide the basis for these good and wise laws. The tenth commandment, for instance, “you shall not covet…” (Deuteronomy 5:21), is not something governments are competent to enforce, since other fallen human beings can’t know the human heart. But coveting is often the root of many wicked deeds the government should deter. For an example of how coveting can lead to murder, theft, and false testimony, see the account of Ahab and Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kings 21:1-16).

The commandment that will likely provoke the most criticism in a public school setting is the first, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Deuteronomy 5:7). But proponents could respond with a de-escalatory admission followed by a provocative question. “That’s fine, you don’t have to agree with it. We recognize the American tradition of religious freedom. In fact, the God who gave these laws invented religious freedom,” they could say. “But, I wonder, what do you believe the basis is for laws prohibiting murder, adultery, theft, and false testimony?”

According to the Ten Commandments, the ultimate reason is the character of the God who ordered the world. But for a secular humanist, who believes there is no god, and that we are the result of random evolutionary processes, then how do they square these moral principles with the evolutionary principle of the survival of the fittest? Not only do the Ten Commandments present a wiser way to live together in society, they also provide a better reason for living that way.

Therefore, “We want our children to see what God’s standard for our moral conduct is,” urged Horton. “We’re not asking the teachers to teach it, but we want our children to be able to see one — that there is a God, and that he does have a moral standard [by] which they need to conduct themselves.” Perkins agreed. “Teach them that there is truth, and we’re accountable to it.”

Perkins appealed to President George Washington’s farewell address, in which the first president declared that morality and religion were the two indispensable supports for political prosperity. If the famously cautious president would publicly endorse morality and religion — after the Establishment Clause had been enacted — surely the mere presence of the Ten Commandments, a basic statement of morality without any proselytization for any religion, should pass constitutional muster. It might even make the students a little bit wiser, if they ever stopped to heed its wisdom.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Do the followers of Mohammed Believe in the Ten Commandments?

Religion is the most powerful force for good in society. Why does the media ignore it?

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Two-State Solution Pressures Nation of Israel to Give up Historic Territory of Israel

The so-called “two-state solution” for Jews and Arabs in Palestine is the Frankenstein’s monster of foreign policy. On Wednesday, Spain, Norway, and Ireland tried to animate this monster by recognizing a state of Palestine, which does not exist. “If you’re recognizing a Palestinian state, they have to have land,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said on “Washington Watch.” “And that land that’s being advocated is Samaria and Judea,” the “so-called ‘West Bank.’”

Knesset Member Ohad Tal joined Perkins to declare the proposed two-state solution theological “craziness,” in that it would “take the holiest sites [of Judaism] like Hebron, and Shiloh, and Bethlehem, and East Jerusalem and give it to the Palestinians.”

In fact, the territories currently designated as “the West Bank” contain many of the towns and regions that readers of the Old Testament are used to thinking about as, “the land of Israel.” These include (in the order they appear), Shechem, Bethel, Hebron, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Jericho, Gibeon, Shiloh, Tirzah, and Samaria. To comprehend the full impact of Israel ceding this land, consider the significance of these cities through the biblical narrative.

Click here to view a map of Israel.

In Genesis, God called Abraham out from Mesopotamia and promised at Shechem to give his offspring “this land” (Genesis 12:6-7). When Abraham separated from his kinsman Lot at Bethel (Genesis 13:3-13), God again promised to give him all the land he could see (Genesis 13:14-17). Abraham built altars at Shechem, Bethel (Genesis 12:8-9), and Hebron (Genesis 13:18). Abraham lived longest near Hebron, where he and his allies assembled for war to rescue Lot (Genesis 14:1-16), God established his covenant with him (Genesis 15, 17), his son Ishmael was born (Genesis 16:1-6,15-16), and Isaac’s birth was promised (Genesis 18). Abraham purchased a burial plot at Hebron (Genesis 23), where Sarah, Abraham (Genesis 25:10-11), Isaac (Genesis 35:27-28), and Jacob (Genesis 50:7-14) were buried. Jerusalem also features in the Abraham narrative when Abraham tithed to its king Melchizedek (Genesis 14:17-24), and when Abraham nearly sacrificed Isaac on the nearby mountain of Moriah (Genesis 22:4-18).

Still in Genesis, Bethel was the site where Jacob famously dreamed of angels ascending and descending (Genesis 28:11-22). In that dream, God promised him, “the land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring” (Genesis 28:13). When Jacob returned to Canaan, he bought land and built an altar at Shechem (Genesis 33:18-20), where his sons slaughtered the inhabitants (Genesis 34) and later pastured their flocks (Genesis 37:12-17). Jacob then returned to Bethel, where he also built an altar (Genesis 35:1-15). Bethlehem is first mentioned here in relation to the site of Rachel’s tomb (Genesis 35:16-21).

In Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, the people of Israel do not live in Canaan, but those books focus on their promised return and conquest of the promised land.

In Joshua, the people crossed into Canaan across from Jericho, which they spied out (Joshua 2) and then captured (Joshua 6). They established a camp nearby at Gilgal (Joshua 4:19-24), where they performed multiple religious observances (Joshua 5). The camp at Gilgal became a “home base” of sorts for the Israelite conquest of southern Canaan (Joshua 7:6-26, 9:6, 10:15, 10:40-43). Israel recited the curses and blessings on Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim outside Shechem (Joshua 8:30-35), as Moses had directed (Deuteronomy 27:1-8). Israel next moved against Ai, near Bethel (Joshua 7:1-5, 8:1-29). Then, their covenant with the Gibeonites (Joshua 9), became the occasion for a great victory at Gibeon (Joshua 10:1-14).

Israel set up the tabernacle at Shiloh (Joshua 18:1), where it remained throughout the entire period of the Judges (Judges 18:31), until the ark was lost in battle (1 Samuel 4:1-11). There they apportioned the land (Joshua 18:2-10), with most of the West Bank falling to Judah (Joshua 15), Ephraim and Manasseh (Joshua 16-17), and Benjamin (Joshua 18:11-28). Hebron receives special mention as the allotment of Caleb, who had spied it out in the wilderness (Numbers 13:21) and returned to conquer it (Joshua 14:6-15) for a second time (Joshua 10:36-37). After completing the conquest, Israel renewed the Mosaic covenant at Shechem (Joshua 24).

In Judges, Jerusalem was the site of military success and failure (Judges 1:8,21). The second judge Ehud (Judges 3:12-30) came from the territory of Benjamin, all of which is in the West Bank. The next judge, Deborah, operated near Bethel (Judges 4:5). Shechem was the home of Israel’s first proto-king, Abimelech (Judges 8:31-9:57). And Samson carried the gates of Gath to Hebron (Judges 16:3). The final narratives (Judges 17-21) both mention Bethlehem, where the events of Ruth occurred during the same period.

In Samuel, the early chapters focus around Hannah’s petition, Samuel’s service, Eli’s unfaithful sons, and the prophecy against his house, all of which occurred at Shiloh (1 Samuel 1-3). Samuel operated as a judge around Bethel (1 Samuel 7:16). Many of Saul’s campaigns happened in a small area around the territory of Benjamin and Ephraim (1 Samuel 13:2). God rejected Saul as king and anointed David, from Bethlehem (1 Samuel 16:13). At Hebron, David was anointed king over Judah (2 Samuel 2:1-11) and all Israel (2 Samuel 5:1-5). In the intervening civil war, Judah and Benjamin fought at Gibeon (2 Samuel 2:12-32), and Joab murdered Abner at Hebron (2 Samuel 3:20-30). Later, Absalom also launch his conspiracy there (2 Samuel 15:7-12). David’s first act as king over all Israel was to conquer Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:6-10), where he soon brought the ark (2 Samuel 6:1-15).

From that point on, until the fall of the southern kingdom, Jerusalem was the focal point of most of the nation’s political and religious life. Although part of modern Jerusalem lies in Israeli territory, the city as it existed in David’s day, including the Temple Mount, lies in the West Bank.

Jerusalem is the focal point in Kings, but many events also occurred elsewhere. Gibeon was the location of the tabernacle (2 Chronicles 1:13) and Solomon’s dream (1 Kings 3:4-9). Israel assembled at Shechem to crown Solomon’s son Rehoboam but rejected him instead (1 Kings 12:1-15). Israel chose Jeroboam, who initially lived at Shechem (1 Kings 12:25). Jeroboam introduced idolatrous worship through a golden calf at Bethel (1 Kings 12:29), which was later defiled by King Josiah (2 Kings 23:15). The prophet Ahijah pronounced both Jeroboam’s rise and fall, and he lived at Shiloh (1 Kings 14:2-16).

Jeroboam eventually moved his capital to Tirzah (1 Kings 14:17), where Baasha (1 Kings 15:33), Elah (1 Kings 16:8), Zimri (1 Kings 16:15), and Omri (1 Kings 16:23) also ruled. (Tirzah’s location is uncertain, but the traditional site is in the West Bank). Omri then built Samaria and moved the capital there (1 Kings 16:24); Samaria also became a focal point for the wars of Syria and the prophet Elisha in Kings. Jericho was rebuilt in the time of Omri’s son Ahab (1 Kings 16:34), and a community of prophets lived there in Elijah’s time (2 Kings 2:5, 15-22). The last king of Judah, Zedekiah, was captured near Jericho, when he fled the Babylonians (2 Kings 25:5).

Thus, from beginning to end, the ancient nation of Israel’s heartland was in the regions of Judea and Samaria which today comprise the West Bank. Much of what did not occur in these regions took place across the Jordan River in what is now Jordan. In these regions, the returned exiles dwelt in Ezra and Nehemiah. In these regions the Jews dwelt up until the first century, when the Lord Jesus came and walked these very same roads.

“That’s what they want to give away as a part of the two-state solution,” Perkins protested. “How can Israel continue to be a country, defend itself if we take the heart of that land out and turn it into a Palestinian state? … That’s the heart of Israel.”

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Iran’s “Cognitive War” Is More Dangerous than Missiles and Killer Drones

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

How Can We ‘Give Thanks in All Circumstances’? We Remember How Blessed We Are in Christ

In 1 Thessalonians 5:18, the Apostle Paul wrote, “Give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.” The call to “give thanks” is repeated in over 30 instances within the book of Psalms. 1 Chronicles, Philippians, Colossians, Hebrews, Isaiah, and Ephesians, to name a few, cry out the need to express thanks to our God. It’s a clear call. It seems easy enough to live out, right? And yet, I can’t help but wonder: how easy is it, really, to “give thanks in all circumstances”? Because I’ve come to find it’s far easier to be ungrateful.

It probably doesn’t feel easy to give thanks when you or someone you love is struck with illness. Gratitude isn’t often where we turn first when we’re rejected from a job we want or by a person we care about. Thankfulness feels impossible when we face loneliness, anxiety, depression, or stress, doesn’t it? Perhaps the poor wrestle with thankfulness, and the wealthy seldom consider it. Wars break out across the globe, people are starving, children are orphaned, women are widowed, politics are like cancer, and the world is full of numerous other variables that cause us to think: What is there to be grateful for?

I’ve read the stories where people are so sick of their affliction, they “walk away from their faith.” Many blame their problems on God; others are tired of waiting on Him to reveal a reason for their suffering. It’s a tragedy — an utter tragedy. And why is it so tragic? Because, really, believers have so much to be grateful for. It’s a shame how easily we gloss over our rich blessedness in Christ, and it’s my prayer that we can begin to understand just how blessed we really are. Especially when we think we have nothing to be thankful for.

Isaiah 53:5 proclaims, “But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.” It’s a rich passage, yet it’s easy to neglect the proper probing it deserves. He was “pierced,” “crushed,” yet we receive “peace” and become “healed.” Just how profound this is may be what we forget to reflect on.

Whether it’s realized or not, the worst fate one could ever endure would be to be separated from Christ. Salvation is such a precious gift, and I’m afraid we often take it lightly. Because without it, we have no life, hope, peace, joy, or eternity in paradise. Life would become meaningless. All would be deprived of hope. Peace would be replaced with fear, and joy with depression. Our eternity, separate from Christ, would be spent in the fiery furnace. What grace that with salvation, we are spared from these miseries! What grace that with salvation, we have eternal life, hope, peace, and joy in Christ Jesus! Can you imagine living in this broken world without this hope and relationship with God? I certainly cannot. But, if even for a moment, Jesus did experience this.

On the cross, taking on the sin of the world, He lost the perfect union He always had with the Father from the beginning of time. How incomprehensibly devastating this is. We see Jesus ask His Father in the Gospel of Matthew to remove the cup from Him — the cup of God’s wrath He was to drink from. In Matthew 26, Jesus described His soul as “very sorrowful, even to death.” Our Lord “fell on his face and prayed, saying, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.’” But it’s no wonder He was distraught.

You see, Jesus could handle the mocking, the beatings, the scorn. He could be hated, and His death could be celebrated by those who rejected Him. But to lose His relationship with the Father — to face the fierce wrath of God Almighty — was a fate far worse than any other; a pain more searing than any pain; a loss graver than any loss. It’s no wonder Jesus asked for that cup to pass. It’s no wonder He was sorrowful. But beloved, what I am wondering is this: Why would He go through that for you and for me?

It doesn’t make any sense. Why would the only perfect, spotless man to ever walk the earth voluntarily sacrifice His life and face the worst fate conceivable for the sake of sinners who only fall short of God’s glory? Why did the Father, from before the foundation of the world, establish a plan to send His one and only Son, so that whoever believes in Him, may be gifted with eternal life? Why did Jesus face a punishment that we deserve, and do so in a way that ensures we will never, ever have to face it ourselves?

Well, Hebrews 12:2 answers that question: We look to “Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.” And what was that joy set before Him? It was the perfect will of a perfect, loving God. I don’t know why He did it, but it was God’s sovereign decree that Jesus would secure a people for Himself that would become co-heirs with Him in the Kingdom to come. How could this truth not evoke the most reverent gratitude?

When I think of this blessing, even just the singular blessing of being alive in Christ from now into eternity, my soul swells in praise. Suddenly, I see that we can “give thanks in all circumstances” because now, we are washed clean by the blood of the Lamb. There is nothing that can separate us from this love. “He who did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him graciously give us all things?” the Apostle Paul asked in Romans 8. “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect?” (v. 33).

Though “we are being killed all the day long” by persecutors, calamities of a broken world, and temptation to sin, “we are more than conquerors through him who loved us” (vv. 36-37). There is nothing “in all creation” that “will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (v. 39b). And so, do you see? We can “give thanks in all circumstances” because there is not a single circumstance in which this truth is not relevant. No matter what we go through, it would befit us to fix our eyes on Christ, as Scripture calls us to do, because it’s in doing so that we realize we are continually blessed in Him. Regardless of our circumstances, we have received “a kingdom that cannot be shaken,” which means we can always “be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe” (Hebrews 12:28).

But in addition to this blessing of salvation, which encompasses all of our being, it is steadfastly true that we do, indeed, serve a generous God. Does He not still provide our every need? Is He not faithful to be with us when we stumble? Does He not cause rain so that the earth is nourished? He has graciously crafted beauty all around in His creation for us to enjoy. He gifts us with the pleasures of art, music, food, and sweet fellowship. And so, my first encouragement, when tempted to wonder how we can be thankful, is to remember the cross — an unending fountain of blessing for those who hear and proclaim its message.

But secondly, I encourage you to remember that God, whether we always recognize it, is truly generous and rich in both grace and mercy. And He has in mind the eternal salvation of our soul — which is far grander than anything we’ll experience here on earth.

Pastor Charles Spurgeon put it well when he said of Christ: “As long as there is a vessel of grace not yet full to the brim, the oil shall not be stayed. He is a sun ever-shining; He is manna always falling round the camp; He is a rock in the desert, ever sending out streams of life from His smitten side; the rain of His grace is always dropping; the river of His bounty is ever-flowing, and the well-spring of His love is constantly overflowing. As the King can never die, so His grace can never fail.”

So, let us posture our hearts in continual gratitude, for our God is continuously loving, merciful, and gracious — a God who has secured our salvation forever.

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: NFL’s Harrison Butker Sends Truth Straight through the Uprights

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Biblical Marriage Must Remain Intact in the Republican Party

With the Republican National Convention set to be held this summer, this means that also on the horizon is the decision of whether or not the Republican Party keeps in place its current party platform adopted in 2020 or puts forward an updated version with changes.

Aside from its pro-life stance against abortion, the platform’s support for natural biblical marriage is a major distinction that has always set Republicans apart from Democrats — the saints from the sinners. We are the party of rule and law, civility and decorum, discipline, and honor; not debauchery, rioting, lewdness, or indecency. This is because we stand for truth. But if Republicans compromise on the fact that marriage is only between man and woman, this would mean a departure from Truth. It would create such an irreversible crack away from our core principles that the party would lose its way and ultimately lead to breaking apart. Therefore, any attempts to weaken our platform’s position on traditional marriage should be squashed at the outset.

The possibility that the GOP’s current language on marriage could be challenged is very real. Conversations and debates among leadership and delegates about the Republican Party’s platform occur every four years and coincide with the timing of the party’s convention, which is planned this year for July 15-18th, in Milwaukee. When the last Republican Convention was held in 2020, the Republican Party leadership and delegates came to an agreement to not amend but keep in place the platform’s language in its entirety that had been adopted in 2016 — and which still is in place today. Our current platform has language that upholds traditional marriage and properly states: “[t]raditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values.”

Amen.

Behind-the-scenes discussions are underway about whether or not to keep the current Republican platform in place as written or to make changes to it, so if any debate and negations occur, this will all be done prior to the actual main convention gathering. But make no mistake — there is a contingent within the Republican Party plotting to change our position on traditional marriage. After all, the woke agenda to soften Christian teachings on marriage has crept into American churches — so no place is off limits to this sinful agenda.

LGBT advocates will likely cite and point to the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision from 2015 and make a false claim that this is now the law of the land, set in stone, and therefore conservative Republicans should move forward and let others in the party modernize the platform and appeal to more voters. But the Republican platform’s current language rightfully addresses this argument and outright “condemn[s]” the high court’s past ruling against marriage, which is worth pointing out, was made during the Obama administration. In fact, when the current Supreme Court decision decided to reverse Roe v. Wade, in his opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that Obergefell v. Hodges should also be reconsidered, which implied overturned. And his suggestion is not such a long-shot possibility.

Many may recall the bravery shown by Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky, who rightfully stood by her moral convictions and refused to write out a marriage license to two gay-identifying men. And while she has faced enormous persecution since then, being slapped with a penalty of $360,000 (and just last month was denied appeal), her lawyers plan to take her case to the Supreme Court; the same path that was taken to overturn Roe v. Wade.

While having pro-marriage language included in our platform is no guarantee that all Republican elected leaders will fall in line (as we saw when 12 Republican U.S. Senators voted against natural marriage and supported the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act), if this critical language were to be removed, then it is all but guaranteed that our Republican representation becomes even weaker in fending off the Democrats’ side to turn all of America into Sodom and Gomorrah. This is because the Republican platform that is decided and written this year will serve as a guide for influencing current and future Republican candidates and elected leaders, both at local, state, and federal levels.

This is why any born-again believer who disconnects themselves from American politics and thinks that the fight for marriage within the Republican Party has nothing to do with them, needs to understand this is delusional thinking and they are only lying to themselves.

There is no other matter before us more important than the cultural fight for marriage. Supporting marriage, as created by God, is the starting point from which all other policy issues flow. This one matters most because it affects children. By natural design, children need to be reared by both a mom and dad, and for their mental and physical well-being, they need their parents to be married to each other. As a national advocate to protect children from being exposed to perverse drag queen story hours and pornographic materials in school, I can make the argument that there is a direct correlation between the growing trend to legitimatize the homosexual lifestyle on par with marriage, to children being sexually exploited and abused.

This means that the time for all true born-again believers, including American pastors, to engage and rise up publicly in support of traditional marriage is now and well past overdue.

Our democratic system involves various levels of engagement. Voting on Election Day (which is absolutely critical) is just one piece of the process. Engaging in the court of public opinion is another, and it is something we can do. And it starts within our inner circle of friends and family. Turning a blind eye and self-censuring oneself in conversation about marriage is the wrong choice. Speaking up in defense of natural marriage is a good thing and nothing to be embarrassed about. As Psalm 119 shows us, if we truly love the Lord, then we love His law, including His Natural Law.

Most informed born-again Christians, especially those of older age, align with the Republican Party, and the reason that the platform has always upheld both marriage and a pro-life position (two fundamental biblical principles) is due to countless faceless Christian believers who have over the years served as delegates and made sure of this. What is vitally important to recognize is that the ability to withstand any upcoming challenges to water down our solid stance on traditional marriage (or our pro-life position) can be eased with the help of fellow believers.

Writing op-eds, speaking from the pulpit, doing media interviews, and attending local and state political meetings to advocate for marriage can make a big difference and are small prices to pay when taking into account how we are beyond privileged to live in this nation, thanks to the selfless Americans who have gone before us and sacrificed life and limb.

American pastors in particular can help turn the tide and use their influence and public forums to speak up; though some may try to use the Johnson Amendment as an excuse not to. But the fact that LBJ authored this law as revenge against conservatives who believed him to be a communist, should be enough revelation to make the case that the Johnson Amendment should be repealed. And considering how liberals faced no real obstacle in getting the Defense of Marriage Act repealed, it should be sufficient proof to show just how far behind the eight ball most American churches are.

None of us can afford to be lackadaisical anymore. Marriage is primary to the foundation of America and fundamental for a functioning healthy society. If we don’t stand for marriage, then we stand for nothing. The Republican Party must continue to support traditional marriage. Keep the language as written and add no language to it that would compromise this position.

This article originally appeared in The Christian Post.

AUTHOR

John Amanchukwu

John K. Amanchukwu Sr. is an influential preacher, author, and activist who spreads God’s truth. Along with serving his local church in North Carolina, John travels nationally to speak, preach and confront school boards.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘You’re Going to Be Remembered as the Education Secretary That Erased Girls’ Sports for an Entire Generation’

Good Leaders Care for Their Animals

The people setting America on fire

RELATED VIDEO: LGBTQ Activism = Satanism | TIPPING POINT

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The Bible Does Not Justify Anti-Semitism

A bill (H.R. 6090) to make the Department of Education adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism “is unnecessarily raising concerns” about its effect on the gospel message, said Quena Gonzalez, senior director of government affairs at Family Research Council. The IHRA definition includes “contemporary examples,” he told The Washington Stand, among which is “using … claims of Jews killing Jesus … to characterize Israel or Israelis.”

But “no biblical Christian characterizes Israelis or modern Israel, just because they’re Jewish, as having killed Jesus,” Gonzalez responded. “Christians have long denounced this trope, going back to the church fathers of the first few centuries, and Christians today need not be concerned that this bill implicates proclaiming the gospel.”

The New Testament is clear that ethnic Jews and ethnic Gentiles both stand condemned before God as sinners and can only be saved through faith in Jesus Christ. The same God “gives to all mankind life and breath and everything,” and “he made from one man every nation of mankind” (Acts 17:25-26). Yet both Jews and Gentiles have broken God’s law, so “both Jews and Greeks are under sin,” Paul declared (Romans 3:9). “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law … the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift …” (Romans 3:21-24). Now “there is neither Jew nor Greek … for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

As to who killed Jesus, the Bible’s most comprehensive answer holds Jews and Gentiles equally responsible — although God was ultimately responsible. As the apostles prayed, “in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place” (Acts 4:27-28). In fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 4:25-26, Psalm 2:1-2), God so orchestrated the circumstances that representatives of all mankind — both Jews and Gentiles, the people and their leaders — participated in Jesus’s death, giving no one group reason to boast against another.

God’s sovereign involvement does not nullify human responsibility, but it does add to the significance of Jesus’s death. Jesus died in this way so that he might be the Savior of the whole world. “The gospel is, that I killed Jesus by my sin,” said Gonzalez. “The gospel (literally, the ‘good news’) is that God the Father sent His Son to die for my sins; God killed Jesus.” In fact, three times Jesus said that he laid down his own life as a sacrifice for his people (John 10:11, 15, 17).

Regrettably, some people — even some Christians throughout history—have lifted biblical texts out of context in an attempt to justify anti-Semitism. In the earliest recorded Christian sermons, preached several months after Jesus’s death in Jerusalem, Jews who believed in Jesus as the Messiah rightly declared to a Jerusalem audience that they had played a role in causing Jesus’s death:

  • “This Jesus … you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men … this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:23, 36).
  • “Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life …. To this we are witnesses” (Acts 3:13-15).
  • “Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified” (Acts 4:10).
  • “Your fathers … killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered” (Acts 7:52).

This accusation only applied to those present in Jerusalem at Jesus’s crucifixion. When the Jewish apostle Paul preached to Jews living in modern-day Turkey, he did not accuse them of Jesus’s death but “those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers” who “asked Pilate to have him executed” (Acts 13:27-29). He warned these Jews not to imitate those who did not believe in their Messiah.

None of these passages condones anti-Semitism. In each instance, the Jewish preacher aims to convict his hearers of sin so that they might turn to the Messiah and repent. Thus:

  • “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:38-39).
  • “Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus,” whom God sent “to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness” (Acts 3:19-20, 26).
  • After “being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man,” who was enabled to walk and leap by Jesus’s power, Peter declared, “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:9-12).
  • As some men (including Paul, prior to his conversion) stoned Stephen to death for proclaiming the gospel of Jesus, he prayed, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them” (Acts 7:60).

If God intended to judge the Jewish people for having Jesus killed, then why did he offer them salvation, healing, forgiveness, and blessing? Those who twist these texts into a warrant for anti-Semitism presume to inflict a greater judgment than God, the Judge of all.

In fact, these same passages even show God’s sovereign agency behind Jesus’s death:

  • “This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God … know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:23, 36).
  • “The God of our fathers glorified his servant Jesus … whom God raised from the dead. … What God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled” (Acts 3:13,15, 18).
  • “Jesus Christ of Nazareth … whom God raised from the dead … this Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone” (Acts 4:10-11, paraphrasing Psalm 118:22).
  • “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:56).

Thus it was prophesied, “it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand” (Isaiah 53:10).

Furthermore, those who would abuse biblical texts to justify anti-Semitism must overlook the New Testament’s multiple positive references to Jews. Paul expressed “great sorrow and unceasing anguish” over their unbelief (Romans 9:2). Jews not only received “the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2), but “to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 9:4-5).

Paul further testified that God has always preserved a believing remnant among the Jewish people (Romans 11:1-5). “A partial hardening has come upon Israel,” he admitted, but only “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved. … For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:25-26, 29). Paul’s concern — and God’s concern — is that the Jewish people might believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to magnify God’s mercy (Romans 11:32). Anyone concerned with inflicting punishments on or discrimination against the Jewish people is not aligned with God.

To summarize: Jesus willingly laid down his life according to the eternal plan of God, and both Jews and Gentiles, the leaders and the people, were equally complicit in his death. The Bible does not hold Jews especially responsible for Jesus’s death, nor does it hold them especially accursed for their complicity. It certainly does not implicate the modern state of Israel and modern Israelis, who were not there, any more than it implicates modern Gentiles, who were not there. But it does hold out future hope that Jews will come to believe in Jesus.

The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism “does not criminalize the gospel,” insisted Family Research Council Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Travis Weber on “Washington Watch.” Even in the one example causing confusion, the anti-Semitism “has to be attached to the state of Israel,” he added, and that’s not what Bible-believing Christians do. So, “for Bible-preaching churches that are preaching the gospel, this is not an issue,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘This Week On The Hill’: Tony Perkins Talks Faith with Speaker Mike Johnson

On Saturday morning, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins helmed the “maiden voyage” of Salem Radio Network’s newest program “This Week On The Hill,” featuring U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) as the show’s inaugural guest. The two Louisiana conservatives discussed, among other things, the role that Christian faith plays in American politics — from guiding legislation to holding the Republican Party together to ending abortion.

Referring to their decades-long friendship, Perkins said to Johnson, “You and I go back to when you were in law school, and faith plays a major role in our lives and in your life in particular. … And there’s some that say, ‘That has no place in [Congress].’” Johnson replied, “Well, those who say that don’t understand our history, the foundation of our country.” He continued, “We were built upon our Judeo-Christian heritage and our foundation is that, it’s chiseled into the marble right above the speaker’s rostrum, right there in the House chamber: ‘In God We Trust.’ That’s what makes us different. That’s what made us exceptional from the beginning.” Johnson added:

“If you look back in history and you study the writings of the founders and the previous leaders in the Congress, how they spoke, what they said, they were very open about this idea that God is our creator. He’s the one that gives us our rights, not government. These things used to be known as self-evident truths. Not so much anymore.”

The Speaker also noted that the first American presidents, including George Washington and John Adams, warned that the American republic is “an experiment on the world stage. We don’t know how long it’ll last. But … of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports, and we seem to have forgotten some of that.”

Perkins asked what role Christian faith plays in the policy decisions of today. Johnson responded, “We have to recognize right now we’re not really in a battle right now between Republicans and Democrats anymore. It’s deeper than that. This is between two competing visions for who we are as a country, who we are as Americans.” He continued:

“And if you’re a person of faith, you’re a Christian, that is a worldview, and that informs how you think about issues and you believe in absolute truths and in a sense of morality that is supposed to guide these decisions. If you don’t jettison that when you walk in the building, it’s supposed to be a part of the fabric of what you decide. … It is our philosophy. It is our worldview, and it informs what we do.”

Johnson also spoke of being elected Speaker back in October and recent challenges to his speakership from within the Republican Party. “This was not a job that I aspired to,” he said. “To be speaker of the House in this modern era is a unique challenge.” Referring to a move by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to vacate the speakership, Johnson said, “Marjorie and I agree on philosophy, not on strategy. And she’s upset about the appropriations process, the spending bills. And guess what? So am I.” He explained, “We’re not going to get 100% of what we want. Because remember, whatever we pass, we’ve got to send over to the Senate that’s run by Chuck Schumer. And it’s got to be signed into law by Joe Biden. They’re not going to give us anything that we want.”

In discussing narrowly avoiding a government shutdown by compromising on appropriations bills, Johnson stated, “We shouldn’t be opposed [to] or scared of a government shutdown. But you have to have a plan to get a better policy outcome or to get something on the other side. You don’t shut it down just for the sake of that.” He explained that a government shutdown would eventually be blamed on House Republicans, many of whom may not be reelected as a result. Since Democrat votes would be needed to reopen the government, Johnson clarified, Republicans would have to make major concessions on policy to secure those votes and reopen the government. “It probably guarantees that we lose our House majority in the election in November, and I can’t reopen the government,” the Speaker said. “We would have wound up much worse off than the appropriations bills at the end of that, and we would have been blamed for everything.”

Turning to the issue of abortion, Johnson posited that Democrats are using the hot-button issue to distract voters from their policy failures. “They’re absolutely desperate in this election cycle,” the Speaker said. “And they believe abortion is the only thing they can run on. They know that because their policies have been so disastrous for everybody. They’re not being honest.” Johnson explained that in shielding their own extreme positions on abortion, Democrats are attempting to paint pro-life Republicans as restrictive extremists.

He also discussed the role that Christians and conservatives must play in building a “culture of life.” Johnson declared, “If you’re going to have political consensus on a controversial issue, you’ve got to have cultural consensus first.” He explained further:

“The challenge for us right now — for the church or people of faith or the Republican Party — is to help build that culture of life and so that we make people understand the stakes here, that’s why it’s so important and why this makes us who we are as Americans. It’s about human dignity. It’s about recognizing that all of us are not just born equal, we are created equal. That’s what our nation’s birth certificate says in the declaration.”

“This Week On The Hill” airs Saturday mornings at 7 a.m. EST on the Salem Radio Network. The show is also available on the Salem News Channel, Salem Podcast Network, and Townhall.com.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Johnson Gets Crucial Reinforcement from Trump: ‘I Stand with the Speaker’

Chuck Schumer Reportedly Bragged To Colleagues That Speaker Johnson Gave Democrats Everything They Wanted With $95 Billion Foreign Aid Bill | DC Enquirer

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Powers and Principalities: America Is at Spiritual War

The hour is late, and open war rages across the United States. No sword is drawn, no shot is fired, yet lives, souls, and civilization itself all hang in the balance. This present war is not a political one — though politics and government are the weapons used in this combat — but a spiritual one. Two religions are struggling for supremacy over America: leftism and Christianity.

“Marxism,” “communism,” “socialism,” “progressivism,” and even “relativism” and “atheism” are common buzzwords among conservatives, but each of these political and social ideologies is merely a contributor to the emergent religion of leftism. Yes, leftism is a religion, it is not simply an ideology: it mandates its own worship, its own doctrine, and even its own sacraments. It promulgates its tenets, enforced by malleable legislation, as positive goods — that is, ends which are good in and of themselves, not simply means to achieve ends which are determined externally to be good, as most political forces do. It was once the norm for varying political factions to agree, largely, on what would be good for the nation — whether that be the support of families, the growth of the economy, or the bolstering of the nation’s borders — predicated on the express will of the people, but to simply differ on how best to achieve those goods.

Not so in the 21st century. Leftism differs fundamentally from its foe on what those ultimate goods are for the nation; in fact, its devoutly, fervently held positions place it in direct opposition not to a political force but to a religion — namely, Christianity, by far the most prevalent religion in America. Abortion, transgenderism, homosexuality, pornography, open borders, and all the agenda items of leftism are directly and incontrovertibly contradictory to the moral standards of Christianity. Of course, conservatism has long advanced Christian moral standards in the public and political spheres, but the increasingly-common brand of secular conservatism uprooted from Christianity has proven toothless in the snarling face of leftism.

Nearly 70 years ago, the Catholic author and orator Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen predicted the rise of the religion of leftism, orchestrated by Satan himself. “He will set up a counter church which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God,” Sheen wrote. “It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ.” The archbishop prophesied that the religion of leftism “will be brotherhood of Man without the fatherhood of God…”

Indeed, the good bishop’s words seem unnervingly more than prescient. For nearly 2,000 years, Christians have celebrated the solemn feast of Easter, commemorating and glorifying Christ’s triumphant resurrection from the dead and victory over the grave. It cannot be mere coincidence that, this year, President Joe Biden declared Easter Sunday to be a national “Transgender Day of Visibility.” Consider that this is more than simply spitting in the face of devout Christians; it is the institution of a new and fatal religion’s highest holy day, intentionally coinciding with the date of Easter Sunday. Christians believe that, through the sacrament of baptism, we are born again, shedding the stain of original sin with which we were born in order to share in the glories of life eternal, opened to us by Christ’s resurrection. Traditionally, baptized Christians would even take a new name, an outward sign of their new identities in Christ. Transgenderism is leftism’s diabolically inverted answer to this sacrament: death to the old self, shedding the identity (sex) with which one was born, and taking a new name to go with one’s new identity.

Every doctrine that Christianity preaches, leftism preaches its own perversion of it. The love advocated by Christianity is rooted in absolute truth, in “Love Himself,” as C.S. Lewis once put it. Leftism advocates “love” unmoored, anchored by nothing more absolute than the weight of fickle feelings and emotions — though, when those emotions are felt, they do reign supreme.

Christianity upholds sacrifice as virtuous — the giving of oneself for the sake of love is the zenith of the virtue of charity. Christ Himself tells His followers, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Leftism also values sacrifice, but never sacrifice of the self, only the sacrificing of others. Abortion is the ultimate example of this warped anti-virtue: sacrificing one’s own child for… financial comfort, a career, no responsibility, or even just consequence-free sex.

Christianity mandates submission to the will of God, accepting His design no matter how painful or difficult. Again, Christ Himself prayed, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matthew 26:39). Leftism demands obeisance to the only god it recognizes: the self-centered self. Transgenderism is demonstrative of this: just as Christian martyrs have willingly suffered torture for the sake of their faith, so the confused, self-centered, and self-loathing suffer mutilation and torture for the sake of their own wounded and twisted egos.

Like the dominant Christianity of the Middle Ages, leftism even has its own office of the inquisition. Those who do not toe the leftist line, who dare to question the new religion’s dogmas, are hounded out of the anti-church. The famed “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling is indicative of this. A multi-millionaire and self-declared feminist, Rowling was once a darling of leftist media and political activists. She supported the Labour Party in the U.K. and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Yet as soon as she voiced her concerns over transgenderism, she became a “heretic” to the church of leftism, targeted for disbarment from all the institutions controlled by leftism.

Although leftism is a uniquely 21st century phenomenon, its fundamental principles are nothing new. In fact, God has been dealing with the motivating mindset behind leftism since before the world began. The chief and unifying tenet of the leftist religion — indeed, that of all its precursors and predecessors, also — is naturalism. When first Lucifer said, in the words of the poet John Milton, “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven,” naturalism was born. Naturalism is the belief, the assertion that the creature can replace the Creator, that the peasant may, if he slays the King, rule in His stead. It is the hubristic declaration that “God is dead, I am god.”

Satan was the first to declare thus, in his immense pride, galled by the humility of God’s plan to become a man, to take on the form of a mere creature — “these disgusting little human vermin,” as Lewis called them in the character of Screwtape, a hateful demon. He has declared it ever since, leading countless souls astray. In the Garden of Eden, that was the temptation offered by the Serpent: “You shall be as gods” (Genesis 3:5). Throughout Scripture and, certainly, throughout human history, that has been the great temptation, the great sin: to be as gods. When Moses ascended Mount Sinai, after God led the Hebrews out of slavery in Egypt, that temptation reared its head and the Hebrews made for themselves an idol (Exodus 32). Even then, the Hebrews fell to worshipping the demon Baal, until the prophet Elijiah proved the supremacy of God and slayed the Baalite priests (1 Kings 18).

Whether in the twilight years of the Roman Empire, throughout the Middle Ages, into the age of discovery, or even now in the modern day, men are tempted to declare themselves God, to worship their own selves over the crucified and resurrected person of Christ, to adhere to their own principles or preachings as supreme. Leftism is simply the culmination of this evil, this unbridled, unrestrained pride, brought to the fore via political prowess and instituted in American culture via institutions long ago captured by the prophets of leftism: Marxists, communists, perverts, abortionists, eugenicists, atheists, relativists, and countless other little ideologues subservient to the Luciferian sin of naturalism.

The current division in America is not ultimately a matter of Left versus Right, of Democrat versus Republican, of communist versus capitalist, but of good versus evil, of naturalism (in the form of leftism) versus Christianity, of the fallen angel Lucifer and his minions versus the crucified and resurrected Christ and the forces of Heaven. The war being waged over America at present is not a matter of differing political opinions but of diametrically opposed religions.

One side says that unborn babies, the most innocent of all persons, may be executed at will, torn apart and unceremoniously vacuumed out of the wombs of their mothers; that children may, on a whim, decide to ingest hormones foreign and unnatural to their bodies before subjecting themselves to irreversible surgeries so horrific that not even the most warped and depraved authors of the 19th and 20th centuries could have imagined them; that procreation is wholly unrelated to the conjugal act, that two men might sodomize one another and call it “love”; that sex-trafficking and child sexual exploitation are just the price to be paid for virtual images of increasingly perverted sex acts, readily available to young and old at the mere click of a button; that a nation has no sovereignty and must be subjected to millions of unvetted, unrestricted immigrants.

The other side says that innocence is worth preserving, that unborn children and their mothers must be cherished and protected from the evils of the abortion mill; that children must be raised to think and think critically, think well, think deeply; that the family is the basic and fundamental unit of society, that the very fabric of civilization would unravel without the family as its basis; that love necessitates self-sacrifice, not self-gratification; that nations have a God-given right to defend their borders and preserve the safety and security of their own people; that Christ is indeed King.

This present war is not between two ideological factions but between powers and principalities, between leftism and Christianity, between good and evil, between God and Satan. “Choose you this day whom ye will serve… As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15).

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Pro-Israel Americans need to stop cowering and start protesting

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

What Jesus’s Resurrection Accomplished

All over the world, Christians will, this weekend, celebrate the astounding truth that a crucified rabbi was raised from the dead and, equally astonishing, would never die again.

It’s worth asking why we regard the resurrection of Christ as so important. Why did Paul tell the Corinthians, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (I Corinthians 15:19)?

The resurrection of Jesus was, first, a vindication. It demonstrated that He was both sinless man and fully God. The apostle Paul explains that “sin came into the world through one man [Adam] and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Romans 5:12). Our inheritance from Adam is not only physical existence but spiritual death. A morally perfect man, set in a flawless, sin-absent environment, deliberately chose to rebel against his Creator. He was a “test case,” humanity’s representative before God. In other words, Adam demonstrated that inevitably, all would sin and, therefore, God rightly judged us all in him.  From our first father, we have inherited a tainted nature, an insistent pulling away from our Maker.

Through Adam, then, we also inherit death, both temporal and eternal. “The wages of sin” — the appropriate payment for our evil and evil-doing – “is death” (Romans 6:23a). If this is the case, and if there is nothing we can do to satisfy God’s just demand for moral perfection, we are unavoidably doomed.

So, then, in what way was Jesus’s resurrection a vindication? Had He not been morally perfect, He would have remained in the tomb. But if death is the fruit of sin, then the Sinless One could not but be raised. His resurrection proves His perfection. Christ is the “second Adam,” the One Who did not fail the lifelong test of complete obedience to the Father (I Corinthians 15:45). And, of course, as fully God in human flesh, death had no hold on Him. Jesus Himself declared, “No one takes [My life] from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father” (John 10:18).

Second, Jesus’s resurrection was a victory — indeed, the greatest and most comprehensive victory in the history of the universe. Part of this victory was the Lord Jesus’s triumph over the author of death, “that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray” (Revelation 12:9). On the cross, Christ “became sin for us” (II Corinthians 5:21), on our behalf experiencing the full and righteous rage of the Father against all human sin. Having taken the penalty for our sin, He said, “It is completed,” a reference to the fulfillment of all the Old Testament prophesies about the Messiah.

Put simply, Jesus won: He defeated death. He defeated Satan and his forces. He fulfilled His Messianic mission. By His atoning death on a Roman cross, the eternal debt of punishment we owe an infinitely holy God was “paid in full.” By deciding to place our trust in Christ alone, believing that His substitution for us on the cross met completely the demand of the Father that payment be made for our deep moral sickness, we can experience new and eternal life in His presence. This is the new, second birth. Paul puts it much better than me:

“And you, who were dead in your trespasses … God made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in Him” (Colossians 2:13-15).

Finally, the resurrection of Jesus was vibrant. Our word “vibrant” comes from a Latin term referring to something being shaken back and forth. It was a metaphor for energy and life and vitality. So with the resurrection of Jesus: “We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death He died He died to sin, once for all, but the life He lives He lives to God” (Romans 6:9-10). This is why those who have been born a second time can “walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4), our sins forgiven, our hope sure, our joyous eternal destiny awaiting us.

We still live in a world where the ugly taint of sin permeates. All who have lost loved ones, who themselves are suffering, who know disappointment and betrayal, trauma, and pain, long for the day when all things will be made new. Yet even in our experience of time and fallenness, we can still rejoice. The vaporous life we now know has been “swallowed up in victory” — Christ’s and, through Him, ours.

This is why Jesus could say, “In the world you will have tribulation, but be of good cheer — I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). In Him, in His resurrection from the dead, so have we.

He is risen — He is risen indeed!

AUTHOR

Rob Schwarzwalder

Rob Schwarzwalder, Ph.D., is Senior Lecturer in Regent University’s Honors College.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Christianity Is Exclusive — And Inclusive!

A study by Ligonier Ministries and Lifeway Research published in late 2022 offered a startling finding: nearly 60% of professing evangelical Protestants believe Jesus is but one of a number of ways to God. A similar 2021 survey by Probe Ministries documented a similar percentage.

This is more than troubling — it is a rejection, whether from ignorance or outright rebellion to God’s Word, of the New Testament’s teaching about the person and work of Jesus Christ. “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” said Jesus. “No one comes to the Father except by Me” (John 14:6). The apostle Peter confirmed his Master’s claim: “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). In addition to such explicit passages, the whole text of the New Testament asserts that Jesus of Nazareth, fully God and fully man, took into Himself the penalty of eternal death deserved by all of us. That’s comprehensive in both time and scope, and by definition excludes all other supposed pathways to God.

These things compose a single claim: That there are no other means of obtaining a relationship with God and eternal life apart from placing your trust in Christ alone for forgiveness and reconciliation with our Creator. And in making this claim, Christianity is accused of being narrow, unfair, and arrogant. There are so many other faiths, and so many good people now and throughout history who have never heard of Jesus; how can Christianity tell every other religion it is false and every other spiritual code it is inadequate?

These are hard questions. Not to admit this is not to be honest. Yet the Bible also tells us that God is both loving and just, and Jesus commanded His followers to go throughout the earth and make disciples (Matthew 28:18-20). This, then, is the foundational calling of all who have come to know Him.

The God of the Bible has provided but one way to be born physically and, in the same way, only one way to be born spiritually. He is the One Who makes and redeems; the way of knowing Him is a matter of His choice, not ours.

The uniqueness of Jesus and His plan of salvation are not the Bible’s only exclusivities. Christianity also claims that marriage is exclusive: one man and one woman in a life-long, covenantal relationship (see, for example, Proverbs 2:14) and the only place where sexual intimacy is honored by God. In our era, one characterized by every manner of sexual dysfunction and promiscuity, this understanding of human sexuality is profoundly counter-cultural. It is also an understanding of unity, complementarity, and life-affirming relationship imbued with beauty, goodness, and truth.

These things mirror the character of God Himself. He is a God of exclusivity. He told the people of Israel, “See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” (Deuteronomy 32:39). He declares to Isaiah, “I am Yahweh, and there is no other, besides me there is no God” (45:5).

In our time, these scriptural claims are discomfiting. How much simpler and less contentious to affirm religion as palliative, a means of coping with stress and molding one’s preferred deity into the form most comfortable to the molder. And how distasteful to assert that there is but one true God and one means of entering His presence, that new birth through which the imponderable purity of His Son is imputed to those who repent and place their hope in Him alone.

These perceptions are appealing but have an immutable disadvantage: They are false, wrong, and turn us in the direction of everlasting punishment. This is because of the gospel’s unmitigated inclusivity.

Yes, you read that correctly. The good news of Jesus is inclusive, open to all who come to Him and receive Him by faith. We read in Revelation 7:9 that in heaven, followers of Christ will be part of “a great multitude that no one can number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands.” Eternal redemption is open to all, not some spiritual elite or mysteriously initiated handful.

Jesus is alive: This is the simple and universe-shaking truth of the resurrection, that always-glorious day we will celebrate this coming Sunday. The way to know God is exclusively through Him, and that way is accessible to all, including you and me. Come meet Him today.

AUTHOR

Rob Schwarzwalder

Rob Schwarzwalder, Ph.D., is Senior Lecturer in Regent University’s Honors College.

RELATED VIDEO: Tucker Carlson points out examples of the new legal code and motives of the current U.S. administration

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Christ Is King and Every Knee Shall Bend

Almost since the beginning of recorded history, men have sought power: Caesars and shahs, kings and sultans, princes and khans, presidents and prime ministers, emperors and generals. Kingdoms and empires, dynasties and nations have risen and fallen, memorialized in poems and art and the annals of history. Some dominated entire generations, others sprawled across centuries. Only one has stood the test of time, covering every continent and thriving over 2,000 years: Christianity.

Over the weekend, this well-chronicled historical fact became a subject of discontent and dispute for the armchair philosophers and amateur pundits of social media — many of them self-professed conservatives and even Christians. According to these self-appointed arbiters of theological, historical, and social truth, the admission “Christ is King” is clearly a hateful, anti-Semitic slur. That is to say, claiming that the Messiah foretold by centuries of Jewish prophets, born to a humble Jewish carpenter and his wife, who illuminated and fulfilled the Jewish Scriptures, could be the King of the world is … hateful towards Jews. Luckily for Christians, nearly two millennia ago, a Jew famous for prosecuting and executing Christians actually addressed this argument:

“Because of this, God greatly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:9-11).

The chief argument against “Christ is King” is that the proclamation of the fact is offensive to those of the Jewish faith, and thus anti-Semitic, a slur against a race of persons. As for the racial component of this argument, Christianity necessarily holds that God does not create anything evil — evil is, rather, an absence or a perversion of good in something — and, since every person is not only made by God but is in fact made in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:27), no human can be created evil.

It is for this reason that Christianity has, from the beginning, served as the driving force of civilization. It was St. Patrick, himself sold as a slave in his boyhood, who first condemned the slave trade, some 1,400 years before the American Civil War was fought. It was St. Remigius of Reims who, after the fall of Rome, baptized Franks, Goths, Galls, and Celts, giving those who the Romans derided as “barbarians” a new name, “brother in Christ.” It was Christian missionaries who brought the gospel to Africa, Asia, and South America, establishing peace in regions which had previously been dominated by tribal and racial wars, often culminating in slavery and human sacrifice.

History baldly contradicts the argument that Christianity condemns any particular race, but especially the Jewish race. Christ Himself was ethnically Jewish, and his earthly father, Joseph, was descended from the line of the great King David, as affirmed by the Gospels of both Luke and Matthew. Declaring then that a humble carpenter’s son of the Jewish race is, in fact, the King of the entire world hardly seems to be a means of deriding the Jewish race. The first Christians were Jewish fishermen, so devoted to Christ and the gospel that, with the exception of John the Evangelist, they all willingly died for their faith. The first act of the apostles was to evangelize the Jews, to welcome thousands into the church, to call their own people to recognize the kingship of Christ.

By its very nature, Christianity demonstrably rebuffs the claim that Christ’s kingship — and its proclamation — is somehow an instrument of violence, hatred, or oppression towards any people, but especially the Jews. The fact that some vocal pundits and influencers have attempted to affix the phrase with their racially-charged messages does not alter or mitigate the truth that Christ is King, and it does not warrant the broad effort to suppress proclaiming Christ’s Kingship regardless of intent. Instead, the real case against “Christ is King” is a theological one.

Christ did not come to end the Mosaic covenant, but to fulfill it. He Himself said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17). In other words, He came that He might be the continuation of that covenant: not its death, but its fruition. The prophets of old predicted that a Messiah would come to save the world from its sins and eternal damnation. Christ is that Messiah. There is no longer the promise of a Messiah, there is not some other savior waiting in the wings like an understudy. This does not abolish the Mosaic covenant, but continues it, rather as a young boy maturing into a man does not kill the boy, but fulfills the promise of his youth. There is not now, though, the same boy running about playing while the grown man works and weds and raises his own children. Just so, there are not two extant covenants: an old one and a new one. Rather, the old covenant was made to mature into Christ, who is Himself the new covenant, just as the boy was made to mature into the man.

This point is an important one to understand, for if Christ’s birth, life, death, and resurrection were merely offering an alternative covenant to the Mosaic covenant, then what would be the point? If the Mosaic law were sufficient for one to attain Heaven and eternal salvation, perfect and beatific communion with God, then God becoming man, taking on the form of a mere creature, suffering an excruciating and ignominious death, and then conquering the grave would be rather superfluous.

Very well, but what if the Mosaic covenant was for the Jews and the new covenant established in Christ is for the Gentiles? Then Christ’s ministry, carried out entirely within the Jewish community, would have been fruitless. Christ was not born in Rome, fulfilling prophesies written hundreds of years before in Jupiter’s temples. He was not born in Athens, claiming to be the son of Kronos. He was not raised studying the sacred texts of the Persians or the Babylonians. He was born in Bethlehem to a Jewish carpenter whose royal lineage would mean nothing to a Gentile, He grew up studying the Jewish Scriptures, and He called Himself the Son of God. But He was rejected by those who, for centuries, awaited His coming.

Christ Himself acknowledges this throughout the gospels. In one instance, He tells a parable to the Pharisees and Jewish priests and leaders, of a landowner who leases his vineyard to tenants and sends numerous servants to ask them for his vintage. After the tenants beat and kill the servants and messengers, the vineyard owner sends his son. When he arrives, Christ says, “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and acquire his inheritance.’ They seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him” (Matthew 21:33-39).

Christ rarely explained His parables to anyone other than the Apostles, but He did explain this one to the Pharisees and priests:

“Did you never read in the scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; by the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes’? Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that will produce its fruit” (Matthew 21:42-43).

Matthew records, “When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they knew that he was speaking about them” (Matthew 21:45). Christ also knew the thoughts of the Pharisees and priests (Luke 5:22-23), which makes His summary of the tenants’ thoughts all the more damning. He knew, of course, that He would be rejected, and He knew why. Christ did not reject the Jews and God did not replace them with Christians. Rather, Christ brought the promise of the Mosaic covenant to fruition through His life, death, and resurrection, calling His chosen people to enter into the covenant which He Himself is.

The conclusion this argument against “Christ is King” reaches is, essentially, that Christ is not King. If He were King, of course, then there would be no harm in declaring Him thus — but if He is not, then boldly and proudly proclaiming His Kingship would be a sort of spiritual colonization of those who do not call Him a King, especially the Jews, since Christ claimed to be the Messiah their Scriptures prophesied. Instead, if this argument is accepted, Christ is relegated to merely one king among many. In short, the argument’s conclusion is that there are multiple avenues to what Christ offers: eternal salvation. Christians, of course, recognize that this is patently false.

Once again, Christ Himself declares, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, then you will also know my Father” (John 14:6-7). There is no other way, there is no other savior, there is no one else whose blood might wash away sin and whose life might conquer death itself. As St. John Chrysostom asks, “Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?” The campaign against Christ’s Kingship is nothing short of an overture to pantheism, an effort to declare that Christ is not only not King, but is not the way or the truth or the life.

Atheism is given pride of place among the social, political, and academic elites of the West: the declaration “God is dead” is met with smiles or applause and is ingratiated into Western nomenclature. The violent religion of Islam is endorsed and promulgated, with even those whom Muslims would deride as “infidels” serving as some of Islam’s most ardent evangelists. Judaism used to be more vigorously defended, with any critique of the religion instantly labeled racism and anti-Semitism. But the Kingship of Christ is denied, spurned, and rejected. The only One who truly is the way, the truth, and the life is silenced, as He was silenced upon a cross nearly 2,000 years ago.

Christians have a responsibility, a solemn commission, to proclaim that Christ is King. It is not anti-Semitic, it is not a slur, it is not a “dialectical trap,” as some have called it. It is a crucial tenet of the Christian faith. Our King commanded us not to shirk and shrink from name-calling, but to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), reminding us that the world will hate us for declaring that Christ is King, just as it first hated Christ our King (John 15:18-19).

Over the centuries, Christian martyrs have faced far worse than criticism, accusations of racism, and social ostracization in their efforts to preach the gospel and expand Christ’s kingdom. Let us not cower before the self-negating arguments of pantheism nor allow any smear to keep us from courageously proclaiming that truth in which both Heaven and earth rejoice: Christ is King.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Stand Courageous Men’s Conference Highlights Need for Biblical Leadership in Society

Christian Leaders Call for Prayer after Baltimore Bridge Collapse

The Second Chance for Moms Act Could ‘Save Countless Women the Heartbreak’ of Abortion

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Reject the ‘Red Pill,’ Carry Your Cross

Feminism has, for over a century, been playing merry Hell with Western civilization, engendering (pun intended) division and enmity between the sexes and giving rise to a host of moral and societal cancers, such as abortion, transgenderism, and the decline of the family.

The division between the sexes bred by feminism initially targeted women, pressuring them to be more and more like men, especially by leaving their homes and children and joining the workforce. Of course, women cannot, by their very nature as women, be men, and thus feminism spawned a dual bitterness among its female adherents: bitterness towards masculinity for being unattainably masculine and bitterness against femininity for not being attainably masculine.

By the final quarter of the 20th century, after achieving its magnum opus in the Sexual Revolution, feminism had fixed its withering glare on men. Masculinity was soon labeled dangerous and “toxic,” and men were pressured to be more like women, particularly by abandoning or suppressing masculine characteristics like assertiveness or aggression, independence, and providence. Having been told for generations that they are, by their very nature as men, problematic and oppressive, it is little wonder that there has been a decades-long crisis in masculinity.

Many men today strive to avoid the “toxic” label and so cede their God-given role as leader and provider, often allowing women to shape their opinions, lead their relationships, and split their role as breadwinner equally. This weakness has wrought even further civilizational decay and has driven countless men into desperate little psychological corners. Some simply whither away and die there, more terrified of being called a monster than of the sad, shivering husk they instead become; some, disgusted with the horror they are told that men are (a disgust frequently compounded by pornography addictions and neglected psychological conditions), decide it’s better to be women than to be men, and so seek out gender transition drugs and surgeries; and some, sick of the stranglehold that feminism has so long exerted over the culture, take the “Red Pill.”

The ‘Red Pill’

Across the internet, hundreds of thousands of young men partake in the “manosphere,” a community of websites, blogs, video channels, and social media influencers who promote physical fitness, tanned-and-toned body aesthetics, and a ridiculously luxurious lifestyle and claim that feminism has poisoned culture against men, encouraged and entrenched vitriol against men, and proliferated and normalized sexual degeneracy among women. So far, spot on. But despite its largely-correct diagnosis of the social evils plaguing our civilization, the remedy prescribed by the manosphere is just as poisonous: the Red Pill.

What could have been an ordered and even noble response to feminism, a surgical maneuver to excise the cultural cancer, devolved instead into a cesspool of violent misogyny, rampant degeneracy, and nihilistic materialism, with a dash of narcissistic homosexuality for flavor.

The Red Pill does not respond to feminism’s pervasive sexual promiscuity by extolling the virtue of chastity, but instead jealously encourages men to be just as promiscuous, if not more so. The Red Pill does not seek out the forgotten masculine characteristics of courage, endurance, providence, and self-sacrifice, but instead cultivates only aggression and self-seeking. The Red Pill does not remind men that they are to provide for their wives and children, but instead tells them to “rise and grind” so they can afford a bulky luxury watch and a fluorescent luxury sportscar — all the better for cruising for chicks. The Red Pill does not remind men why manhood is good and necessary, but instead conforms masculinity to the terms set by feminism, in the inverse: poisoning culture against women, encouraging and entrenching vitriol against women, and proliferating and normalizing sexual degeneracy among men.

In short, the Red Pill is just vapid internet slang for feminism’s evils practiced by and for the “benefit” of men. Just as feminism is characterized by labelling masculinity “toxic,” so also the Red Pill is characterized by labelling women “sluts.” Misogyny is an essential component of the Red Pill, which in many cases leads to yet another social and sexual evil: narcissistic homosexuality.

‘Men without Chests’

Although there are multitudinous psychological factors that may lead one to identify as homosexual and lead a homosexual lifestyle, there are, at least superficially, two forms of homosexuality. The first is readily familiar and recognizable: the effeminate homosexuality which favors leopard print and limp wrists. This form of homosexuality is prone to a catty love-hatred of women born out of envy. In some ways, effeminate homosexuality feels itself more at home around women, in no small part because it seeks to emulate women.

The other form is less often seen and even more seldomly discussed: hyper-masculine homosexuality. This form of homosexuality rejects femininity altogether, deriding women for not being men, while worshipping the superficial traits of masculinity. I say the superficial traits because such authentically masculine virtues as chastity, temperance, prudence, and self-sacrifice are neither sought nor cultivated. All that is desired is the muscular male form and the personality traits of aggression and pride.

God made male and female for each other (Genesis 1:27). While effeminate homosexuality seeks to play the role of the female, hyper-masculine homosexuality removes her from the equation altogether. Its narcissism and self-absorption is so complete that it worships only itself and whatever has the hubris to resemble it. Even if it does not culminate in homosexuality, the ideology of the Red Pill still reaches these dizzying heights of auto-adulation, worshipping a warped and fractured image of masculinity so fervently, so devotedly that vehement hatred of all that is “other” becomes in itself an act of worship.

This self-adoration, paradoxically, necessitates a fracturing of the self. Man is incomplete in love without woman, just as she is incomplete in love without man. The Red Pill denies this fundamental truth and thus fractures man, carving out of him that which in fact makes him a man: his heart. The Red Pill encourages men to push themselves to the limit, to lift weights, to live adventurously, to earn inordinate amounts of money, but for what? Simply for the sake of making oneself into one’s own idol (as in idolatry) — not for the sake of the other, for the sake of a woman, because the Red Pill preaches that no woman has value as a woman, only as a fleshy instrument for sex.

The end result of the manosphere’s efforts has been to instill in its adherents a distorted and disordered hierarchy of value, prizing wealth and fashion above the human souls they were made to give themselves to in love. The Red Pill encourages (almost goads) men to achieve and perform, but simultaneously denies that there is anything worth achieving and no feat worth performing, no object to either. C.S. Lewis predicted such a dreary, purposeless dystopia in his book “The Abolition of Man.” Lewis wrote, “In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

What a pitiable and miserable existence the Red Pill renders: sex without soul, achievement without meaning, work without purpose, nothing worth living or fighting or dying for, just one’s own self. Another great Cristian author, G.K. Chesterton, pithily summarized such an existence: “Yourself, yourself, yourself — the only companion that is never satisfied — and never satisfactory.”

The Way of the Cross

Surely the Red Pill’s depressing, stifling conclusions can’t be correct, surely the cancer of feminism hasn’t succeeded in actually killing its host civilization, surely there must be some hope.

There is. The moral and spiritual diseases of both feminism and the Red Pill are both cured by the cross of Christ. That way lies true manhood and masculinity. Where the Red Pill whines that feminism has ruined everything, Christ says, “Behold, I make all things new” (Revelation 21:5). Where the Red Pill suggests that there is no way forward for men or women, Christ says, “Take up your cross and follow me” (Matthew 16:24). Where the Red Pill extols promiscuity and degeneracy, Christ commands, “Be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48).

And more than this, Christ shows us how to be real men. The flashy images of bodybuilders and Bugattis that populate manosphere websites and social media feeds suddenly pale next to an image of one Man, not clad in designer athleisure but stripped of both his clothes and his flesh, adorned not with a Rolex or a pair of Ray-Bans but with a crown of thorns — one Man, hanging upon a tree, breathing His last.

The 20th century Catholic priest Josemaría Escrivá once explained, “The school of love has a name: it is sacrifice.” Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is the greatest image of manhood that ever existed. On that cross, Christ exemplified and embodied the perfection of every masculine trait: the strength to carry the sins of the world, the courage to submit to His own death, the humility to hang naked, nailed to a tree, the self-sacrifice He made of His life, and the love He poured out upon the entire world as it scorned Him and mocked Him.

Real manhood is not to be found in the Red Pill, nor is the manosphere’s response to the cancer of feminism the right one. Real manhood is to be found in taking up your cross and following Christ, even if it means following Him to death.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

What Business Do Christians Have Being Journalists?

Collin Hansen, a Christian journalist, once wrote that “there’s significant overlap between” journalism and Christianity, because both “teach by distilling complicated concepts about how the world works. Both herald news, good and bad.” But he added that one “might not know about the overlap between these callings because journalists and preachers generally don’t like each other.”

Of course, it’s no wonder why. Journalists aren’t famous for their good, trustworthy reputations. Rather, they’re more commonly infamous for their willingness to lie and twist the narrative to accommodate their biases. We scan headlines and notice that left- and right-wing outlets may cover the same news yet tell completely different stories. How do we know who and what to trust?

More importantly, what business does a Christian have in a field notorious for misconduct?

Growing up, I didn’t pay much attention to politics. Partly because I lacked an interest in it, and partly because I saw how it stirred up immense controversy. I didn’t see the point of engaging in what seemed like a constant societal migraine. But here I am, a Christian reporter with my gaze particularly fixed on the political arena. So, what changed? It’s simple.

I used to tell people, “The only political opinions I have are what’s addressed in the Bible.” And while it’s largely still the case, there’s a much different meaning behind that statement now. Back then, if I said that, I was primarily referring to matters of abortion, gender, and marriage — areas I firmly believe Scripture makes abundantly clear. But what changed between then and now is that I see more clearly how the Bible touches on far more than those three significant areas. Indeed, the more I study Scripture (and observe the political landscape), the more I see just how much the Bible applies to nearly everything.

It was during my internship at Family Research Council, shortly after attending Bible college, when this became blatant. Evidently, there are a vast number of political topics to consider when claiming the Bible “nearly” applies to “everything.” But I’ve had the privilege of writing for The Washington Stand about immigration, debanking, socialism, abortion, economics, LGBT activism, education, social media, mental health, and more, and for every single topic, a biblical worldview has applied. Moreover, in each topic, a Christian voice was not only relevant, but needed.

God is not just “some” truth you can choose to adopt in personal and isolated areas of convenience. No, He is the ultimate Truth as it pertains to all things, regardless of how we feel. The truth of God is “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). It’s completely detached from the roller coaster of human trends and finite perspectives. As such, Christians have an advantage to journalism secular journalists don’t. Christian journalists know objective truth, and it has set us free (John 8:32). And its Christian journalists who then take God and His word into the messy battleground of secular journalism to serve as salt and light to a world in desperate need of it. And really, all Christians who engage in politics are called to do this, too.

I had a conversation with a friend the other day about how hopeless it can feel standing for biblical truth in the public square when it seems to have no impact. And yet, for this very reason, I don’t find it coincidental Galatians 6:9 frequently comes to mind, which says, “Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” And really, this is what Christian journalists are called to take on.

I believe it’s a strong and reasonable temptation to give up when swimming against the current — particularly in an ocean as restless as politics. But what I believe Galatians 6:9 is meant to remind us of is that we don’t give up because, while we may not always be able to see how our efforts make a difference, we serve a God who said, “Before they call I will answer; while they are still speaking I will hear” (Isaiah 65:24). And Jesus said in John 5:17, “My Father is always working, and so am I.”

Feeling like God isn’t working is no reason to give up. Instead, we never have reason to give up because we trust, in His sovereignty, He is working.

2 Corinthians 4:4 says that “the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” But don’t you see? Journalism is such a wonderful opportunity for Christians to put the light of the gospel back into the public square. We will be criticized and rejected for it, but we will also be glorifying God.

Hansen articulated it well when he shared why Christian journalism matters:

“Journalists that would serve the church will fulfill a catechetical calling. We are teachers who help other Christians understand a world created by God but corrupted by sin. Our investigative work reflects the biblical reality that we live in … [a] time when our ‘adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour’ (1 Peter 5:8). We expose the sin that imperils believers so that they might be prepared to defend themselves in the power of the Holy Spirit.

“Yet, we also live in … [a] time when the Father is working in glorious ways to spread the saving knowledge of His Son, Jesus Christ. This is good news, and journalists have been called to tell it. With a little help from preachers, we just might be able to encourage the church with a new, more edifying approach to media.”

As corrupt and abused as it may be, I don’t believe the realm of media, reporting, and journalism is worth abandoning. Like everything in this fallen world, its frustrating nature is not one we should shy away from. Rather, it should be a wake-up call to what Christians are meant to do in the first place. That is, to proclaim the truth.

Earlier, I said I am a Christian reporter with my gaze fixed on politics. And while that is true as it pertains to what I write about, behind it all is a gaze fixed on Christ. And so, as a Christian journalist, I shall repeat the words of Psalm 146:2, in that “I will praise the Lord as long as I live; I will sing praises to my God while I have my being.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Glenn Youngkin Sabotages His GOP Future with Same-Sex Marriage Support

Ireland Rejects Leftist Constitutional Amendments Targeting Family and Motherhood

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

2024: The Year of Consequential Elections

As the 2024 U.S. presidential election comes into sharper focus, much of the political punditry has focused on the potential rematch of Joe Biden versus Donald Trump. In recent weeks, the American press has reported extensively on former President Trump’s ongoing court cases and Special Counsel Robert Hur’s characterization of President Biden as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

Although Americans should expect an avalanche of news related to the presidential election over the next 10 months, it is important to remember that other offices besides the presidency will also be on the ballot ?” including 34 U.S. Senate seats, all 435 U.S. House seats, 11 governorships, and legislative seats in 44 states. The results of these elections will have massive consequences for years to come.

The United States isn’t the only country engaging in national elections this year: at least 64 other countries will be choosing leaders as well. Already, millions of people have voted in elections in Bangladesh (January 7), Taiwan (January 13), Finland (January 28), El Salvador (February 4), Pakistan (February 8), and Indonesia (February 14). In the coming months, citizens in many other nations will cast ballots.

As Christians, we recognize that participating in elections is a stewardship and an opportunity to love our neighbors in a practical way. Since the outcome of these elections will affect the rights and livelihoods of so many people, Christians ought to pray that those participating in the political process make wise choices.

Africa

South Africa will hold its general election on May 29. Observers expect it will be the most competitive election in that country since the end of Apartheid. Additionally, many analysts predict that the governing African National Congress will lose its parliamentary majority for the first time since 1994. With unemployment and poverty on voters’ minds, incumbent president Cyril Ramaphosa faces a challenging re-election campaign.

Other countries with elections include Togo (legislative, April 13), Ghana (general, December 7), Botswana, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, and Somaliland.

Asia

This spring, voters in India will decide whether Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be elected for a third term. Modi’s party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, is popular and holds the most seats in the Indian Parliament.

On April 10, South Korea will hold legislative elections that will determine the composition of the 300-seat National Assembly. President Yoon Suk Yeol (elected in 2022) is hoping his conservative People Power Party, currently the second largest party in the National Assembly, will wrest control from the more liberal Democratic Party of Korea.

Americas

On June 2, Mexican citizens will participate in a general election to pick a new president and legislature. Incumbent president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who is ineligible for a second term, has endorsed former Mexico City Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum as his successor. Sheinbaum is a member of Mexico’s more liberal party and is competing against Xóchitl Gálvez, the leader of a center-right coalition.

Other countries with elections include Panama (general, May 5), the Dominican Republic (general, May 19), and Uruguay (general, October 27).

Europe

The European Parliament, the legislative body of the European Union (EU), will hold its quinquennial election on June 6-9. All 720 seats are up for election. With an estimated 400 million eligible voters, the election will be the largest transnational election in the world. It will also be the EU’s first parliamentary election since the United Kingdom’s exit in 2020. Many pollsters are predicting a strong showing by conservative parties, an outcome that would dramatically affect the EU’s political landscape.

European countries with elections this year include Portugal (legislative, March 10), Slovakia (presidential, March 23), Lithuania (presidential, May 12), Georgia (general, November 5), Croatia (general, TBD), and Romania (presidential, TBD).

Expected Elections

In addition to these confirmed elections, other nations expected to hold elections in 2024 include Austria (legislative), Jordan (legislative), Moldova (presidential), Syria (legislative), and Uzbekistan (legislative).

Worth noting is that Russia is also scheduled to hold a presidential election in March, although observers expect President Vladimir Putin to win upwards of 90% of the vote in an election a Kremlin spokesman conceded “is not really democracy.” Additionally, it is possible that the United Kingdom will hold its general election this fall, with polls indicating the ruling Conservative Party may lose 10 Downing Street to the Labour Party for the first time in 14 years.

In short, 2024 has already proved itself to be a consequential election year. By the year’s conclusion, nearly half of the world’s population will have seen a national election take place in their country. As hundreds of millions of people participate in these elections, Christians should commit to praying for voters as well as the leaders who will take office.

In an interconnected world, what happens in one country inevitably affects another. Elections matter because people matter, and the 2024 elections will undoubtedly affect an untold number of people. Thus, until King Jesus returns, Christians should pray, vote, and engage with politics, remembering that faithfulness, not results, is how we will ultimately be judged.

FRC intern Natalie Spaulding contributed research for this article.

AUTHOR

David Closson

David Closson is Director of the Center for Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.