Tag Archive for: Biblical Worldview

A Founding Mother’s Faith: Abigail Adams

/in , , , , , /by

“My mother was an angel upon earth. …Her price was indeed above rubies,” wrote John Quincy Adams about his beloved mother, Abigail.[1] Mourning her death in his diary, the secretary of State at the time and later America’s sixth president echoed the words of Proverbs 31:10 in a fitting tribute to a remarkable woman of faith. As we approach Mother’s Day, few lives more fittingly embody the strength, sacrifice, and spiritual depth of motherhood than Abigail Adams.

While she is mostly remembered as the wife of John Adams and the mother of John Quincy Adams, Abigail’s legacy reaches far beyond her proximity to presidential power. During the American War for Independence, she stood on the homefront as a pillar of resilience, supporting her family through an unshakable faith in God. Consequently, our celebration of America’s 250th birthday would not be complete without remembering and honoring the vital role that women played.

If men like John Adams and George Washington declared and fought for the independence of our nation, it was women like Abigail Adams who sustained it. Indeed, Abigail urged John and those men in Philadelphia to “Remember the Ladies.”[2] It is fitting that we do that as well, yet with a particular focus on her faith that was the defining quality and contribution of her amazing life.

A Faith Forged by Family

Born on November 22, 1744, Abigail was raised by devout Christian parents. Reverend William Smith was the Harvard-educated pastor of the North Parish Congregational Church of Weymouth, Massachusetts. Though Abigail did not receive a formal education, she was schooled at home mostly by her mother, Elizabeth, the daughter of John Quincy, a prominent member of the colony.[3]

Abigail and her siblings were taught to read and write, and her father made available his extensive library. However, the Bible was the basic textbook, and Abigail absorbed its words deeply into her life. Throughout her copious correspondence, we see plenty of evidence of her biblical worldview, with abundant allusions and citations of Scripture. True to her biblical namesake, Abigail grew up to be a woman of incredible courage and wisdom.

A Faith Deepened by Loss

At 19, Abigail married John Adams on October 25, 1764, combining her family’s considerable social standing with the Adams family’s rising status. Together, they would have six children, but only four lived to adulthood. In 1770, they lost Susanna, affectionally called “Suky,” when she was only two years old.

When John Adams left Massachusetts to serve in the Continental Congress in 1774, communication came only through letters that often took weeks to arrive. She wrote assuring him of her prayers for God’s wisdom: “You have before you … the greatest national concerns that ever came before any people; and if the prayers and petitions ascend unto heaven which are daily offered for you, wisdom will flow down as a stream, and righteousness as the mighty waters, and your deliberations will make glad the cities of our God” (Psalm 46:4).[4] Yet while John Adams was weighing in on the growing crisis in the colonies, Abigail was left at home to manage the family farm, educate their children, and navigate the uncertainties of an impending war with Great Britian.

While the public rightly remembers John and the other statesmen in Philadelphia, the private burden of sacrifice fell heavily on Abigail. During these years, she endured devastating losses, including the death of her mother and the stillbirth of a child — griefs compounded by her husband’s absence. John Adams, writing from afar, responded with philosophical resignation: “It is not uncommon for a Train of Calamities to come together.”[5] But Abigail’s response reveals the deeper well from which she drew strength, which was not stoicism, but Scripture.

“It has pleased the great disposer of all Events to add Breach to Breach,” she wrote. Then she pleaded, “How long O Lord shall the whole land say ‘I am sick’[Isaiah 33:24]? O shew us wherefore it is that thou are contending with us [Job 10:2]?” Her grief was real, but so was her faith. She drew encouragement from the image of her sympathetic Savior, weeping at Lazarus’s tomb (John 11:35-36), and declared with Job-like resolve, “Yea tho he slay me I will trust in him” (Job 13:15). She added: “But blessed be the Father of mercies [2 Corinthians 1:3]. … Still I have many blessings left, many comforts to be thankful for and rejoice in. I am not left to mourn as one without hope” (1 Thessalonians 4:13).[6]

This was not simply abstract theological reflection. It was lived faith in the crucible of suffering. The word of God was woven into the fabric of her being.

A Faith Revealed by Fire

Abigail Adams did not merely endure hardship, she interpreted it through the lens of divine providence. Her letters consistently reveal a woman steeped in Scripture, who saw both personal sorrow and national struggle under the sovereign hand of God. When British troops threatened nearby Boston, she wrote to Mercy Otis Warren with confidence drawn directly from the Psalms: “Tho an hoste should encamp against us our hearts will not fear [Psalm 27:3]. Tho war should rise against us, in this will we be confident, that the Lord reigneth [Psalm 97:1]. Let thy Mercy o Lord be upon us according as we hope in thee” (Psalm 33:22).[7]

Following the bloodshed at Lexington and Concord, she wrote John:

“The Lord will not cast off His people, neither will He forsake his inheritance [Psalm 94:14]. Great events are most certainly in the womb of futurity, and if the present chastisements which we experience have a proper influence upon our conduct, the event will certainly be in our favor. … Pharaoh’s [i.e., King George III’s] heart is hardened, and he refuseth to hearken to them and will not let the people go [Exodus 8:32]. May their deliverance be wrought out for them, as it was for the children of Israel” (Exodus 12-14).[8]

A few weeks later, as militia units from all over Massachusetts and adjacent colonies converged to surround occupied Boston, Abigail encouraged herself and John from the example of Nehemiah:

“We live in continual expectation of hostilities. Scarcely a day that does not produce some; but like good Nehemiah, having made our prayer unto God and set the people with their swords, their spears, and their bows, we will say unto them ‘Be not ye afraid of them; remember the Lord, who is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives and your houses’” (Nehemiah 4:14).[9]

She added a prayer: “Almighty God, cover the heads of our countrymen [Psalm 140:7], and be a shield to our dear friends [Psalm 3:3]! … May we be supported and sustained in the dreadful conflict.”[10]

After the British burned Charlestown and the costly Battle of Bunker Hill, she reminded her husband: “The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong [Ecclesiastes 9:11]; but the God of Israel is He that giveth strength and power unto his people [Psalm 68:35]. Trust in him at all times, ye people, pour out your hearts before him; God is a refuge for us [Psalm 62:8].” During the continued occupation of Boston, she offered this prayer, “And unto Him who mounts the whirlwind and directs the storm [Nahum 1:3] I will cheerfully leave the ordering of my lot; and whether adverse or prosperous days should be my future portion, I will trust in His right hand to lead me safely through [Psalm 139:10], and after a short rotation of events, fix me in a state immutable and happy.”[11]

Her faith was active, interpretive, and sustaining. It gave her a framework for understanding both suffering and purpose. Notably, she did not see history as random or chaotic, but as guided by “the great disposer of all Events.”

After Boston was ultimately evacuated by British forces on March 17, 1776 — a moment that could have come at tremendous cost — she credited the Lord: “The more I think of our enemies quitting Boston, the more amazed I am that they should leave such a harbor, such fortifications, such intrenchments, and that we should he in peaceable possession of a town which we expected would cost us a river of blood, without one drop shed. Surely it is the Lord’s doings, and it is marvelous in our eyes” (Psalm 118:23).[12]

Just two weeks before the vote on the Declaration of Independence, Abigail wrote with confidence in God: “I feel no great anxiety at the large armament designed against us. The remarkable interpositions of Heaven in our favor cannot be too gratefully acknowledged. He who fed the Israelites in the wilderness [Deuteronomy 8:16], ‘who clothes the lilies of the field [Matthew 6:28], and feeds the young ravens when they cry’ [Job 38:41], will not forsake a people engaged in so righteous a cause, if we remember his loving-kindness.”[13]

Even in moments of deep anxiety — fearing for her husband abroad and her son traveling across the Atlantic — she anchored herself in God’s promises:

“In contemplation of my situation, I am sometimes thrown into an agony of distress. Distance, dangers, and oh, I cannot name all the fears which sometimes oppress me, and harrow up my soul. Yet must the common lot of man one day take place, whether we dwell in our native land or are far distant from it. That we rest under the shadow of the Almighty [Psalm 91:1] is the consolation to which I resort, and find that comfort which the world cannot give” (John 14:27).[14]

This awareness of God’s presence sustained her through years of uncertainty. It also shaped the spiritual atmosphere of her home. Abigail did not merely teach doctrine; she modeled dependence on God in every circumstance.

A Faith that Formed Her Family

Though married, Abigail Adams effectively lived as a single mother for much of the Revolutionary era. With John frequently away — first in Philadelphia, later in Europe — she bore the full responsibility of raising their children.

She managed finances, oversaw the farm, and maintained order in a time of chaos. Yet her greatest labor was not economic or logistical — it was spiritual. “Our Little ones… shall not be deficient in virtue or probity if the precepts of a Mother have their desired Effect,” she assured her husband. However, she also recognized the challenge of raising children without a father’s daily example. In a gentle but pointed rebuke, she wrote: “They would be doubly in-forced could they be indulged with the example of a Father constantly before them.”[15] Abigail understood that motherhood required both instruction and example. And though she bore the burden alone, she refused to lower the standard.

From his earliest years, Abigail instilled in John Quincy Adams the habits of prayer, moral discipline, and a sense of duty to God and country. After he left with his father for Europe, she wrote:

“Tis almost four Months since you left your Native land and Embarked upon the Mighty waters in quest of a Foreign Country. Altho I have not perticuliarly wrote to you since yet you may be assured you have constantly been upon my Heart and mind.

“It is a very dificult task my dear son for a tender parent to bring their mind to part with a child of your years into a distant Land… You have arrived at years capable of improving under the advantages you will be like to have if you do but properly attend to them. They are talents put into your Hands of which an account will be required of you hereafter, and being possessd of one, two, or four, see to it that you double your numbers [Matthew 25:14-30]…

“Great Learning and superior abilities, should you ever possess them, will be of little value and small Estimation, unless Virtue, Honour, Truth and integrety are added to them. Adhere to those religious Sentiments and principals which were early instilled into your mind and remember that you are accountable to your Maker for all your words and actions [Ecclesiastes 12:1,14; Matthew 12:36]… I would much rather you should have found your grave in the ocean you have crossed, or that any untimely death crop you in your infant years, than see you an immoral, profligate, or Graceless child.”[16]

In June of 1780, Abigail Adams wrote to then 13-year-old John Quincy reminding him about the foundations for personal character and civil society:

“The only sure and permanent foundation of virtue is religion. Let this important truth be engraven upon your heart, and that the foundation of religion is the belief of the one only God, and a just sense of his attributes as a Being infinitely wise, just, and good, to whom you owe the highest reverence, gratitude, and adoration, who superintends and governs all nature… , even to clothing the lilies of the field [Matthew 6:28] and hearing the young ravens when they cry [Psalm 147:9], but more particularly regards man whom he created after his own Image [Genesis 1:27] and breathed into him an immortal spirit [Genesis 2:7] capable of a happiness beyond the grave, to the attainment of which he is bound to the performance of certain duties which all tend to the happiness and welfare of society and are comprised in one short sentence expressive of universal benevolence, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”” (Leviticus 19:18).[17]

Indeed, years later John Quincy would testify to the enduring impact of her influence: “she taught me to repeat daily, after the Lord’s Prayer, before rising from bed, the Ode of Collins on the patriot warriors who fell in the war to subdue the Jacobite rebellion of 1745. … Of the impression made upon my heart by the sentiments inculcated in these beautiful effusions of patriotism and poetry, you may form an estimate by the fact that now, seventy-one years after they were thus taught me, I repeat them from memory.”[18] Such was the curriculum of Abigail Adams, who was a mother shaping not only a child, but a statesman.

A Faith that Impacted the Future

What sets Abigail Adams apart is not only her godly endurance and her biblical instruction but also her clarity of vision. She understood the inseparable connection between private virtue and public life. In another 1775 letter to Mercy Owen Warren, Abigail expressed a principle that she clearly held dear — that patriotism and belief in providence went hand in hand:

“A patriot without religion in my estimation is as great a paradox, as an honest man without the fear of God. Is it possible that he whom no moral obligations bind, can have any real good will towards man, can he be a patriot who by an openly vicious conduct is undermining the very bonds of society, corrupting the morals of youth, and by his bad example injuring that very country he professes to patronize more than he can possibly compensate by his intrepidity, generosity, and honor? The Scriptures tell us righteousness exalteth a nation” (Proverbs 14:34).[19]

In Abigail’s correspondence with John, she argued that civic responsibility must be grounded in moral and religious duty: “[A] true patriot must be a religious man. I have been led to think from a late defection, that he who neglects his duty to his Maker may well be expected to be deficient and insincere in his duty towards the public.”[20] This insight would later echo in John Adams’s own famous declaration that the Constitution was made “only for a moral and religious people.”[21] But long before it became political philosophy, it was a wife and mother’s conviction.

In fact, Abigail cited Scripture to John Quincy about the importance of cultivating self-government before attempting to govern others:

“The due Government of the passions has been considered in all ages as a most valuable acquisition, hence an inspired writer observes, He that is slow to anger is better than the Mighty, and he that ruleth his Spirit than he that taketh a city [Proverbs 16:32]. This passion unrestrained by reason cooperating with power has produced the subversion of cities, the desolation of countries, the massacre of nations, and filled the world with injustice and oppression. … Having once obtained this self-government you will find a foundation laid for happiness to yourself and usefulness to mankind. ‘Virtue alone is happiness below,’ and consists in cultivating and improving every good inclination and in checking and subduing every propensity to evil.”[22]

Abigail saw the home as the training ground for the republic. If children were not raised with self-discipline, courage, and virtue, the nation itself would suffer. In an age obsessed with liberty, Abigail Adams never lost sight of the deeper truth: freedom without virtue is fragile and doomed to fail. With personal virtue and the favor of God, there could be success.

The Legacy of a Godly Mother

When Abigail Adams died on October 28, 1818, her son John Quincy surely had in mind Proverbs 31 as he reflected on her life. On November 1, he took time to write these heartfelt words:

“My mother was an angel upon earth. She was a minister of blessing to all human beings within her sphere of action. Her heart was the abode of heavenly purity. She had no feelings but of kindness and beneficence; yet her mind was as firm as her temper was mild and gentle. She had known sorrow, but her sorrow was silent. She was acquainted with grief [Isaiah 53:3], but it was deposited in her own bosom. She was the real personification of female virtue, of piety, of charity, of ever active and never intermitting benevolence [Proverbs 31:10a, 20]. … [Y]et she has been to me more than a mother. She has been a spirit from above watching over me for good, and contributing by my mere consciousness of her existence to the comfort of my life.”[23]

On November 3, John Quincy concluded his remembrance:

“Never have I known another human being the perpetual object of whose life was so unremittingly to do good. It was a necessity of her nature. Yet so unostentatious, so unconscious even, of her own excellence, that even the objects of her kindness often knew not whence it came… She had suffered often and severely from fits of long and painful sickness, always with calmness and resignation. She had a profound, but not an obtrusive, sensibility. She was always cheerful, never frivolous; she had neither gall nor guile. Her attention to the domestic economy of her family was unrivalled-rising with the dawn, and superintending the household concerns with indefatigable and all-foreseeing care [Proverbs 31:15, 27]… She had been, during the war of our Revolution, an ardent patriot, and the earliest lesson of unbounded devotion to the cause of their country that her children received was from her. She had the most delicate sense of propriety of conduct, but nothing uncharitable, nothing bitter. Her price was indeed above rubies” (Proverbs 31:10).[24]

Certainly, this tribute of John Quincy Adams to his mother fulfilled the call of Proverbs 31:28: “Her children arise up and call her blessed.” Hers was a faith that was quiet but profound, and whose influence endured long after her passing.

As we have seen in her letters and in her son’s testimony, Abigail’s legacy cannot be measured only by her connections to the offices her husband and son held, but in the character she helped shape and the faith she faithfully lived out. Abigail Adams represents a generation of women whose sacrifices were often unseen but indispensable. They ran households, supported the war effort, counseled their husbands, poured into their children, and prayed for the success of a fragile nation. But more than that, they anchored the American experiment in something deeper than politics: A recognition of duty to God, family, and country.

On this Mother’s Day, Abigail Adams stands as a powerful reminder that the strength of a nation is forged not only in its legislatures and battlefields, but in its homes. She was a woman of deep sorrow, yet deeper faith. A mother burdened with responsibility, yet unwavering in conviction. A patriot who believed that liberty must be rooted in righteousness. Her life asks a question that still echoes today: What kind of mothers — and fathers — are shaping the next generation?

For Abigail Adams, the answer was clear. Teach them to fear God. Train them in virtue. Prepare them for service. And trust, in every season, the One who “carves out our portion in tender mercy.”[25]

AUTHOR

Kenyn Cureton

Dr. Kenyn Cureton is Vice President for Christian Resources at Family Research Council.

Notes:

[1] John Quincy Adams, Entries for November 1-3, 1818, as found in Charles Francis Adams, ed. Memoirs of John Quncy AdamsComprising Portions of His Diary from 1795 to 1848, Vol. 4, (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippencott & Co., 1874), 155-158.

[2] Abigail Adams to John Adams on March 31, 1775 in Charles Francis Adams, ed., Familiar Letters of John Adams and His Wife Abigail Adams, During the Revolution, (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1875), 149.

[3] John Quincy served as a militia colonel, Speaker of the Massachusetts Assembly, and member of the colonial Governor’s council. See https://firstladies.org/home/first-ladies/abigail-adams.

[4] Abigail Adams to John Adams on September 16, 1774, Familiar Letters, 36. Bracketed items added here and throughout to provide Scripture references.

[5] John Adams to Abigail Adams on October 1, 1775, Familiar Letters, 100.

[6] Abigail Adams to John Adams on October 9, 1775, Familiar Letters, 105-06.

[7] Abigail Adams to Mercy Otis Warren on February 3, 1775 as found in Adams Family Correspondence, vol. 1, 184, which can be viewed here: https://www.masshist.org/publications/adams-papers/index.php/view/ADMS-04-01-02-0122.

[8] Abigail Adams to John Adams on May 7, 1775, Familiar Letters, 54.

[9] Abigail Adams to John Adams on June 18, 1775, Familiar Letters, 67.

[10] Ibid., 68.

[11] Abigail Adams to John Adams on September 18, 1775, Familiar Letters, 98.

[12] Abigail Adams to John Adams on March 17-18, 1776, Familiar Letters, 143-44.

[13] Abigail Adams to John Adams on June 20, 1776, Familiar Letters, 188.

[14] Abigail Adams to John Adams on June 8, 1779, Familiar Letters, 365-66.

[15] Abigail Adams to John Adams on May 7, 1776, Familiar Letters, 169-70.

[16] Abigail Adams to John Quincy Adams, June 1778, vol. 3, 37 as found online here: https://www.masshist.org/publications/adams-papers/index.php/view/ADMS-04-03-02-0034.

[17] Abigail Adams to John Quincy Adams, May 1778, vol. 3, 311 as found online here: https://www.masshist.org/publications/adams-papers/index.php/view/ADMS-04-03-02-0240.

[18] John Quincy Adams to Joseph Sturge in 1846 in Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Company, 1874), 1:5-6. See online here: https://www.masshist.org/publications/adams-papers/view?mode=n&id=AFC01d153n3.

[19] Abigail Adams to Mercy Otis Warren on November 5, 1775 in Adams Family Correspondence, vol. 1, 323, as found online here: https://www.masshist.org/publications/adams-papers/index.php/view/ADMS-04-01-02-0213.

[20] Abigail Adams to John Adams on November 5, 1775, Familiar Letters, 122.

[21] John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, October 11, 1798 in Charles Francis Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams – Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes, and Illustration, 10 vols., (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1854), 9:228-229.

[22] Abigail Adams to John Quincy Adams, May 20, 1780, vol. 3, 312 as found online here: https://www.masshist.org/publications/adams-papers/index.php/view/ADMS-04-03-02-0240. Note that the additional quote is from Alexander Pope.

[23] John Quincy Adams on November 1, 1818 in Memoirs, 155.

[24] Ibid., 158.

[25] Abigail Adams to John Adams on October 9, 1775, Familiar Letters, 106.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 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.

Type A Personalities and Trusting God

/in , , , , , /by

Waiting. That’s a hard one. Oh, and trusting. Trusting as in trusting someone else won’t mess up, or slow you down, or do a worse job than you. Hi, I’m a Type A personality, and I’ll take it from here, thanks.

Type A personalities (a concept originating from two cardiologists who studied increased risks of heart disease) are described as fast-paced, competitive, goal-oriented, and easily impatient if things don’t go as planned. Type A’s are self-motivated, ambitious, and prone to burnout. It brings them joy when everything is running efficiently and according to plan, leaving them just enough extra time to sign up for another “small” thing.

Whether you consider yourself a Type A personality (or not), trusting God on a practical level is harder than it seems. Not that you doubt his sovereignty or have “trust issues.” It’s just that you’ve already read three books on knowing the will of God and haven’t found that secret sauce on the balance between God’s providence and human responsibility.

Learning to slow down and trust God is one of those things best practiced through experience and not absorbed from how-to books or podcasts or YouTube videos on 2x speed. Not that you shouldn’t be reading and learning more (far from it), but head knowledge cannot replicate the process of depending on God when the future looks like a question mark.

Which takes us back to waiting and trusting.

In Matthew 6, Jesus says, “Seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” Two points are worth noting. We are called to seek God first, implying that this is the starting course of action, but not the only course. We have responsibility to pursue openings under the direction of God’s council and providence. Second, we are called to seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness, which begs the question, “Is my pursuit righteous?”

A lot of our life choices don’t have clear moral implications. Is Position A more righteous than Career Path B? Is this degree more excellent than taking a gap year? That’s where we recall the first part of Jesus’s teaching about the kingdom of God. Which option better helps us utilize our talents and skills? What would bring God more glory? Sometimes, simply sticking your neck out is the best way to figure out if something works (or doesn’t). It’s true that you might fail, humanly speaking. But, if you are seeking God’s direction and paying attention to how he’s working in your life, you aren’t wasting your time. God uses all opportunities, experiences, jobs, degrees, and relationships to build us into the types of people we are today.

We also need to trust his promises. I’m reminded of the biblical story of Sarai and her solution to a very big problem. God had promised that she and her husband Abram would have a son. The reality: she wasn’t as young as she used to be, and her husband was 86. But Sarai wasn’t about to let that stop her. She was a problem-solver. In Genesis 16, we read of Sarai’s solution: her servant Hagar would become Abram’s pseudo-wife and bear children on Sarai’s behalf.

And it worked. Sort of.

Domestic drama ensued as tensions ran high between the two “wives,” to the point where the pregnant servant ran away from the jealous and oppressive Sarai. Although Hagar returned, there were still issues with Sarah’s solution. At the end of the narrative, Sarai did end up mothering her own child, Isaac, just as God promised all along. Ishmael, Hagar’s child, though blessed in his own way, did not qualify as the covenant son and had to be sent away. There were repercussions for this “fast-forwarding” of God’s plan.

When things start stalling, we tend to press the skip button on the remote of our lives. We find ways to keep things “flowing,” even if flowing means moving backward. We scheme, troubleshoot, and force an outcome rather than taking a deep breath and paying attention to how God might be moving. Should we make plans? Yes. Should we pursue ideal opportunities? Absolutely. Should we overcome challenges and hurdles in our lives? Of course. Considering the future, minimizing risk, and being strategic are all valuable attributes, evenencouraged in the Bible. The issue comes when we become so wrapped up in our own solutions that we jump the gun unrighteously or become unwilling to accept the other plans God has in store.

Sure, you might say, but we don’t have a specific promise to wait on. Unlike Sarai and Abram, we aren’t promised a child, or a spouse, or a good job, or healing. It’s hard to be patient when the future is hazy, when we don’t know if that child, or spouse, or job, or healing exists at the other end of the waiting. While we aren’t promised a specific individual or position, Christians still have promises to grasp.

One of the most comforting (and terrifying) promises is found in Romans 8:28, “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good…” The comfort is that no matter what happens in life, it will be for good in the end. But the flipside is also true. Sometimes not getting that job is what was best in the end. Never finding that life partner was what drew you closer to Jesus. Wrecking that car was how you learned humility. Experiencing sickness taught you thankfulness for every new day. Our deepest desires are not guaranteed fulfillment on this earth. But that’s what trust and faith are: choosing to hold onto that assurance despite the circumstances. It’s choosing to believe that, as a Christian, your life situation is what God will work together for good.

Type A personality or not, waiting is hard. Trusting is hard. When every fiber wants to jump in and start pulling strings, remember to hold your hands open. 1) Evaluate: are you seeking God in this decision? Are you seeking a purposeful use of the abilities and resources he has given you? 2) Are you so attached to your plan that you are failing to see, or even ignoring, the opportunities God has placed in front of you today?

Disappointing situations will occur. Some waits seem like eternity on earth. Some scenarios are maddingly out of our control. And yes, even Type A’s will fail sometimes. But thank God that his master plan encompasses our own best-laid plans with his own better ones. He won’t mess up, or slow you down, or do a worse job than you. He’s got this.

AUTHOR

Hannah Tu

RELATED ARTICLE: Life Is Most Grand in the Micro

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 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 New Religion of AI: Who Gets to Define What It Means to Be Human?

/in , , , , , , , , /by

On January 20, 2026, historian Yuval Noah Harari stood before the World Economic Forum at Davos and issued a direct challenge to Christians worldwide. “If religion is built from words, then AI will take over religion,” he said, then named Christianity by name: “This is particularly true of religions based on books, like Islam, Christianity, or Judaism.” And he left this question in the air: “What happens to the religion of a book when the greatest expert on the holy book is an AI?”

The clip accumulated 1.2 million views within days. The room at Davos did not object.

A Documented Shift, not a Conspiracy

Harari’s 2026 remarks are the current edge of a worldview shift building for years — visible in the public statements of the most powerful technologists of our time, spanning five distinct domains of the human person.

It was Harari himself who told the same World Economic Forum in 2020 that we are “no longer mysterious souls — we are now hackable animals.” Six years later, he has moved from contesting human identity to contesting the authority of Scripture. The trajectory is not random.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman wrote in 2017 that “the merge has already started” — that phones and algorithms already “control us” and “decide what we think.” By 2025, he had enlarged that frame: an essay titled “The Gentle Singularity” described AI as “building a brain for the world,” projected brain-computer interfaces, and suggested “some people will probably decide to ‘plug in.’” Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen has called AI development a “moral obligation” and envisions every person equipped with an AI “assistant, coach, mentor, tutor… therapist” — roles Scripture reserves for God, parents, pastors, and community.

Billionaire, AI investor, and co-founder of Palantir Technologies Peter Thiel has said, “I’ve always had this really strong sense that death was a terrible, terrible thing… I prefer to fight it,” investing millions to turn mortality into an engineering problem. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, writing in more restrained terms, envisions AI-enabled biology offering “control and freedom over our own biological processes” addressing conditions “we currently think of as immutable parts of the human condition” — potentially including a doubling of the human lifespan.

These statements come from different people with different assumptions. What they share is a common direction: the human being as improvable hardware, death as a bug to be patched, and — in Harari’s own words before world leaders — the Bible as a database awaiting a more capable administrator.

The Contest That Matters More than the One We’re Watching

In “The New AI Cold War,” I document how China, Russia, and Iran are weaponizing artificial intelligence to surveil populations and export digital tyranny worldwide. That geopolitical contest is real and urgent. But the deeper one is being fought inside Western civilization itself — on the terrain of human identity and, as Harari’s Davos appearance confirmed, on the terrain of Christian faith. The architects of AI understand this better than most Christians do.

What Scripture Actually Says

No technological development alters what Scripture says about human beings. “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’” (Genesis 1:26). That declaration is the load-bearing wall of Christian anthropology — the reason human dignity is inherent and not a function of what AI can do with our genome or our sacred texts.

In “AI for Mankind’s Future,” I examine what it means to bear the imago Dei when machines imitate human intelligence. Harari’s question has a Christian answer no algorithm can produce: the Holy Spirit, not processing power, illuminates Scripture. The soul is real and not reducible to data. The body is not hardware — it will be raised imperishable. Death is an enemy, but the resurrection of Jesus Christ has already answered that claim. “Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5) is not a devotional sentiment — it is the posture Scripture commands for this moment.

The Jurisdiction That Is Quietly Changing Hands

The most consequential shift in AI is not technological. It is jurisdictional. AI is migrating from tool to authority — not by coercion, but through the frictionless convenience of daily use. Algorithms already shape what millions of people read and believe, mediate education, and form moral character. Andreessen’s vision of AI as universal tutor, therapist, and life guide is not a distant scenario. It is the operational goal of every major platform already in your household.

When a digital system begins answering the questions of identity, purpose, and meaning that once belonged to God, to parents, and to community, it does not remain a tool. Romans 1:25 describes the exchange in which Paul warns against trading the truth of God for the created thing. Harari is more candid than most about where that exchange leads — and at Davos, he named your Bible specifically.

The Response Christians Cannot Afford to Delay

AI produces genuine benefits — in medicine, national security, and communication — and “AI for Mankind’s Future” acknowledges them. The argument here is against surrender: surrendering judgment to the algorithm, and the formation of the next generation to systems whose designers have already decided the human being is improvable hardware and the Bible is a word-processing problem.

Christians must engage AI with discernment — using the technology without adopting its embedded anthropology. That means defending what the technologists are actively contesting: that human dignity is a gift of the Creator, not a product of code, and that the authority of Scripture cannot be transferred to any machine. “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death” (Proverbs 14:12).

Harari posed the right question at Davos, and the answer has not changed since Moses received it at Mount Sinai. What remains is whether the church will say it loudly enough, and soon enough, for the world to hear.

AUTHOR

Robert Maginnis

Robert Maginnis is a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, senior fellow for National Security at Family Research Council, and the author of 14 books. His latest, “The New AI Cold War,” releases in April 2026.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 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.

Receipts of Deceit: Indictment Exposes Corrupt Motives of Southern Poverty Lie Center

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

There’s more than one layer to the 11-count indictment for wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering that a federal grand jury issued Tuesday against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Underneath the political drama lies a simpler, more biblical interpretation to unearth. In essence, the SPLC lies, and it has used its lies to enrich itself at the expense of both innocent third parties and the country as a whole.

Political thespians will choose to read the situation in terms of political drama alone. Here is yet another episode in the second Trump administration’s campaign of political retribution. The twist is, this time the Trump administration’s target is an unsympathetic adversary who richly deserves every spoonful of calumny heaped upon it. Let the spigots’ unsolicited opinions spew forth!

If we only manage to hold our heads above the torrent of outrage sloshing odorously through the airwaves, then we shall be so much filthier but none the wiser. Let us then salvage what facts we can and extricate them from the flood of political opinion, that we may better examine them in the purer light of God’s Word.

“The story here is that the SPLC, which bills itself as an organization aimed at rooting out racism, was actually secretly bankrolling major figures in racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, the National Socialist (i.e., Nazi) Party of America, and a member of the leadership group that planned the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va.,” National Review’s Dan McLaughlin summarized concisely.

“The indictment details just shy of $2 million in transfers to those figures over the past twelve years,” McLaughlin added. “Given the small and marginal nature of these groups, the obvious conclusion is that the SPLC found that demand for racism outstripped the supply, so it had to spread cash around to keep talking up these fringe groups.” Furthermore, “this wasn’t just a matter of paying the small fish in these groups to rat out the big ones. The SPLC was allegedly bankrolling the leaders.”

Thus, while the SPLC was “holding itself out to be promoting justice,” said Associate Deputy Attorney General Aakash Singh on “This Week on Capitol Hill,” “what they were really doing was deceiving the American people, deceiving their donors, and deceiving financial institutions, all to promote … fake racism throughout the country.”

Two facts offer the clearest evidence that the SPLC realized what they were doing was wrong. First, they funneled payments to their “informants” through shell corporations that existed only on paper. Second, when caught, SPLC’s Interim President and CEO Brian Fair announced, “We no longer work with paid informants.”

Of course, no conservative with previous experience of the SPLC’s malevolence was surprised by the revelation that an organization that habitually smears mainstream conservative organizations as hate groups is willing to lie.

Where the indictment broke new ground was in exposing the unseen double-face of the SPLC — with one half condemning “hate” while the other half bankrolled it. “For years, the SPLC has used its platform to label and target organizations with whom it disagrees, often blurring the line between legitimate concern and ideological attack,” exclaimed Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “That kind of reckless characterization doesn’t just damage reputations, it has put lives at risk.” In 2012, a gunman inspired by the SPLC “hate map” opened fire at FRC headquarters in Washington, D.C., an incident for which the SPLC has never apologized nor been held accountable.

Thus, Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) spoke for most when she said on “Washington Watch,” “I have known for a long time that SPLC was a fraud, but I never had the understanding that they were the ones that were creating their own straw men so that they could knock them down.”

Those are the facts. Now, before we catch cholera, let us haul them out of the political muck to assess these actions in the clarifying light of God’s Word.

The question that presents itself to our minds most forcefully is: why would anyone do something like this? The Bible’s book of wisdom offers an answer: “Whoever hates disguises himself with his lips and harbors deceit in his heart” (Proverbs 26:24). However, this only leads to further questions. How is hatred connected to deceit? And, if the SPLC harbored hatred, who was the object?

Perkins attempted to answer those questions by describing how the SPLC has changed from being a civil rights organization targeting racists to a left-wing organization targeting conservatives. “They were creating these groups and propping them up so that they could raise more money — but there seems to be more to that,” Perkins suggested. “They were raising these groups up, elevating them, making the threat look great, and then taking conservative organizations and putting them alongside them. And then the corporate America actually took this labeling that the Southern Poverty Law Center had and began to deplatform, ‘cancel,’ other conservative organizations.”

Thus, by presenting a false front as an “anti-hate” group, the SPLC managed to harmfully smear the groups it hated — anyone who dared to stand for conservative principles. The irony is too apparent to miss: the organization that popularized the “hate” label also harbored what they condemned.

What were the consequences of the SPLC’s lies? Once again, Proverbs provides an answer, “deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil” (Proverbs 12:20). It’s hard to describe what the SPLC did as anything other than “devising evil.” Even the SPLC publicly condemned the fringe extremist organizations whose leaders they secretly bankrolled.

This duplicitous behavior was “predatory,” said Singh. “They were actually propping all this up by paying these sources to go out and incite racial acts, all while holding themselves out to be the arbiter of who is right and wrong in the public speech space.”

For the SPLC to hold itself out as a moral arbiter, despite the corruption it knew within, suggests that it suffered from delusions of invincibility, like the wicked oppressor in Psalm 10. “As for all his foes, he puffs at them. He says in his heart, ‘I shall not be moved; throughout all generations I shall not meet adversity.’ His mouth is filled with cursing and deceit and oppression; under his tongue are mischief and iniquity” (Psalm 10:5-7).

From within this delusion of invincibility, the SPLC plotted to fraudulently destroy its political opponents. “Your tongue plots destruction, like a sharp razor, you worker of deceit” (Psalm 52:2).

Sadly, the SPLC’s deceitful schemes caused harm not only to its political opponents but to the nation as a whole. “They have done such lasting and horrific damage to race relations,” Hageman exclaimed. “They have torn us asunder with false allegations of racism and hatred and danger.”

It’s too early to say what might result from the federal indictment — what new evidence may emerge, what charges may be added or dropped. But it is clear that the SPLC’s public credibility has suffered a major blow from the exposure of its cynical fundraising ploys.

Such eventual accountability for the SPLC tastes like yet another proverb, “Bread gained by deceit is sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth will be full of gravel” (Proverbs 20:17). The reason is that, ultimately, the true arbiter of right and wrong, truth and falsehood holds court not in any human jurisdiction but in heaven. To the ultimate Judge, David prayed, “You destroy those who speak lies; the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man” (Psalm 5:6).

However, not everyone has learned the same lessons from the SPLC’s exposure. Those who prefer to float in the bilge water of politics never gain the perspective necessary to compare its practice to biblical wisdom. As a result, “I’m seeing organizations out there still defending this group,” said Hageman, when “everybody should be running from SPLC right now.”

As just one media example, USA Today claimed that the SPLC was only employing informants in “a tactic federal agencies have used for decades.” But “it wasn’t somebody who was an informant [in an extremist group]; it was people leading it,” Perkins countered. “Many of these organizations have been dead, and [the SPLC] resurrected them with their funds.”

For such indefensible behavior, the SPLC now must publicly answer.

This moment provides relief for those who found themselves innocent targets of the SPLC’s malicious hate. These unfairly smeared groups can now declare, “Let not those rejoice over me who are wrongfully my foes, and let not those wink the eye who hate me without cause. For they do not speak peace, but against those who are quiet in the land they devise words of deceit” (Psalm 35:19-20).

Perhaps human justice will hold the SPLC accountable. In any event, God certainly will.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

WHAT DID SHE KNOW? Democrat Governor Candidate Served on SPLC Board While It Bankrolled KKK Member

250 Major Companies Still Use SPLC to Screen Donations, Despite KKK Funding Scandal

What Were They Thinking? The New York Times Has Some Serious Explaining To Do

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 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 Does It Mean to Be Conservative?

/in , , , , , , , , /by

As yet another primary election season heats up, how do we cut through the rhetoric and evaluate candidates? One sure way is to have a measuring stick based on more than personal opinion.

One such popular standard for evangelicals is the word “conservative.” At Family Research Council, we take it a step further and talk about SAGECons (Spiritually Active, Governance Engaged Conservatives). More about those at the end.

During the 2026 election cycle, you’ll hear this word “conservative” tossed around. What does it really mean? In my opinion, the late Russell Kirk spelled it out better than just about anyone. This all-but-forgotten man laid out 10 principles of conservative thought that many seem to have forgotten. See how many you might agree with.

First, conservatives believe in an enduring moral order. This is really important to evangelicals. Kirk said that human nature was a constant, and moral truths were permanent. That’s not surprising considering that 81% of Americans affirm a belief in God according to a 2022 Gallup poll. Surprisingly, Kirk said that a society in which men and women are governed by an enduring belief in moral order — by a strong sense of right and wrong — and by personal convictions about justice and honor — that would be a good society, regardless of the political machinery. Politics do not determine the trajectory of a nation — the people do. Andrew Breitbart put it well when he said that politics is downstream from culture.

Second, tradition in a culture is important and should not be tossed out on a whim. This sometimes frustrates onlookers, but Kirk actually calls this “continuity.” What he meant is that order and justice and freedom are the result of centuries of trials and reflections and sacrifice. Change should be gradual and calculated — never undoing traditions as a knee-jerk reaction. Oftentimes, an election cycle brings cries for “change,” but true conservatives should always be wary of change. Wary doesn’t mean completely closed to some change though. It just means “slow change.” If you look at how our bicameral system of government, loaded with checks and balances, was designed, clearly our Founders thought “slow” was good. For this reason, presidential executive orders should be used sparingly.

Third, conservatives adhere to Edmund Burke’s mantra that the individual is foolish, but the species is wise. Using that advice, real conservatives stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before them and look to enduring wisdom. That means not only the Ronald Reagans, but other great thinkers and statesmen beyond our lifetime like T.S. Eliot, Adam Smith, Sir Walter Scott, William Wilberforce, and, of course, Burke himself.

Fourth, true conservatives look at the long-term consequences of laws and policies. Weighing consequences is certainly biblical. I fear this principle frequently gets tossed in favor of reelection. Kirk said that rushing into legislation or policies without weighing the long-term consequences will actually create new abuses in the future. We should slow down and look as far as we can into the future.

Fifth, conservatives know good and well that you can’t totally level the economic playing field, and in fact, we should not aspire for it. Robbing one taxpayer to pay another truly violates conservative thought because it is not sustainable. In our society, we have tried to make charity the government’s job, and true conservatives have to take issue with that practice. Churches and nonprofits should take seriously their role in culture, and we need to defend them at every turn.

Sixth, mankind is messed up. Kirk didn’t exactly quote the Bible, but conservatives believe that because man is flawed from birth, no perfect social order can ever be created. All that we can reasonably expect, Kirk said, is a tolerably ordered, just and free society, in which evil and suffering continue to lurk. Can morality be legislated? Kirk would say that all laws are an effort to legislate morality, and that is okay.

Seventh, conservatives know that great societies are built upon the foundation of private property. We see it in the Ten Commandments. Policies that seek to redistribute wealth and property should be an anathema to the real conservative. While getting rich should not be the conservative’s chief aim, the institution of private property has been a powerful instrument for teaching responsibility, shaping integrity, creating prosperity, and providing opportunities for people to think and act. It is the prospect of going from rags to riches. This has given us countless Americans who worked their way up from nothing.

Eighth, conservatives favor smaller government at the federal level and champion small governments such as county commissions and city councils. Decisions most affecting the lives of citizens should be made locally, and as Kirk would say, voluntarily. That is how I got started. I ran a city council race for a friend. A strong, centralized, and distant federal government tends to be more hostile to human freedom and dignity. This is why our Pray Vote Stand Chapters are so focused on local government — their decisions matter.

Ninth, the conservative believes in flattening the power — or limiting government. Real conservatives know the danger of power being vested in just a few, even if it’s called benevolent. Constitutional restrictions are necessary, political checks and balances are a must, and enforcement of the law is a must — all the while balancing the claims of authority with the claims of liberty.

Finally, conservatives should be slow to change. Any thinking conservative would be resistant to hastily throwing out the old way of doing something in favor of something completely new — even in the name of “positive change.” Progress, or change, is important — for Kirk argued a society would stagnate without it. Change has to be reconciled with the permanent though, and both are important.

When Kirk revised these 10 principles in 1993 before his death in 1994, he said that the word “conservative” was being abused. If he were here today, he probably wouldn’t be surprised that the distortion has not stopped.

The bottom line is that being “conservative” best describes how you feel about “truth,” and whether it is an old thing or a new thing. “Conservative” means you see great value in permanent things. It sounds old-fashioned, and I guess in a way it literally is.

As you evaluate political candidates who use the word “conservative” to describe themselves, ask them what it means and see how close they get to the real definition.

For those who follow Family Research Council, you know that a SAGECon is a “Spiritually Active, Governance Engaged Conservative.” This takes the conservative ideology and overlays it with a biblical worldview. Being a SAGECon prioritizes how God has dealt with His people, looking at the Christian roots of our nation, and listening to the Holy Spirit. We need to develop many, many more of these people. Join FRC in our mission.

AUTHOR

Tim Echols

Tim Echols was a statewide elected official in Georgia regulating energy, telecom, and pipeline safety. He founded TeenPact, the national youth organization working in all 50 states. He is currently the executive director of the Pray Vote Stand Chapter effort for FRC.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ben Carson Warns of Decline in Patriotism among Young People ahead of America’s 250th

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 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.

PERKINS: Civil Leaders and Spiritual Authority

/in , , , , , , , /by

President Trump’s Truth Social post last weekend which seemed to depict him as the Great Physician (though he later deleted it) serves as a reminder of why the biblical principle often described as the separation of church and state still matters.

Yes, I support that separation and always have. Let me explain.

When many on the Left invoke “separation of church and state,” they often mean the exclusion of God from government, suggesting He has no authority or place in public life. That is neither biblically grounded nor practically sustainable. As the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 13:1, “there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” Civil leaders get their authority from God.

And when governments deny or marginalize that truth, they ultimately erode the very foundation of their own authority.

Scripture draws a clear boundary. Civil leaders are not to assume roles or authority that belong to God or His ordained institutions, yet spiritual leaders are responsible for upholding those boundaries.

We see this vividly in 2 Chronicles 26 during King Uzziah’s reign. Israel was flourishing, economically strong, militarily secure, and territorially expanding. But success gave way to pride:

“But when he [Uzziah] was strong, he grew proud, to his destruction. For he was unfaithful to the LORD his God and entered the temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense. But Azariah the priest went in after him, with eighty priests of the LORD who were men of valor, and they withstood King Uzziah and said to him, ‘It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the LORD, but for the priests…’” (2 Chronicles 26:16-18)

He entered the temple to burn incense, a duty reserved exclusively for the priests. Azariah and 80 priests confronted him, warning that he had crossed a line established by God. Uzziah’s judgment was swift and sobering.

The lesson is clear: God establishes both authority and limits. The king was not above those limits. The priests had the authority not only to defend the sacred but also to confront and correct the king. To do so, they needed to be independent of the king.

This is the proper understanding of the separation of church and state: civil leaders must not assume spiritual authority, and spiritual leaders must not surrender moral authority. It protects the church’s independence so it can speak truth to power — and it restrains the state from assuming spiritual authority it does not possess.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. captured this well in his sermon “A Knock at Midnight”: “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.”

When any political leader is portrayed — or allows himself to be portrayed — in explicitly messianic terms, a line has been crossed. And when the church remains silent, the line fades.

The question is not merely about one post or one moment. It is whether the church will faithfully serve as the conscience of the state — or quietly surrender that role.

Because when the line disappears, both institutions suffer — and truth is the casualty.

AUTHOR

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 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 Most Important Debate in Cuba Happening Today: Christians and Politics (Part 3)

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

(Read Part 1 and Part 2)

The Catholic intellectual Dagoberto Valdés has spoken of that essential embrace between the exiles and those remaining within the country — those two “lungs” of the nation. Millions of Cubans are scattered across the globe, kept apart by politics and the draconian laws of a totalitarian regime. From the prohibitions and surveillance surrounding the receipt of letters from abroad, to the deep-seated mistrust directed at the men and women who departed the island — all these wounds must be healed.

“Not everyone will discern this right away,” Methodist Pastor Darlon Bermúdez cautioned. “It happened in the days of Nehemiah, and it will happen again now. But when the hand of God rests upon a people, He Himself undergirds the entire process. Cuba has not been forgotten by God. These ruins do not mark the end of the story. God continues to raise up, to restore, and to establish — and He often accomplishes this by bringing back those who were once compelled to leave, yet who never ceased to belong.”

Zeal Tempered by Love; Prudence Guided by Truth

For his part, religious leader Carlos López Valdés drew another historical parallel — though in this instance, he focused on two distinct groups that coexisted during the days of Jesus. The pastor of the Evangelical League of Cuba recalled that, at that time, Israel was living under immense socio-political pressure.

“Amidst that reality, the Zealots emerged: men deeply passionate about God and about the freedom of their nation. They believed — rightly so — that only God should reign over His people, and that oppression was not God’s design for Israel,” said López Valdés. In his view, their contribution was significant: they kept the people’s identity alive, defended God’s sovereignty, and refused to resign themselves to an unjust reality.

To the pastor, some of them chose the wrong paths — “not in their yearning for change, but in the methods they employed to achieve it.”

Then there were the Pharisees. “Men sincere in their desire to honor the Law, committed to the spiritual life of the people. Many of them sought to preserve the faith amidst a complex context,” he said. “Their concern to avoid conflict with Rome also stemmed, in part, from a desire to shield the nation from graver consequences.”

Yet in that attempt to preserve, he underscored, “there was sometimes a risk of adapting too readily to the system and of viewing with suspicion those who raised a dissenting voice.”

López Valdés noted that Jesus did not align Himself with the violence of some Zealots, yet neither did He ignore the need for transformation. He did not reject the Pharisees as individuals, though He did confront — with love and authority — attitudes that hardened the heart.

The controversy surrounding political engagement within the Cuban church reminded the pastor of that historical scenario. Regarding believers who, moved by their faith, voiced their anguish in the face of injustice, he stated that they did so not out of hatred or violence, “but out of a deep conviction that human dignity must be honored.”

He acknowledged that, at the same time, other brethren feel concern regarding the tone, the potential repercussions, or the risk that the church might lose its spiritual focus. “Their desire, often, is to safeguard unity, avoid divisions, and protect their witness,” he said. In his reflection, López Valdés took issue with the epithets hurled during the controversy. “Calling a brother a ‘zealot’ can end up being a label that oversimplifies something far more complex. For not everyone who raises their voice seeks violent confrontation. And not everyone who remains silent does so out of a lack of conviction,” he wrote.

For him, the challenge amidst the controversy was not “labeling one another,” but rather discerning hearts and fruits. “There is a zeal that needs to be guided by love. And there is also a prudence that needs to be accompanied by truth. The church is called to uphold both: a passion for justice, and wisdom in its approach.”

In an invitation to unity, López Valdés urged everyone to listen to one another with humility. “Behind every stance lie distinct stories, fears, convictions, and burdens. And all of us, in some way, are striving to remain faithful to God amidst complex realities,” he remarked. “Instead of discrediting one another, we are called to walk alongside each other. Instead of labeling one another, we are called to understand one another.”

Zeal is not the problem, nor is prudence. “The true challenge is ensuring that both are surrendered to Christ. For ultimately, the Kingdom of God advances neither through imposition nor through silence, but through transformed hearts that know how to love the Truth and live it out with grace.”

I believe that a mature and realistic perspective on the church’s mission involves viewing it — yes — as an institution, but also as the sum of its members. We are one body; I have been called to be a voice, while others serve as hands or feet. No one is superior to another. We are all part of the Redeemer’s plan.

At the same time, I never forget that whenever members of the political police detained or summoned me regarding my work as a journalist, they would invariably sneer the phrase: “Christians don’t get involved in politics.” Of course! That is precisely what they desire: that those who know the Light should hide it away. Yet, it fills me with hope to know that within the Cuban church, many simply do not know how to hide their lamp under the bed.

AUTHOR

Yoe Suarez

Yoe Suárez is an exiled journalist, writer, and producer who investigated in Havana about torture, political police, gangs, government black lists, and cybersurveillance. A graduate of Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, he was a CBN correspondent, and has written for outlets like The Hill and Newsweek. He has appeared on Vox, Univision, and Deutsche Welle as an analyst on Cuba, security, and U.S. foreign policy.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 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.

Artemis II Mission Testifies to God’s Glorious Greatness

/in , , , , , /by

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge” (Psalm 19:1-2). So testified a handwritten card on Artemis II, as it carried the message of heavenly majesty further from earth than any human-occupied vehicle has ever traveled. These inspired words of David direct the eyes of men upward in wonder and direct the hearts of men God-ward in worship. As America’s latest space mission broke records, advanced science, and laid a foundation for even greater exploits of man, the voyage also pointed beyond man to his greater Creator.

Since the moment NASA’s Artemis II mission launched from Cape Canaveral on April 1, the United States has been abuzz with excitement over the mission’s astronomical exploits and the renewed vision for American space travel.

Mission pilot Victor Glover conveyed the sense of excitement, “When those solids [solid rocket boosters, the rocket’s means of propulsion at takeoff] lit, it’s a ride where you’re trying to be professional, but the kid inside of you wants to break out and hoot and holler.” Even for spectators, there is an inherent thrill in a rocket-launching explosion powerful enough to propel an entire vehicle and crew clean out of Earth’s atmosphere.

But Artemis II is not just any rocket launch. In a total journey of 695,081 miles, it orbited Earth before looping around the dark side of the moon, reaching a maximum distance of 252,760 miles from Earth, farther than any astronauts have ever flown before. “This is unbelievable, that we can put our minds to something and pull it off,” said mission commander Reid Wiseman. “This is an unbelievable technical accomplishment.”

Adding to the excitement is Artemis II’s role in concluding NASA’s extended hiatus from moon travel. NASA last sent astronauts to the moon in 1972, more than 53 years ago. With the Artemis program, NASA aims to return America to the moon, with the eventual goal of building a Moon Base.

Those intervening 50 years have witnessed breathless technological change, especially in fields like computing. The Artemis II astronauts captured photos of Earth from the moon (not to mention on board their spaceship) on the cameras of their iPhone 17s — technology that would be incomprehensible to the astronauts of 1972.

While on voyage, “Artemis II astronauts … will conduct manual spacecraft operations and monitor automated activities; evaluate Orion’s life-support, propulsion, power, thermal, and navigation systems; perform proximity operations activities; assess habitability and crew interfaces; and participate in science activities, including lunar surface observations and human health studies, that will inform science operations on future Moon missions,” NASA described. Additionally, “this mission will verify Orion’s life support systems can sustain astronauts on longer-duration missions ahead.”

Thus, while the astronauts may not place a space boot on a moon, they take more than “one small step” for the advancement of mankind’s endeavors in space — and particularly the United States of America.

But while America basks in the national glory of a historic rocket journey, the Artemis II mission points to something greater. While mankind is still just beginning to travel through the heavens, those same heavens proclaim the glory of the God who created them. Mankind may one day succeed in building a base on the moon. God set it in place (Psalm 8:3).

Throughout history, men have often “worshiped and served the creature [or creation] rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25). In one center of ancient Greek commerce, locals rioted over perceived affronts to the dignity of Artemis, their moon god (Acts 19:28). Today, largely due to the influence of Christianity, scientific discovery has advanced to a point where few people (at least in the West) are tempted to worship the moon as a personified God. But the corrupted heart of man still seeks to worship the creature rather than the Creator, often himself.

Against this temptation, the heavenward mission of Artemis II invites us to lift our eyes beyond ourselves to the splendor God has created and turn our wonder into worship. To Glover, the most impactful part of traveling through space was “looking back at the beauty of creation,” he said. “When I read the Bible and see all the amazing things that were done for us who were created, you have this amazing place … that was created to give us a place to live in the universe.”

The God who made the moon and stars also made a wonderful world for us to enjoy, and that should provoke us to turn to him in wonder, gratitude, and worship.

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. ©2026 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.

When the Virtual World Becomes the Real World

/in , , , , , , , /by

I spent more than 40 years watching how environments shape soldiers. Put a man in a foreign culture long enough, and his instincts begin to change — his sense of danger, his habits, even what he considers normal. What American parents are watching happen to their children follows the same pattern.

Gen Z entrepreneur Adnan Alkhalili describes his own upbringing as “scarily online.” By his early teens, he was waking in a dark room, rarely going outside, living on processed food and energy drinks just to function. At 14, he said he felt like a man in his 70s with nothing left to live for. Today, working with hundreds of college students, he says he has yet to meet a young person untouched by this lifestyle. His full account appears in a recent interview on American Thought Leaders.

Parents recognize the pattern even when they can’t name it: the teenager who is always tired but never rests well, the child who prefers a screen to a conversation, the household where everyone is present, but no one is truly engaged.

Young people today are not simply online. Many now retreat into digital worlds designed to capture their attention, build habits, and connect them with strangers — often as an escape from real-life challenges. What used to be ordinary boredom — a normal condition of growing up, is now filled instantly, leaving almost no space for reflection, sustained effort, or growth. Young people themselves call the condition “brain rot,” and the term fits.

Parents are not simply competing with a phone. Tristan Harris, a former design ethicist at Google, has pointed out that smartphones are shaped by thousands of engineers constantly refining how to keep users engaged. When a parent asks a teenager to put the phone down, that request goes up against one of the most sophisticated persuasion systems ever built.

A California jury answered that charge on March 25, 2026, finding Meta and YouTube liable for deliberately designing their platforms to addict children, awarding $6 million in damages — the first verdict of its kind in more than 2,000 pending cases. The legal argument tracks exactly what parents witness at home: these are not neutral tools but engineered environments, and internal Meta documents shown at trial confirmed the company knew the harm it was causing.

Neuroscientist Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath testified before Congress that Gen Z is the first generation in modern history to underperform their parents across every key cognitive measure — attention, memory, literacy, numeracy, and general IQ — despite more years of schooling than any generation before them.

Artificial intelligence has compounded the problem by giving students a way to bypass the work of thinking entirely. A RAND Corporation study found student use of AI for schoolwork jumped from 48 to 62% in just seven months, with 67% acknowledging it is weakening their critical thinking. As I described in a recent column, a middle schooler I interviewed summed up the calculation plainly: why spend hours struggling when a machine produces the answer in minutes?

A college student I spoke with put the deeper problem in a sentence that stayed with me: “I’ve seen people consult AI like a pastor.” A generation already shaped by an escapist digital world is now turning to machines not just for answers but for guidance on identity and meaning. As I examine at length in “AI for Mankind’s Future,” unchecked reliance on algorithmic systems erodes the very human judgment it was meant to supplement. These systems have no conscience, no moral responsibility, and no accountability before God or man — and for all their fluency, they cannot be wise.

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10). Information is not wisdom, and speed is not judgment. A child who never learns the difference will not discover it on a screen.

This is a national concern, not just a family one. In “The New AI Cold War,” I argue that future competition will depend as much on the character and discipline of a nation’s people as on its technology. A generation that avoids struggle, depends on shortcuts, and cannot sustain independent thought will not maintain a capable military, a productive economy, or a stable society. Defense analysts who have identified excessive screen immersion as a strategic liability have it exactly right.

Alkhalili calls for restoring what the body and mind were designed to receive — light, movement, nourishment, and real human connection. He launched a grassroots campus effort he calls Touch Grass Together, not with lectures but with simple physical activities: snowball fights, jumping into piles of leaves, anything that puts bodies in motion and in the same space.

After significant weight loss, Alkhalili saw his anxiety and OCD symptoms recede — experience that underscored a truth the virtual world obscures: the body and mind are inseparable, and when one is neglected in a sedentary, screen-dominated life, the other suffers.

Scripture understood this long before smartphones existed. From the beginning, human beings were created to live within God-ordained limits — to work and steward creation (Genesis 2:15), to observe rhythms of labor and rest (Exodus 20:9–10), and to be shaped through the discipline and struggle that produce maturity (Hebrews 12:11). Life itself unfolds within divinely ordered seasons and boundaries (Ecclesiastes 3:1). Remove those conditions, and something essential in a person does not develop as God intended.

Parents are the first line. Clear household limits — no devices at meals, no screens before bed, an expectation that effort precedes shortcuts — communicate something technology cannot: that some things require human work and will not be outsourced. More consequential than any rule, though, is presence. Where parents disengage, the screen takes their place.

Pastors need to address this with the same directness they bring to any other threat to spiritual formation. This is not a side issue; it is shaping how young people think, relate to authority, and understand where truth comes from. Policymakers, meanwhile, need to move beyond symbolic phone bans and confront the structural incentives that make these platforms addictive by design. Removing a phone from a classroom does not fix a platform engineered to recapture that student’s attention the moment school ends.

Alkhalili said it simply: we must maintain our humanity. The digital world resists that at every turn because it profits from the alternative. “Whoever walks in integrity walks securely” (Proverbs 10:9). That security has never come from an algorithm, and it never will.

AUTHOR

Robert Maginnis

Robert Maginnis is a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, senior fellow for National Security at Family Research Council, and the author of 14 books. His latest, “The New AI Cold War,” releases in April 2026.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permisison. All rights reserved. ©2026 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.

PERKINS: God Hears the Prayers of Just Warriors

/in , , , , /by

When God delivered the children of Israel from bondage in Egypt and defeated Pharaoh’s army, Moses responded with a song, recorded in Exodus 15. He declares, “The Lord is a man of war, the Lord is His name.”

That description is revealing. Scripture repeatedly presents God as one who defends His people, upholds justice, and ultimately triumphs over evil. He is not a distant observer of human conflict, but a righteous judge who acts in history.

And this imagery is not confined to the Old Testament. In Revelation 19, Jesus Himself is depicted as a warrior riding a white horse, bringing judgment against the nations, with a sword proceeding from His mouth. The biblical witness is consistent: God is both Redeemer and Righteous Judge.

War, therefore, is a tragic but real feature of a fallen world. The Bible does not ignore it — it regulates it. From these biblical principles, Augustine of Hippo articulated what would become known as Just War Theory, later refined by Thomas Aquinas. This framework has guided much of Western moral reasoning about war for centuries, recognizing that while war is never ideal, it may at times be necessary to restrain evil and protect the innocent.

Which is why recent comments from Pope Leo XIV in a Palm Sunday homily are both puzzling and concerning. He stated, in part, that Jesus “rejects war” and does not listen to the prayers of those who wage it.

Was the Allied effort in World War II — undertaken to stop Adolf Hitler and the atrocities of the Third Reich — contrary to the will of God? Were the prayers of leaders and soldiers, offered in humility and desperation, somehow rejected?

On June 6, 1944, as American troops stormed the beaches of Normandy, Franklin D. Roosevelt led the nation in prayer. He asked God’s blessing on those risking their lives to defeat tyranny and secure freedom. It was not a prayer for conquest — it was a prayer for justice, for deliverance, and for peace.

Likewise, during the brutal winter of the Battle of the Bulge, George Patton called for prayer. Facing impossible conditions, he urged his troops to seek God’s intervention. Two hundred and fifty thousand copies of that prayer were distributed to the soldiers of the Third Army.

And when the weather broke and the tide of battle turned, Patton famously remarked to his chaplain, “Well, Padre, our prayers worked.”

And thank God they did.

Scripture gives us confidence in this very truth. As the Apostle John writes in 1 John 5, if we ask anything according to God’s will, He hears us — and if He hears us, we have what we have asked of Him.

That is the key: according to His will.

Not every war is just. Not every cause is righteous. But when those entrusted with authority act to restrain evil, defend the innocent, and pursue a just peace, they do not stand counter to God, they stand within the very purposes of His justice.

And in those moments, prayer is not rejected — it is heard.

The question is not whether God hears the prayers of those in battle.

The question is whether those who lead — and those who fight — are aligned with the will of the One who is both Prince of Peace and the righteous defender of the innocent.

When they are, they can pray with confidence.

And history suggests — He answers.

AUTHOR

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 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.

Where Evil Became Victory: Good Friday for a Suffering World

/in , , , /by

Good Friday is not a distant echo of tragedy. It’s the beating heart of one of history’s most astonishing days.

On this day, we stand in awe at the foot of the cross — where the sinless Son of God, the radiant Morning Star, was betrayed with a kiss, falsely condemned by the guardians of religion, abandoned by the very ones He came to save, and lifted up between heaven and earth under the cold gaze of empire. The powers of this age watched in indifferent silence. Religious leaders schemed in shadowed chambers. Pilate washed his hands in water that could never cleanse his guilt. And there, in the gathering darkness, the Light of the World cried out: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

It sounds like the deepest sorrow ever uttered. And yet we dare to call this day Good. Why? Because Christ’s suffering was not pointless. Rather, it was the deliberate, costly price of our redemption. Before the foundation of the world, when no eye had yet seen, the Triune God already knew His creation would shatter the perfect harmony. Sin would invade, corruption would spread, and all that was good, true, and beautiful would groan under its weight.

Yet before the foundation of the world, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit had already woven a plan of redemption so glorious it would turn the greatest evil ever committed — the murder of the perfect, innocent Lamb — into the greatest victory heaven and earth have ever known: forgiveness for the guilty, reconciliation for the estranged, and the crushing defeat of sin, death, and the grave.

And yet, Christ’s death was agonizing. In fact, the agony was unconscionable. Jesus endured the most brutal death devised by human cruelty — nails driven through flesh and bone, slow suffocation beneath the weight of His own body, burning thirst, mocking laughter, and the scornful crown of thorns. The crowd that could have chosen mercy screamed instead for His blood, their voices rising like a storm until reason itself drowned in the roar. He did not merely die. The Lamb of God was slain.

Even now, the shadow of innocent suffering stretches across our broken world. In Nigeria, for example, our brothers and sisters in Christ walk daily in the valley of the shadow of death, where radical Islamist jihadist violence burns villages, slaughters pastors and their families, kidnaps the faithful, and reduces sanctuaries to ash — all while the watching world too often turns its gaze away. And that’s just in one country.

The truth is, Christians all around the world suffer for the sake of Christ each day. In North Korea, believers risk everything to hide a single page of Scripture beneath their floorboards. In the Middle East, many are beheaded for refusing to deny the Name above every name. And even in lands of relative comfort, such as America, the principalities and powers of darkness still rage, seeking to steal, kill, and destroy all that reflects the beauty of Christ.

Scripture doesn’t sugarcoat this reality. We are called to suffer with Him. The world will hate us because it first hated Him. Yet James invites us to a strange and holy posture: “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness” (James 1:2-3). Many of our persecuted family will be the first to tell you — through tears and with radiant faces — that the fellowship of His sufferings is worth it all for the sake of knowing Christ and being one with Him.

This is part of why Good Friday matters so deeply. Because the cross declares that God is no stranger to pain — to our pain. Jesus Himself was the Man of Sorrows, acquainted with grief, rejected, mocked, and executed. Yet even as nails held Him fast and darkness swallowed the sun, He did not curse His tormentors. Instead, He prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” In that moment of infinite suffering, He purchased infinite grace — forgiveness, hope, and everlasting life for every soul who turns to Him in faith, including our suffering brothers and sisters around the globe.

When I think of the global church enduring flame and blade, I am struck by their faith. Their endurance is a strong, living testimony to the power of the cross. The pain of earthly torment is real — just as the nails that pierced our Savior’s hands and feet were real. But so is the hope — blessed, eternal hope. We hope in the breathtaking reality that the same God who raised Jesus from the tomb sees every tear shed in secret, every act of violence, and every quiet “Yes, Lord” whispered in the face of terror. And one day soon, He’ll wipe away every one of our tears. He will make all things new.

Good Friday challenges every one of us: Will we look away from the suffering of our family in Christ, or will we fix our eyes on the cross and respond with compassion, courage, and faith? Let us choose the latter. Let us remember the persecuted church in our prayers, our advocacy, and our generosity. Let us face our own trials with hope and joy, knowing that Good Friday was never meant to be the end of the story. In three days’ time, the stone was rolled away, resurrection light shattered the darkness, and eternity was forever sealed with this unbreakable promise: darkness does not — and never will — have the final word. Hallelujah!

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

What Is ‘Good’ about Good Friday?

Christ Our Refuge

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 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.

AI, Addiction, and the Soul of a Nation: A Biblical Warning for Our Time

/in , , , , /by

OpenAI recently released a 37-page report, Disrupting Malicious Uses of AI, documenting how criminals and state-linked actors are already exploiting generative AI to conduct fraud, impersonation, and influence operations. Romance scams are now scripted by machines. Fake legal identities are fabricated with bureaucratic precision. Foreign adversaries use AI to refine propaganda and calibrate narratives for maximum psychological impact.

None of this is theoretical. The architecture of deception is being rebuilt, brick by digital brick.

But the deeper danger lies beneath those headlines.

These AI tools are being deployed inside social media ecosystems that dozens of state attorneys general allege were deliberately engineered to be addictive. Internal documents disclosed in litigation against major platforms reveal that executives understood how algorithmic feeds stimulate dopamine responses — particularly in adolescents — yet continued optimizing for engagement over truth. We built platforms designed to capture attention at any cost. Now we are arming them with persuasion machines.

That is not a technology story. That is a civilization-level moral crisis.

Scripture has long anticipated this moment. Jesus warned, “See that no one leads you astray” (Matthew 24:4) and added that “many false prophets will arise and lead many astray” (Matthew 24:11). Paul wrote plainly that “evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13). Isaiah pronounced judgment on those who “call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). Technology does not create sin. But history confirms it can accelerate sin beyond any prior human capacity.

Artificial intelligence dramatically lowers the cost of deception while algorithmic platforms dramatically amplify its reach. Together they form a compounding loop: manipulation becomes cheaper, distribution becomes frictionless, and correction becomes nearly impossible. A lie crosses a continent before the truth has tied its shoes — and now the lie is written, targeted, and delivered by software that never sleeps.

In my book “The New AI Cold War,” I argue that the defining contest of this century is not merely geopolitical — it is civilizational. The conflict pits liberty-centered systems grounded in human dignity against authoritarian systems that weaponize information and treat citizens as programmable inputs. China’s social credit infrastructure and Russia’s disinformation apparatus are the most visible expressions of this model. But the temptation to centralize control through technology is not exclusive to tyrants. Free societies face a parallel seduction: the idol of efficiency, dressed in the language of innovation.

Psalm 94:20 asks, “Can wicked rulers be allied with you, those who frame injustice by statute?” When manipulation is baked into digital architecture under the banner of progress, injustice ceases to be episodic. It becomes systemic.

OpenAI’s report confirms that malicious actors are not inventing new tactics; they are scaling ancient ones. Social engineering becomes hyper-personalized. Fraud becomes cinematically convincing. Deepfakes dissolve the evidentiary value of video. Propaganda adapts to individual psychology in real time. AI does not generate evil intent; it exponentially multiplies the human capacity to act on it.

When that capability is embedded inside platforms engineered to exploit emotional vulnerability through infinite scroll and outrage algorithms, the result is not simply misinformation. It is the systematic conditioning of a population. Attention fragments. Discernment weakens. Shared moral reasoning — the very substrate of self-governance — corrodes.

Ephesians 6:12 reminds us that the struggle is “not against flesh and blood” but against principalities and powers operating through earthly means. Daniel understood this. Babylon conquered Israel not only with armies but by reshaping identity: renaming captives, re-educating them, redefining their loyalties (Daniel 1). Today’s algorithmic systems pursue the same objective at a civilizational scale — filtering reality, shaping belief, and redirecting allegiance, not through proclamation but through 10,000 micro-interactions per day.

Revelation 13:17 warns of systems that control commerce as instruments of coercion. The principle reaches beyond prophecy: any centralized technological system, divorced from moral restraint and human accountability, becomes a mechanism of control.

The response requires action on four fronts. Christians must recover disciplined discernment. “Test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1) — not every innovation deserves trust. Policymakers must treat AI-enabled influence operations as national security threats of the first order, because information integrity is now strategic infrastructure. Digital platforms must face enforceable accountability, transparency, independent auditing, and liability for AI-assisted fraud are not anti-innovation, they are pro-liberty. And families and churches must reclaim the discipline of attention: “Be sober-minded; be watchful” (1 Peter 5:8). What captures attention eventually shapes character.

The first Cold War was won because free people recognized tyranny and refused accommodation. The AI Cold War demands the same clarity, not only geopolitical resolve, but moral courage rooted in permanent truths.

Genesis 1:27 is the foundation: men and women are made in the image of God. Systems that reduce persons to engagement metrics or behavioral profiles assault that dignity at its source. The architects of those systems, whether in Beijing or Silicon Valley — are not neutral technologists. They are making a claim about what human beings are for. That claim must be answered.

“Stand firm therefore,” Paul wrote, “having fastened on the belt of truth” (Ephesians 6:14). In an age when persuasion can be automated and reality fabricated; truth will not defend itself. It must be defended by people who understand what is at stake — and who have the courage to say so.

AUTHOR

Bob Maginnis

Robert L. Maginnis is a retired U.S. Army infantry officer, a national security analyst, a senior fellow for National Security with Family Research Council, and author of 14 books, including “AI for Mankind’s Future” (2025) and his forthcoming book, “The New AI Cold War.” He speaks and writes at the intersection of faith, policy, and strategic affairs.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 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.

Top European Engineer’s Book Settles the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate

/in , , , , , , /by

Stuart Burgess of the United Kingdom is one of the finest engineers in the world, having designed among much else in his career patented gearboxes used in the European Space Agency’s four largest Earth-observation satellites and the transmissions used by the British cycling team in winning gold medals in the Rio, Tokyo, and Paris Olympics.

He has also held academic positions at the University of Cambridge and the University of Bristol in the U.K., and Liberty University here in the United States. He has been awarded the James Clayton Prize as the United Kingdom’s top engineer and recognized as Guest Editor of the journal Biomimetics.

But odds are good that when historians look back on the present century, Burgess will be best known for two words — “Ultimate Engineering,” the title of his just-released book with the subtitle “An Engineer Investigates the Biomechanics of the Human Body.” This book very well may have an equal or greater cultural, scientific, and political impact on Western civilization than did Charles Darwin’s landmark “On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection.”

The reason is because Burgess makes a tremendously compelling case for the proposition that, for all of Darwin’s undoubted brilliance, his evolutionary theory’s fundamental assumption — that natural selection enables species to evolve over the millennia by accepting variations that contribute to survival and rejecting those that don’t — is incapable of accounting for the extraordinary complexity and sophistication of engineering technology required to create and sustain the human body.

As Burgess explains in his book’s introduction, not only is evolutionary natural selection incapable of explaining the engineering genius required to design the human wrist, knee, and foot joints, but it also encourages the increasingly common conclusion voiced by many evolutionists today that such joints are poorly designed precisely because of the evolutionary process.

“For four decades, I have worked alongside top researchers in biology and engineering, and together we are not only awestruck by the engineering marvels of the biological realm, but inspired by them to make significant engineering breakthroughs outside of biology. That pursuit, now a subdiscipline of its own, is known as biomimetics,” he explains.

Burgess continues, “Despite all this, some evolutionists, including Nathan Lents, Abby Hafer, Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins, insist biology is characterized by bad design. They further argue that this supports the theory of evolution, since Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection working on chance variations (now understood as random genetic mutations) is a mindless trial-and-error process that can be expected to have routinely drifted into decidedly suboptimal design solutions in the history of life.”

In short, according to Burgess, “evolution is constrained by a limited ability to shed vestigial parts, and it cannot evolve much beyond the organism’s survival/reproduction needs.”

Dawkins and Coyne should be familiar to readers of The Washington Stand, as the two men are not only committed evolutionary advocates, but leading figures in the New Atheism movement that came to prominence in the first decade of the 21st century. Neither Lents nor Hafer are identified with the New Atheists as such, but both have written extensively and critically about the alleged conflict between religious belief and scientific inquiry.

In his 335 pages of “Ultimate Engineering,” Burgess argues that “biology contains design that is far superior to human technology, design that is in fact ultimate engineering. By this, I mean design at the limit of what is possible. … This expectation of ultimate engineering fits comfortably with the Intelligent Design paradigm, for if the whole universe — including its laws and materials — is understood to have been made by an intelligent designer, as theism holds, then it follows that this designer would possess intimate knowledge of how to use those laws and materials to produce designs at the limit of performance.”

Designs, that is, like our wrist, knee, and ankle joints, the human spine, jaw, eye, middle ear, blood circulatory system, and much, much more. In the interest of brevity, let us here consider Burgess’s analysis of the ankle joint and the foot that together are capable of performing remarkable actions that no other creature on Earth is capable of matching.

At the heart of the amazing characteristics of the ankle and foot is how working together they provide humans an unequaled agility required for walking, running, jumping, climbing and dancing, among many other activities. To achieve such flexibility over a wide range of physical demands, the ankle and foot, according to Burgess, must be “both stiff and flexible, competing requirements very difficult to achieve in one structure. On the one hand, the foot has to form a very stiff lever for pushing off the ground in running and walking. On the other hand, it has to become very flexible when it lands.”

Burgess describes multiple genius design features in the ankle and foot, including the triple arched structure that he describes as “a design masterpiece.” These three arches include the medial arch that extends from the heel to the three biggest toes, the lateral arch that connects the heel with the smallest two toes, and the transverse arch that links the other two arches via both ankle and forefoot bones.

Together, these three arches “give ideal three-point contact with the ground. All three arches are able to deform and flatten to absorb shock as well as store and release energy. There are also specific functions for each arch. The Medial Arch is the strongest arch and can form a very stiff lever for push-off in walking and running. It has two contact points on the ground, one at the heel and one at the ball of the foot at the base of the big toe. The Medial Arch has many ligaments that store significant elastic energy during each running stride. The Spring Ligament is one of the most important of these energy-storing ligaments, hence the name,” Burgess explains.

“The Lateral Arch creates the third contact point with the ground, at the ball of the little toe, thus maximizing the distance between the two front points of contact, and thus maximizing stability during activities like running. The Lateral Arch gives stability to the foot, such as when standing on the toes. The Transverse Arch helps transmit loads from the Lateral Arch to the Medial Arch during pronation when the foot rolls from the outside of the foot to the inside,” he continues.

By contrast, Burgess notes that the evolutionist Lents “describes the ankle bones as among ‘the most obnoxious example of bones for which we have no use.’” Burgess further notes that “paleontologist and evolutionist Jeremy DeSilva also sees poor design. The title of his lecture on the topic says it all: ‘Starting Off on the Wrong Foot: How Our Ape Ancestry predisposes Us to Foot and Ankle Maladies.’”

DeSilva’s title illustrates how slavish devotion to a theory, as opposed to observed facts, can dictate how one perceives the world. Evolutionist theory posits that upright humans evolved from apes who moved about using both arms and legs from a stooped position. But the superior range of capabilities of the upright human, plus the more than 200 million steps taken by a human over an 80-year lifespan (Google AI estimates half that many for the ape with a 30-40- year lifespan), point to an obvious superiority in design.

Burgess expresses optimism in his chapter entitled “Intelligent Design Ascending” that the day when the suffocating dominance of evolutionary dogma in academia and scientific circles is overwhelmed by the evidence marshalled by him and legions of others continues to mount. After reading “Ultimate Engineering,” one can only hope that day is coming soon.

AUTHOR

Mark Tapscott

Mark Tapscott is senior congressional analyst at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 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.

Godly Justice Establishes Facts First: A Biblical Response to the Minneapolis Shooting

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Unsubstantiated claims abound after Border Patrol agents shot and killed a man during an immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis on Saturday. Within hours of the incident — and before any investigation was conducted — officials on both sides had already concluded that the shooting was either justified self-defense or an execution, depending on their partisan affiliation. But rendering a verdict before all the facts are known is prejudice, not justice. True justice, as God himself shows in Scripture, establishes the facts first.

Videos circulating on social media show federal officers surrounding Alex Pretti, who had been filming them, after Pretti stepped between an officer and a woman the officer had pushed to the ground. After a brief struggle, an officer yelled “gun!” and shots rang out an instant later. Pretti was legally licensed to carry a firearm, and DHS said they found a semiautomatic 9mm pistol and a second magazine on Pretti’s person, but videos do not show him holding a gun before the altercation.

Less than three hours later, the Department of Homeland Security published an account of the incident to social media, claiming that “an individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, seen here.

The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted.” The statement added that the officer who killed Pretti “fired defensive shots,” and “this looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

Administration officials echoed this account. In a Saturday press conference, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem described Pretti as “wishing to inflict harm on these officers, coming, brandishing like that.” Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller dismissed the incident curtly, stating that “an assassin tried to murder federal agents.”

However, Democratic politicians were eager to prove that the Trump administration has no monopoly on hyperbole. “This appears to be an execution by immigration enforcement,” claimed Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) on Saturday. “I am absolutely heartbroken, horrified, and appalled that federal agents murdered another member of our community. … Minnesota was once a place of refuge, and Trump has turned it into a war zone where unchecked federal forces murder our neighbors.” Fellow squad member Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) likewise remarked Saturday, “Our Constitution is being shredded and our rights are dissolving. Resist.”

Compared to these equal and opposite conclusions, President Trump sounded an uncharacteristic note of reasonable caution. “In a five-minute telephone interview with The Wall Street Journal on Sunday,” the Journal reported, “Trump didn’t directly answer when asked twice whether the officer who shot Alex Pretti had done the right thing. Pressed further, the president said, ‘We’re looking, we’re reviewing everything and will come out with a determination.’”

This preliminary response is far more consistent with the preliminary nature of the investigation. “This is a breaking story, so it would not be surprising if, as more details come in, early reporting proves to be incomplete or inaccurate,” explained former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy. “At this early point, it is not clear from various videos in circulation whether Pretti had the gun in his possession at the time of the altercation, whether he had it but was disarmed by the agents during the struggle, or whether the Border Patrol agent who shot him saw Pretti either in possession of or reaching for a gun.”

Until basic facts like these are not only uncovered but proven, any judgment about the officer-involved shooting is, by definition, premature.

This principle is supported not only by reason and common sense, but also by the testimony of God’s word. Throughout Scripture, we find that God’s perfect justice is demonstrated, among other things, by the fact that he always delivers judgment in accord with all the facts.

Of course, it is not possible for God to judge with incomplete information, because he knows everything. But Scripture takes care to emphasize the factual basis for God’s judgments. In the final judgment before God’s great white throne, John records that “books were opened … and the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done” (Revelation 20:12). The point is that God records every person’s deeds and judges accordingly.

While God’s final judgment tarries, his common grace has established human governments to administer temporal justice (Romans 13:1-4). Because human rulers are creatures, they possess only a subset of the Creator’s knowledge, and their limited knowledge is further impeded by the corrupted state of their reason under sin. Therefore, even though human justice is a good gift from God, it falls far short of God’s perfect justice.

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10), so the wiser human governments recognize their penultimate status. The omniscient Creator metes out perfect justice. Fallen, limited creatures fall short of that standard. Since human governments cannot administer justice with perfect knowledge, they ought to be humble about the judgments they render. They should not consider themselves incapable of errors in judgment.

Yet another conclusion follows. If human governments can err in judgment, and if they wish to avoid unjust outcomes, then they should institute safeguards to correct erroneous judgments. These safeguards are called due process, and they form an essential part of the American legal system by ensuring fairness and transparency. These neutral rules exist for the benefit of everyone, so that even neutral observers can affirm the justice of judgments reached through due process. But, as the term itself implies, it takes time to fulfill the requirements of “due process.”

Surprisingly, even the notion of due process finds a basis in God’s conduct in Scripture. As the omniscient Creator and Lord of all, God does not need to conduct an investigation or help his creatures understand his reasoning before he renders judgment. But, as a God who reveals himself to us, Scripture records how God does these very things.

A striking example occurs in Genesis 18-19. “The Lord appeared” (Genesis 18:1) to Abraham when “three men” (Genesis 18:2) arrived at his tent. The Lord stays to reveal his plan to Abraham (Genesis 18:20-33) while “two angels” (Genesis 19:1) then proceed to Sodom. “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave,” God explains, “I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know” (Genesis 18:20-21).

Of course, the “Judge of all the earth” (Genesis 18:25) already knew the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Lord has already claimed exhaustive knowledge of the “iniquity of the Amorites” in the covenant with Abraham, when he said their sins were “not yet complete” (Genesis 15:16). The Lord did not need to embark upon this elaborate, physical, and confusing mission to Sodom to ascertain its sinful character.

Instead, the Lord’s mission served to reveal his plan to Abraham, eliciting Abraham’s prophetic intercession and his affirmation of God’s justice (Genesis 18:25). It served to expose the utter depravity of the Sodomites in the most undeniable way (Genesis 19:4-11). And it provided the means for Lot’s deliverance, demonstrating that “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment” (2 Peter 2:9).

God could have justly obliterated Sodom and Gomorrah with fire from heaven, with no further explanation to mankind. But he chose to act in the way that most clearly demonstrated his justice.

This is a consistent pattern of God’s action across Scripture. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God knew their guilt immediately, but he did not mention it immediately. Instead, his gentle questioning — “where are you?”; “who told you that you were naked?” — caused them to realize how their own actions exposed their guilt (Genesis 3:9-11). Likewise with Cain, God does not open with an accusation, but with a question, “Where is your brother?” (Genesis 4:9).

This pattern even continues through God’s messengers, the prophets. Nathan’s parable to David induces David to pronounce his own sentence before being confronted with his guilt (2 Samuel 12:5-6). Indeed, all of the prophetic books patiently lay out the argument to prove why God was just to send his people into exile, before the end finally arrives.

Thus, God provides an example of justice that is patient and unhurried. Because God is certain of ultimate victory, he does not immediately vindicate. God’s “due process,” as it were, is simply showing his work, so that outside observers may see and believe that his judgment is the right one.

Human rulers should take note. If the perfect judge can take time to “show his work,” how much more should his fallible creatures? Government officials should investigate the facts before making judgments. And, if they want to be taken seriously, government critics should follow the same policy.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Anti-ICE Rioters See Full Moon, Bird, While Mobbing Hotel Reportedly Housing Federal Agents

Healthcare Worker Appears To Encourage Drugging ICE Agents In Videos

John Fetterman Bucks Democrats On ICE As Country Barrels Toward Likely Shutdown

Democrats Plan To Shutdown ICE Funding Has Already Been Foiled

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 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 Humble Arrival: Reflecting on the Incarnation’s Gentle Grace

/in , , , , , , /by

Think of all the grand gestures in this world. The motorcades, parades, and celebrations that occur when a president or prince visits a nation. The very foundation of the red carpet is glamour and awe. Modern rallies often welcome their distinguished guests to the stage with music blasting and sparks flying. Hardly ever do important people make an appearance without the whole shebang. With one exception — the most important Being who ever walked this earth.

It’s Christmas time, which means we pay special attention to “the reason for the season”: the birth of Jesus Christ. And when we do so properly, what do we see? Sheer humility.

You know the narrative — Mary and Joseph, shepherds, a manger. Mary, close to birth, needed shelter. The inn, however, had no room. And so, they stayed in the stable, where little baby Jesus was ultimately born. However, during a time in which we commonly focus on how He came into the world in such a humble place, I want to focus on how He came into the world in such a humble form.

We’re not dealing with a good man who did good things in this world. No, we’re reflecting upon the very purpose behind Christmas, which involves the God of the universe. We’re talking about the incarnation of YAHWEH — the great I AM. We’re talking about the One who created the world and everything in it. The One whose mighty hand ordains all things — from the flooding of the earth in Noah’s time to the gentle fall of the leaves in Autumn.

This God could have come in any form He wished. As Audrey Assad sang in the song “Winter Snow,” He could have come like a “mighty storm,” carrying “all the strength of a hurricane.” He “could’ve come like a forest fire, with the power of heaven in [His] flame.” He could have come accompanied by trembling earthquakes or blinding light. He could have come declaring His holiness — His sovereignty.

But no… He came like a “winter snow. Quiet and soft and slow. Falling from the sky in the night to the earth below.”

I can hardly think of a more humble, innocent, and precious way for our Savior — the King of kings and Lord of lords — to have come to us. So vulnerable. So small. So out of sight.

In this fallen world, it’s “go big or go home.” Nearly everything comes back to how much attention, money, or possessions you have. If you have an abundance, then the world brands you as a somebody. But if you have nothing? Well, more often than not, you’re thrust aside as a nobody. And when Jesus entered this world, from a worldly perspective, He came with nothing — not even an actual room to be born in. By all earthly standards, He was a nobody.

Philippians 2:5-8 paints the full picture: “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” All throughout Scripture, we see how everything Christ did, everything He was, and every aspect of what He taught all came back to humility. His entire earthly life — from birth to death — spotlights humility. All while bearing the title of King. The most perfect, mighty, majestic, sovereign, and holy Being chose humility. He chose humanity’s form. Christ does not just choose the lowly — He placed Himself among the lowly.

What better example could we ask for? Christ’s life, the humility that saturated every moment of it, completely flips the world’s script. When we’re told we can’t be satisfied unless we have more, Christ tells us we’re complete and satisfied in Him only. When the world demands perfection in order to be accepted, Christ cloaks us in His perfection. When the world tells us to perform for an audience of millions, Christ tells us: “Look to me and me alone.”

To the world, we’re never enough. No matter how much you chase what it deems valuable, you will never stop chasing — and you will always come up unsatisfied. And yet, in Christ, we have all things. In fact, the very nature of our lowliness is what makes the gospel so breathtakingly beautiful. James 2:5 reminds us: “Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which He has promised to those who love Him?” Or as 2 Corinthians 8:9 echoes, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you by His poverty might become rich.”

Beloved, in the most loving way I say this: we are a bunch of nobodies. There is nothing in us, I should think, that would beckon the Father’s love over us. I can think of no comprehensible reason why God would send His one and only Son to die for us. Why, I often wonder, would Jesus go through so much pain and suffering, taking on sin and death, for a people that constantly fail Him? And to then turn around and give those people abundant life and a citizenship in heaven — it’s simply unfathomable!

We all came into this world as little, crying, helpless babies. We all entered unable to survive without the intervention of doctors and the love and help of our parents or some form of caregiver. Even as we age, we’re frequently reminded of our frailty, as well as our dependence on that which is outside of ourselves. From start to finish, we see how, really, we aren’t all that important. No, we’re small and ordinary. We’re flawed and feeble. And yet, from being a babe to an adult in His mid-thirties, this is the form our Lord chose to mirror. This is the form that bears God’s image. This is the form of life He found worth dying for and communing with forever.

Our King — mighty and powerful — is so tender. Even the birds of the air He cares for. The grass is caressed by his tender breezes. The flowers, with their soft petals, bloom at His command. And this is all the more striking when considering the same voice that cares for the smallest, most vulnerable aspects of this life also moves mountains, controls storms, and evokes reverent (or not so reverent) fear and trembling. It’s astounding, really. I mean, how could all of this be confined to a tiny baby? I’m truly unsure. But I am thankful — thankful for this wonderful reminder of humility.

And so, as we gather around twinkling lights and exchange gifts this Christmas, let us pause to emulate that same humility in our own lives. In a season often dominated by excess and spectacle, may we choose the quiet path of service, kindness, and selflessness — mirroring the Savior who came not to be served, but to serve. Let this truth transform our hearts: the greatest power in the universe arrived in the gentlest whisper, inviting us to find our worth not in worldly acclaim, but in the eternal embrace of a humble King.

In Him, our ordinary lives become extraordinary, and our weaknesses are turned to strength. Merry Christmas, and may the peace of Christ, born in a manger, dwell richly in you.

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

4 Fulfillments at the Birth of Christ

The True Meaning of Christmas — According to J.R.R. Tolkien

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

Partner with The Washington Stand to bring news from a biblical worldview to readers nationwide. From now until December 31, every gift will be doubled through our year-end Challenge Match.

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.