A Catholic priest in England reportedly warned a Liberal Democrat member of parliament in his parish that he would be refused communion should he vote in favor of the United Kingdom's controversial assisted suicide bill.

Despite this warning, Chris Coghlan voted in favor of the bill on June 20 and claimed he did so in accordance with his "conscience."

While Coghlan underscored in a Saturday op-ed that his faith is irrelevant to his parliamentary responsibilities, Father Ian Vane of St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Dorking, England, indicated that the liberal's political decisions were very much relevant to whether he could receive the Eucharist.

'Intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder.'

After learning that he would be denied communion — evidently not in person, as the Observer indicated the lawmaker didn't even show up to the relevant masses — Coghlan had an ugly meltdown online, calling the priest's actions "outrageous"; accusing Fr. Vane of "completely inappropriate interference in democracy"; filing a complaint with Bishop Richard Moth, the bishop of Arundel and Brighton, who publicly campaigned against the bill; and suggesting lawmakers' faith should be publicly considered when they vote on matters of possible relevance.

"I was deeply disturbed to receive an email from my local priest four days before the vote on Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying bill saying if I voted in favour I would be 'an obstinate public sinner,'" Coghlan noted in his op-ed. "Worse, I would be complicit in a 'murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.' Such a vote would, he wrote, be 'a clear contravention of the Church’s teaching, which would leave me in the position of not being able to give you holy communion, as to do so would cause scandal in the Church.'"

Coghlan suggested that the priest was in the wrong and had wrongly characterized so-called "assisted dying" as a "murderous act."

While the leftist lawmaker indicated his faith was "profoundly important" to him, he appears to have greatly misunderstood or altogether missed the church's unwavering moral stances on euthanasia and suicide.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that "intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator."

The Catechism also states that "suicide is seriously contrary to justice, hope, and charity" and is "forbidden by the fifth commandment."

Carl Court/Getty Images

Canon 915 in the Code of Canon Law forbids the administration of communion to those who obstinately persevere "in manifest grave sin."

One year prior to becoming pope in 2005, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger signed a memorandum on the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith clarifying that:

Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

In other words, Fr. Vane did exactly as expected by the church and echoed the Catholic Church's longstanding moral teaching when warning then admonishing Coghlan.

In advance of the parliamentary vote on the legislation, Bishop Moth, the recipient of Coghlan's complaint, encouraged Catholics in his diocese to "pray earnestly that the dignity of human life is respected from the moment of conception to natural death" and to urge their members of parliament to vote against the bill.

"While the proposed legislation may offer assurances of safeguards, the evidence is clear that, in those countries such as Canada and Belgium (to take just two examples) where legislation approving 'assisted dying' is in place, it takes little time before the criteria for 'assisted dying' expand, often including those living with mental illness and others who do not have a terminal diagnosis," wrote Moth.

Despite being framed as a "stringently limited, carefully monitored system of exceptions" around the time of its legalization in 2016, state-facilitated suicide is now a leading cause of death in Canada, accounting for 4.7% of all Canadian deaths last year.

As Moth indicated, so-called medical assistance in dying in Canada is not just killing moribund people, but individuals who could otherwise live for years or decades, as well as victims whose primary symptom is suicidal ideation.

After parliament voted 314 to 291 in favor of changing British law to legalize assisted suicide earlier this month, Catholic Archbishop John Sherrington, lead bishop for life issues for the Catholic Bishop's Conference, reiterated the church's opposition to the legalization of assisted suicide, noting, "We are shocked and disappointed that MPs have voted in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. This Bill is flawed in principle with several provisions that give us great cause for concern."

Coghlan claimed that after the vote, his priest "publicly announced at mass that he was indeed denying me holy communion as I had breached canon law."

'There is no in-between. Choose.'

The leftist politician continued complaining on X, writing, "It is a matter of grave public interest the extent to which religious MPs came under pressure to represent their religion and not necessarily their constituents in the assisted dying vote."

"This was utterly disrespectful to my family, my constituents including the congregation, and the democratic process. My private religion will continue to have zero direct relevance to my work as an MP representing all my constituents without fear or favour," added Coghlan.

Blaze News reached out to Fr. Vane for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

In addition to stressing that religion should effectively be neutralized in public so that Britain could "be a secular country" — par for the course in a nation where silent prayer can already result in a criminal record — Coghlan suggested that lawmakers' faith should be publicized and taken into account when relevant to parliamentary votes.

Vuk Valcic/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

"Constituents’ [sic] absolutely should know if an MP is of faith on a conscience vote and is obliged by their faith to vote a certain way and/or is under pressure from religious authorities from their faith to do so. It is potentially a clear conflict of interest with putting their constituents first," wrote Coghlan.

The Catholic Diocese of Arundel and Brighton told the Observer in a statement, "Bishop Richard spoke to Mr. Coghlan earlier this week and has offered to meet him in person to discuss the issues and concerns raised."

While the leftist lawmaker received an outpouring of support online from secularists, he was also met with biting criticism from orthodox Christians.

Dr. Chad Pecknold, associated professor of systematic theology at the Catholic University of America, noted, "Mr. Coghlan, I've taught Christianity and Politics for many years. What you express is not a Catholic but a Liberal view that your faith should be something private. Western civilization was built upon the very public nature of Christianity. Your faith is either Liberal, and you have owned it, or your Faith is Catholic, and you have denied it. There is no in-between. Choose."

"Good work by this priest," wrote Fr. Matthew Schneider, a priest with the Legionaries of Christ and Regnum Christi. "If you are not a devout member of a Church, it should not matter if you receive Communion. If you are a devout member, your faith should penetrate your life enough to vote in accord with common good, & not for murdering the sick & disabled."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Martyrs don’t bend the knee — even to the state

In 1535, Saint Thomas More went to his death, not in defiance of his king but in ultimate service to both God and England. His final words — “I die the king’s faithful servant, and God’s first” — captured the essence of true religious liberty: the freedom to fulfill the duty to worship God rightly. As the patron saint of religious liberty, More challenges lawmakers and church leaders to renew their commitment to defending that sacred duty.

To More, religious liberty wasn’t just freedom from state interference. It meant the freedom to obey God, even at the cost of his life. His last declaration made clear that duty to God comes before any loyalty to civil authority. Pope Leo XIII put it plainly in “Immortale Dei”: “We are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will.”

When laws hinder the duty to worship God rightly, they chip away at the foundation of religious liberty the founders meant to preserve.

More lived this principle, choosing martyrdom over surrender to the world. His death makes clear that real freedom begins with obedience to God — a truth rooted in the moral obligations of human nature. To defend religious liberty is to affirm the duty to give God the worship He deserves, a duty no earthly power — not even a king — can rightly deny.

America’s founders understood this well. They saw religious liberty not as license, but as the right to fulfill one’s duty to God. James Madison wrote, “It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”

imagedepotpro via iStock/Getty Images

America’s founders drafted the Constitution with the understanding that citizens would practice their religious duties — not as optional acts, but as essential to a free and moral society. As John Adams put it, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

That understanding now faces growing threats. When laws hinder the duty to worship God rightly, they chip away at the foundation of religious liberty the founders meant to preserve. Consider the case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips. For refusing to make cakes that violated his faith, Phillips endured more than a decade of legal battles, fines, protests, and business losses. He wasn’t seeking special treatment — he simply wanted to live out his faith. Although the Supreme Court eventually sided with him, the fight drained years of his life and resources. Religious liberty delayed for a decade amounts to religious liberty denied.

True religious freedom, as More and the founders envisioned it, demands strong protections for people and institutions to live out their beliefs in every area of life, not just within a sanctuary or under the narrow shelter of exemptions.

To fulfill the vision of religious liberty embodied by Thomas More and upheld by America’s founders, Americans must renew their commitment to strengthening religious institutions through laws that promote the common good. Elected leaders cannot separate their faith from their public responsibilities. Religious truth shapes just governance.

Having just celebrated Religious Liberty Week, we would do well to recall More’s words: “God’s first.” True religious liberty begins with the duty to worship God as He commands. That duty forms the bedrock of a free and just society.

The left's new anti-Christian smear backfires — exposing its deepest fear

The left's new favorite boogeyman — so-called "Christian nationalism" — is back in the headlines. But don't be fooled by the narrative. The real story isn't about Christian extremism but an obsession with tarring faithful conservative Christians.

After police arrested Vance Boelter — the man accused of targeting two Minnesota politicians and their spouses, which included murdering state Rep. Melissa Hortman (D) and her husband — the media seized on Boelter's associations with charismatic Christianity and his background as a preacher.

If there is anything Americans should be concerned about, it's the leftist ideology that seeks to replace God with government and silence dissent in the name of progress.

Quickly, a narrative was born: Boelter is yet another example of "Christian nationalism" and far-right extremism.

Wired: The Minnesota shooting suspect’s background suggests deep ties to Christian nationalism
The Forward: Understanding accused Minnesota shooter Vance Boelter’s ties to Christian nationalism
Washington Post: Minnesota shooting suspect went from youthful evangelizer to far-right zealot
New York Magazine: The spiritual warfare of Vance Boelter
MSNBC: Killings in Arizona and Minnesota shine light on the crisis of Christian extremist violence

At the New York Times, evangelical columnist David French wrote about the "problem of the Christian assassin," using Boelter as a cudgel to smear Christians — and take a shot at President Donald Trump.

"And right now — at a time when the Christian message of grace and mercy should shine the brightest — America’s Christian extremists are killing people, threatening and intimidating public servants and other public figures who oppose Trump and trying to drive their political opponents from the public square," French claimed.

In the view of leftists and media pundits, this heinous act of violence wasn't the result of one individual's sin but the inevitable fruit of "Christian nationalism." If you hear them tell the story, Boelter's views of Christianity gave him license to act. But it's a lie.

Guilt by faith

Let's be honest about what's happening here: The media, leftists, and opponents of President Trump use the label "Christian nationalism" to smear conservative Christians.

In the media, "Christian nationalism" has become an elastic term that is stretched to cover anyone who believes a biblical worldview should influence public life and anyone who wants their communities to be more Christian.

Do you oppose the LGBTQ+ agenda? Christian nationalist. Do you oppose giving children "trans-affirming" drugs? Christian nationalist. Do you believe that life begins at conception? Christian nationalist. Are you a Christian who supports President Trump? Christian nationalist. Do you believe that America was uniquely founded on Judeo-Christian principles? Christian nationalist. Jesus is Lord? Christian nationalist.

The goal of the "Christian nationalist" panic is clear: to discredit and silence Christians for refusing to go along with the leftist agenda.

By connecting isolated violent acts to "Christian nationalism," they make all conservative Christians guilty by association. This is their narrative: Your faith is suspect, your convictions are dangerous, and your faith, if taken seriously, is a threat to democracy — or worse.

Faith, not extremism

The media and leftists who fearmonger about "Christian nationalism" are intentionally omitting basic truths.

Loving your country and wanting it to flourish is not the type of "nationalism" (i.e., fascism) they accuse conservative Christians of advocating for. Believing in biblical truth and voting in alignment with biblical values is not "extremism," and it certainly isn't an attempt to impose a theocracy on everyone else. Christians who speak about Christ publicly — and want their communities to reflect Christian values — aren't calling for a state religion.

Despite their accusations, conservative Christians are not inclined toward violence.

We want moral sanity. We don't want the progressive agenda shoved down our throats. We want to raise our families in healthy, peaceful communities. We want every American to know and experience the goodness of God and the riches of a relationship with Him.

It's not radical, and it's certainly not extreme.

What they really fear

The heinous acts that police accuse Vance Boelter of committing on the morning of June 14 are not Christian. They are pure evil.

No faithful Christian would disagree with that assessment. And yet, the media rushed to connect an isolated act of evil to all conservative Christians in the name of "Christian nationalism" when there is no link at all.

Not only is it dishonest, but it underscores yet another leftist double standard.

When far-left progressives commit violence, the media instructs us not to rush to judgment. When leftist ideologies produce bloodshed, we're told to wait for the full story. But when an alleged conservative or Christian commits violence (two claims about Boelter that remain more tale than truth), the entire conservative Christian movement is put on trial and swiftly condemned.

The distinction between what the media and leftists define as "Christian nationalism" and actual conservative Christianity is important. Not just for the sake of truth — although truth is important — but for the sake of every Christian trying to follow Jesus in a world that increasingly calls evil "good" and good "evil."

If there is anything Americans should be concerned about, it's the leftist ideology that seeks to replace God with government and silence dissent in the name of progress. The real story here isn't that Christianity turns people violent or results in extremism; it's that people with an agenda who hate Christianity use any excuse to try to turn Americans against faithful believers.

The real nationalism the left fears is a nation that still believes in God and Christians who won't be silent. Don't let them win.

Club Misery: How the godless elite let the truth slip about atheism

What do Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Bill Maher, and Ricky Gervais have in common?

If you’re the sort of person who reads HuffPost, sips oat milk lattes, and thinks everything wrong with the world boils down to white men with opinions, you probably already have your answer: privileged patriarchal monsters.

Atheism, in its purest form, is an ideology of erasure, a faith in subtraction.

But if you’re a little more honest — and a little more curious — you’ll notice something different.

These aren’t just successful men. They’re atheists — and they’re also, quite clearly, miserable.

Bill Maher

Maher is a comedian by trade, but rarely funny any more — at least not in the way that feels joyful or generous.

On "Club Random," his podcast that masquerades as freewheeling conversation, Maher talks over his guests so relentlessly that it’s become the most consistent punch line in his YouTube comments.

“Stop cutting them off, Bill.”
“Let them speak, for once.”
“Do you invite guests just to hear yourself talk?”

He lectures, sneers, and plays the same greatest hits week after week. He’s not sharing ideas — he’s performing superiority. You can practically feel the clenched teeth through your screen.

Richard Dawkins

Then there’s Richard Dawkins, the patron saint of Darwinian superiority, the man who turned religious skepticism into a career of scowling, condescension, and book tours.

Dawkins hasn’t smiled in public since the Cambrian explosion. He scolds believers like a substitute teacher who can’t believe anyone is still talking about God after he’s assigned the fossil chart. Every public appearance is an exercise in barely contained frustration — at creationists, at the Bible, at people who pray for the sick instead of shrugging their shoulders.

Dawkins doesn’t merely disbelieve. He resents belief, and nothing is more exhausting than a man perpetually outraged that billions of people don’t think exactly like him.

Ricky Gervais

Some will point to Ricky Gervais as the exception.

An atheist, a comedian, a master of satire, and they’d be right — at least partly. Gervais is funny. Incredibly so. But happy? That’s another story.

Gervais has never struck me as someone content. Even in interviews, there’s a fog of irritation that never quite lifts. He’s always complaining, always nagging, always rolling his eyes at something. And while he packages the whole thing in charm and wit, the engine underneath doesn’t sound like joy. It sounds like frustration dressed up for a Netflix special.

His entire career — brilliant as it may be — has been a decades-long monologue of gripes. Yes, he makes people laugh. But the deeper source of it all feels like a man quietly suffocating on his own disbelief. If in doubt, feel free to watch his recent interview with Jimmy Kimmel, a practicing Catholic, where he spent minutes rambling about everything wrong with himself and the world — his body, his brain, society, death.

Funny? Sure, but also bleak. The laughter lands, but the undertow is pure despair.

And then there’s "After Life," his hit Netflix show. Lauded for its honesty, praised for its emotion. But look closely, and what you see isn’t fiction; it’s confession. A man mourning his wife’s passing, clinging to sarcasm like a flotation device in a sea of grief. It’s gulag humor without the bars — just a soulless bloke with a dog and a sharp tongue, cracking jokes to keep the walls from closing in.

Gervais is playing himself. "After Life" isn’t just a comedy — it’s an atheist’s eulogy.

Sam Harris

Gervais' close friend Sam Harris is no better.

Before he was consumed by Trump derangement syndrome, he was a sharp mind who took a blowtorch to radical Islam. Harris positioned himself as the cold, rational surgeon cutting through sacred narratives full of hate and delusion.

But even then, the man radiated pessimism. There was always an oddness to him — like he was describing humanity from orbit, distant and curiously detached.

These days, it’s worse. His permanent frown, his stilted delivery, his fixation on Trump supporters as if they’re some primitive tribe to be studied under glass — it all screams anxiety, not authority. He doesn’t project clarity. He projects burden. Every podcast, every essay, every panel feels like another brick in a bunker of airtight, joyless "reasoning" — sealed off from awe, from beauty, from anything resembling peace.

No comfort. No transcendence. No light. Just a man methodically dismantling meaning while sounding more drained with each attempt. Harris whispers meditations and mouths moral truths, all while insisting there’s no divine author behind any of it.

Christopher Hitchens

Even the great Christopher Hitchens — brilliant in so many ways — died with a cigarette in one hand, a scotch in the other, and a rage against the God he claimed didn’t exist.

Hitchens was a man of genuine intellect and rhetorical firepower. He could dazzle a room into silence. He could devastate an opponent with a single line. Joy, however, was never part of the package. The Brit burned hot, but never warm. His wit wasn’t rooted in love. It was weaponized. He didn’t laugh with you; he laughed at the absurdity of the world and often at the people trying to find meaning in it.

His takedowns of Mother Teresa, of Henry Kissinger, of religion itself — they were theater, yes. But they were also therapy. They came from a place of deep unrest. His war wasn’t just with belief systems but with the very structure of consolation. The human need for mercy, for absolution, for something sacred. He couldn’t tolerate it, maybe because he wanted it too much.

Atheism didn’t bring him peace. It gave him license to rage: to reject sentiment, spit on tradition, and scorn the spiritual longings of billions.

He could speak for hours. But when it came to rest — to true stillness — he had none.

The problem with atheism

The problem with modern atheism isn’t just lack of belief. It’s that it builds identity around lack itself, around the removal of things. Strip away God, strip away the soul, strip away metaphysics, strip away teleology, and what’s left isn’t freedom — it’s vacancy.

Atheism, in its purest form, is an ideology of erasure, a faith in subtraction. And subtraction, no matter how eloquently defended, is not a place from which joy can grow.

It is, however, a place from which misery flourishes. Consciousness gets recast as a glitch, morality as adaptive behavior. Love? A chemical bribe from nature. Everything that once lifted the human soul now gets filed under "illusion."

And illusions, we’re told, are best destroyed.

But here’s the truth atheists ignore: You cannot build a life — let alone a civilization — on negation. You cannot inspire the heart with “there is no God,” no matter how clever the phrasing. You can’t raise a child on “nothing matters” and expect the child to thrive. You can’t look into the eyes of someone dying and offer neurons as comfort.

This public face of atheism — the podcast hosts, the viral thinkers, the smug Substack intellectuals — don’t sell joy. They sell despair dressed up as clarity. They tell you that meaning is a delusion, that your suffering has no higher context, that the love you feel is just your DNA playing dress-up. They perform autopsies on transcendence, then wonder why their audiences walk away spiritually numb.

Humans don’t just crave truth. They crave belonging, direction, awe, and something to serve that isn’t themselves.

Atheism offers none of that. It hands you a mirror and tells you it’s a map — and then it dares you to walk in circles and calls it freedom.

Does the church replace Israel? Answering tough theological questions

Does the church replace Israel? Did I ignore the Jews? Does the formation of Israel in 1948 fulfill Old Testament promises?

These were a few of the questions and critiques sparked by an essay I wrote last week, "How Tucker Carlson vs. Ted Cruz exposed a critical biblical question on Israel." After providing a cursory biblical-theological exploration of the question "What is Israel?" I answered that no, the modern nation-state of Israel is not the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. I also stated that Christians are not biblically commanded to support the modern nation-state of Israel because the state of Israel and the biblical Israel are not the same entity.

To some, my conclusions sounded like heresy. But others, through emails or comments, expressed thankfulness for what they saw as a long-overdue correction.

In any case, I am thankful for every subscriber to and reader of Blaze Media, and I am thankful for everyone who wrote comments, positive or negative, and engaged with me.

This topic understandably touches nerves, but that's why this conversation matters. And if the reaction proved anything, it's that we need more biblical clarity. Below, I am going to respond to some of the critiques. I hope to provide clarity with charity and continue the dialogue about this important topic.

Did I ignore the Jews?

Mark Brown commented: "I’m curious how you just seemingly ignore the Jew in your theology. The New Covenant in Jeremiah is to be made with the House of Judah and with the House of Israel. Gentiles (read as the nations) are grafted into the olive tree and the roots of that tree are Israel. In effect, you are teaching that the church has replaced Israel which couldn’t be further from the truth!"

First off, thank you for subscribing to Blaze Media, Mark. I appreciate your thoughtful pushback.

I do not ignore Jews in my theology. I believe that scripture is clear that Jesus — a descendant of King David from the line of Judah (and therefore a Jew) — is the one true Israelite. As I stated in my essay, "He is the true and faithful Israelite who perfectly fulfills Israel's vocation and perfectly keeps the covenant. Jesus is the great high priest, the anointed one, and the prophet of prophets."

In that sense, Jews have a unique and special role in God's redemptive plans. It is the line of Judah, after all, that God preserves to bring about his redemptive promises despite Judah's repeated covenant unfaithfulness. You are right that the new covenant is made with the "House of Judah" and the "House of Israel" and that indeed happens in Jesus, as the author of Hebrews explains (Hebrews 8).

The question, then, is this: Do Jews retain their special status today?

On one hand, yes (e.g., Romans 3: 9-11). But the apostle Paul makes it clear that faith in Jesus, not ethnic identity, is what defines the true "Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16). For example, whereas torah commands physical circumcision as an external sign of inclusion, what humans really need is circumcision of the heart (Deuteronomy 30:6) — internal transformation. This happens in Jesus and through the Holy Spirit. As Christians, God has replaced our hearts of stone with hearts of flesh, and God's law is now written on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33-34; Ezekiel 36:26-27).

I do not teach replacement theology (i.e., that the church replaces Israel). Rather, I teach fulfillment theology — that all of God's promises are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. I will say more about this criticism below.

One more point: I think it's important to understand that "Jew" and "Israel" are not synonyms. The Hebrew word for Jew, yehudi, literally means "of Judah." While biblical Israel certainly includes Jews (one of 12 tribes), not every Israelite is a Jew; by definition, Israel encompasses all 12 tribes of Abraham's descendants.

This is why Paul understood what happens in Jesus — the ingathering of Israel — to be no longer limited or defined by ethnic boundaries. By definition, then, the restoration of Israel is not limited to the tribe of Judah.

Is Jesus a Jew?

Dale Errett responded: "Will you next claim that Jesus is not Jewish because He is a Christian?"

Dale, thank you for being a loyal subscriber to Blaze Media and taking the time to comment on my last essay.

I do not deny the Jewishness of Jesus. He was descended from David, born into the tribe of Judah, circumcised on the eighth day according to torah, raised under torah, and lived as a faithful Jew. In fact, if you read the New Testament carefully, you will see how Jesus perfectly keeps torah, never violating nor abrogating it.

The Jewishness of Jesus is critical to his identity as the Messiah.

Does the church replace Israel?

Dale Errett responded: "You couldn't be more wrong! The modern stand of replacement theology that you are spouting here is utter heresy."

Rebecca Freimann commented: "Replacement theory is from Satan."

Dale and Rebecca, thank you for subscribing to Blaze Media. I appreciate the responses.

I share your concerns about replacement theology, a strand of thought that I find extremely problematic. But I do not teach replacement theology, nor do I think my essay advocated for it. I simply teach, as the New Testament does, that God's promises to Israel are fulfilled in Jesus Christ — the true and faithful Israelite — and that anyone united to him by faith, whether Jew or Gentile, is an heir of those promises.

From this perspective, Israel is not discarded but brought to its intended purpose in Christ, the shepherd who gathers the lost sheep of Israel and brings in the nations.

Paul teaches that "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" (Romans 9:6) and that "if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed" (Galatians 3:29).

The church — Christians, people who follow the Christ, that is, Jesus — is the continuation and fulfillment of God's Old Testament promises. Jesus is the revelation of those promises, not the replacement.

The apostle Paul takes great pains to explain how this works (see, again, Romans 9-11) using the metaphor of an olive tree. Gentiles are grafted into the family of God, sharing in the nourishing root of the Abrahamic covenant. The church — or, as Paul calls it, the true "Israel of God" — includes both Gentiles and Jews, the faithful remnant who place their faith in Jesus.

This is how God has always worked, not through ethnic boundaries alone, but through covenant faithfulness. Notice that Jesus' genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew includes several non-Israelites (i.e., Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba).

In Jesus, God is forming one people through faith in Him.

Did the modern formation of Israel fulfill OT prophecies?

An anonymous subscriber commented: "Might want to read Isaiah 11, Ezekiel 36, Jeremiah 32, among others regarding the restoration of the nation of Israel, and then consider if 1948 and modern Israel might be the fulfillment of these prophecies."

Anonymous, thank you for subscribing to Blaze Media and leaving this thoughtful comment. Unfortunately, there is not enough space here to adequately respond to your objection, but I will try my best to give a cursory answer.

Each of the chapters that you cite refers to the future restoration of Israel. But the key question is when and how these prophecies are fulfilled. I believe the New Testament consistently teaches and interprets the restoration of Israel happening in and through Jesus.

For example, Isaiah 11's vision of a righteous ruler points to the Messiah who inaugurates God's kingdom, which is what Jesus did (e.g., Mark 1: 14-15). Ezekiel 36, meanwhile, envisions not just a physical restoration of Israel, but a spiritual one in which God gives his people a "new heart" and a "new spirit" (Ezekiel 36:26). And it is this internal transformation that defines the new covenant people of God (Jeremiah 32:40), a hope and transformation that is realized in Jesus.

Yes, the formation of the state of Israel in 1948 is historically significant. But it leaves me wondering: If the Old Testament is referring to that event, where does Jesus fit in?

Here I will quote the apostle Paul in Romans 9:25-26, where he quotes from the prophet Hosea:

As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one," and, “In the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”

It is my belief that scripture invites us to see Israel's restoration as both physical and spiritual, ultimately centered on faith in Jesus Christ and the ingathering of God's people from all nations into one new humanity.

Thank you, again, to every Blaze Media reader and subscriber. It has been a deep joy to wrestle with scripture and these questions and to engage with you all.

What's so great about 'separation of church and state'?

Freedom of expression, universal suffrage, and separation of church and state. Our country prides itself on these foundational principles.

In fact, for many Americans, the document enshrining these principles has become an object of almost religious veneration. The Constitution is no mere legal agreement, but a sacred covenant between people and power, a reminder that no king or cleric can rule over us without our consent.

The church historically has always possessed and asserted its temporal powers. It rebuked kings. It crowned emperors. It waged wars, both literal and spiritual.

But what if I told you that some of these foundational principles themselves are the root cause of the current tyranny you’re facing?

Fathers know best?

Let’s take the separation of church and state, for example. The founding fathers, influenced by the Enlightenment, were pioneers of the democratic republic system, meaning they harbored a strong distaste for the theocratic monarchies that populated the European nations for much of the medieval and early modern eras. They saw the union of throne and altar as a source of corruption and oppression.

Many, though not all, leaned toward a rationalist or deist conception of God, meaning they conceived of God as one who designed the universe but refrained from interfering in human affairs. They admired natural law, not revealed law. They were wary of ecclesial authority, especially when it mingled with politics.

So they did something radical: They stripped the church of temporal power. Their primary aim, we’re sometimes told, was the promotion of religious freedom. But that’s simply not the case. The primary objective was to remove the church’s power in government affairs.

Interim Archives/Boston Globe/Getty Images

Domesticating God

For this reason, they saw fit to design a country that domesticated God, keeping Him confined to the church building. The rest of society and the government, in turn, were to be packaged within a professional secularist framework. “God” was not to meddle with the affairs of men. Hence, the separation of church and state.

Except, that’s not what really happened. A separation never really occurred. It was more of a replacement.

Religious vacuum

Sure, the church lost its temporal powers. But something else filled the religious vacuum. Something else always fills the religious vacuum. Remove one orthodoxy, and another takes its place. And that alternative orthodoxy was secular liberalism.

Instead of priests, we have an endless array of “highly qualified” experts and bureaucrats telling us what the truth is (and inversely what the heresies are). Instead of a bishop crowning a king, we have TV stations announcing the results of our newly elected leaders. Instead of trusting God, we trust “science.”

And then we wonder why we’ve gone so astray. We ask ourselves why we’ve lost all sense of tradition and God. Why does it feel like morality is made up on the spot? Why do our traditionally Christian institutions seem powerless to resist the tides of culture?

It’s because, from the beginning, we accepted the premise that God should not interfere with the affairs of men.

Head and body

I’m aware I speak harshly. But I’m also speaking truly. I grew up believing in the concept of separation of church and state. But the older I get, and the more I peel back the layers of history, the more I realize it was the wrong move. The founding fathers were simply wrong.

Ask yourself what a church is. Is it just a house of worship? No, it’s more than that, right? It’s the body of Christ, after all. So if Christ is head of the church, how is His body serving Him? What action is the body taking? What powers does the body possess? Jesus Christ isn’t just a brain floating in a vat. As head of the church, He has a fully operational and functional body that bends the world to His whim.

The church historically has always possessed and asserted its temporal powers. It rebuked kings. It crowned emperors. It waged wars, both literal and spiritual. It wrestled with the powers of the world, and often won. It has always had real power. It’s only today in our modern society that we believe it belongs nestled away in a hall full of pews.

Secular vision

And yet we are so immersed in secularism that we can barely recognize it as one ideology among others. It is simply "reality," a reality that distorts our understanding of the past. As Andrew Willard Jones writes in "Before Church and State: A Study of Social Order in the Sacramental Kingdom of St. Louis IX,"

Our own vision is secular. Even when we acknowledge the importance of religion, we do so from within the assumption of the secular: that reality itself is ultimately free of the religious. Religions come and go; they are relative. The secular is permanent; it is absolute and universal. To us, the secular is the field on which the game of history—including religious history—is played. Within this secular vision, religion as a sociological category is often considered inessential to the concept of society itself. In this view, religious societies are, in a sense, accidentally religious: their religion can fade away. Secular societies, for their part, do not seem to have a religion proper to themselves at all, even if some individuals within them are religious.

Imagine you were in the middle of a nasty divorce. Ask yourself, could the church overrule the court? In Revelation 2:14, Jesus reprimands the church of Pergamum for tolerating sexual immorality. What is no-fault divorce except for legalized adultery? Yet today, our churches passively accept it and are unable to demand any kind of legal standing in court. Do we think we’re any different than the church of Pergamum?

Likewise, the state has redefined marriage to include same-sex unions. Where is the separation there? Where was it when the state invaded the church’s sacramental territory?

The truth is that the separation of church and state has never been real. It is an illusion. The state always imposes and enforces a theology, whether it’s Christian or not. Which means that the state is the church. And the church is the state. I would go so far as to say that the church cannot be even classified as the church unless it is the state.

If we want a re-emergence of Christendom, it means the church needs to once again wield state power. There’s no getting around it.

How we help 'gay' men and women 'Leave Pride Behind'

You may have noticed that corporate America’s enthusiasm for Pride Month has waned.

But business leaders aren't the only ones pulling back from public celebration of “Pride.” Many ordinary people are retreating from full-on support for the demands of the LGBT lobby.

Our Leaving Pride Behind campaign amplifies the powerful testimonies of men and women who have walked away from homosexual behavior and identity.

Most importantly, many people who once identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or transgender have abandoned that identity. In some cases, they have completely reinterpreted their own past behaviors, thoughts, feelings, and political commitments. These brave men and women have left Pride behind.

Over the rainbow

If you’ve sensed that Pride-themed advertising has declined since 2023, you’re not wrong. A new survey finds that 43% of Fortune 1,000 companies are dialing back their external support for Pride Month in 2025. Social media feeds, once filled with rainbow branding, are strikingly subdued this year. No embarrassing displays by nonbinary “influencers” trying to sell beer. No doubt, the business community is responding to the views of the broader public.

A recent survey revealed that nearly 60% of Americans now prefer corporations to stay neutral on political and social issues.

At the same time, many Americans are questioning the goals and tactics of LGBT activism. People are starting to realize the cost of this ideology, particularly when it conflicts with faith, family, and biological reality. People are repelled by the sight of parents losing custody of their children for failing to “affirm” the child’s “gender identity.” Ordinary folk are cheering when J.K. Rowling takes down trans activists online.

'Obergefell' remorse

And people also intuit that redefining marriage in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case opened the door to transgenderism in the schools, drag queen story hours, and much more. As a result, the public is rethinking its commitments to policies such as genderless marriage. Gallup polling shows public support for same-sex marriage has dipped from 71% in 2022 to 68% in 2025. Among Republicans, the drop is even more dramatic — from 55% to just 41% over the past three years.

Even more interesting and significant is the group of people that we at the Ruth Institute refer to as those who have “left Pride behind.” Some in the public refer to this group of people as “ex-gays.” We hesitate to use this terminology, because most of them do not refer to themselves in this way. They might refer to themselves as “once gay.” They might call themselves “overcomers” or “people who have journeyed away from an LGBT identity.”

Many of them do not accept the term “gay” as an identity label in the first place. At most, they regard the term “gay” or “same-sex attracted” as a description of an attribute, which may or may not be permanent. For many people, “gay” is emphatically not an identity. So they certainly do not want to call themselves “ex-gay.”

Stories of transformation

That is why we at the Ruth Institute refer to them as people who have left Pride behind. Our Leaving Pride Behind campaign amplifies the powerful testimonies of men and women who have walked away from homosexual behavior and identity. These interviews include stories of transformation, healing, and faith. They challenge the destructive ideology that sexual orientation or gender identity is permanent and must be celebrated through political activism.

These brave men and women have left Pride behind, not just metaphorically, but literally. They’ve humbled themselves enough to say, “I was on the wrong path. I am willing to take responsibility for myself, my choices, and the totality of my life.” They risk the ridicule and censure of people they thought were their friends.

Amazingly, many of the people who have left Pride behind have also left other baggage. They have had bad things done to them. They’ve left blame behind. They’ve done things for which they are deeply sorry and ashamed. They’ve left toxic shame behind. They’ve done the best they could in deeply trying and confusing situations. They’ve left excuse-making behind.

In short, they have peace in their lives.

Evading the evidence

The LGBT political establishment thinks these people don’t exist. According to the “official voice” of the LGBT community, no one can change sexual orientation. People who say they have changed are either kidding themselves and will surely revert to their natural gay selves any minute, or they weren’t really gay in the first place.

That is a cop-out, evading the evidence rather than confronting it. This attitude is also deeply disrespectful. If corporate America can leave Pride behind, so can once-gay individuals. Personally, I have the utmost respect for those who have chosen to leave Pride behind.

I invite you to visit the Ruth Institute's YouTube channel. Get acquainted with the stories of those who have left Pride behind. Are they all lying or kidding themselves? Decide for yourself. I’m convinced that these are brave and honest individuals who have earned my respect.

God, Israel, and America First: Inside the biblical battle for our future

With the battle between Israel and Iran moving from decades of proxy warring to an all-out crisis, world leaders have been waiting, watching, and nervously pondering what happens next.

And as the political implications cause deep concern, some of the theological issues implicit in the discussion have moved from percolating and bubbling under the surface to outright erupting.

There’s undoubtedly something special about Israel and the Hebrew people, through whom Jesus came.

The age-old biblical questions surrounding modern-day Israel and its relevance to prophecy sit at the core of these heated debates, as Christians ponder the modern Jewish state’s connection to the Old Testament, prophecy, and how those sentiments impact contemporary Christians’ views on how the U.S. and other nations should respond to the current crisis.

This theo-political skirmish burst onto the main stage after a verbal showdown between Tucker Carlson and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). The two now-infamously clashed, in part, over how Christians should respond to the Israel-Iran war.

The Cruz-Carlson spat intensified when Cruz proclaimed that he was taught in church that “those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed” and that support for modern Israel is a biblical command.

“Biblically, we are commanded to support Israel,” Cruz clarified after Carlson pushed back and questioned whether believers are truly commanded to “support the government of Israel.” When Cruz didn’t back down, Carlson demanded that the congressman “define Israel.”

The wick of an ever-smoldering theological debate was immediately lit on social media, with people on all sides pouring gasoline on the resulting flames.

Kayla Bartkowski / Anna Moneymaker | Getty Images

Ultimately, the main question centers on whether God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3 is speaking about the Jewish people or the nation of Israel — and whether Christianity is the ultimate continuation of that pledge.

“The Lord had said to Abram, ‘Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing,’” reads Genesis 12:1-2. Verse 3 continues: “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.’”

Cruz's critics match up this passage with the apostle Paul's words in Galatians 3:16, “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say 'and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ.”

Thus, some interpreters see Christ as the ultimate fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham, while others still see the state of Israel as biblically significant.

Truth in tension

But I’ve often been left wondering: Why can’t both be true?

As we assess these scriptures and consider whether modern-day Israel deserves unfettered support due to prophetic sentiments, we must confront two different realities. First, Israel is unlike any other nation in human history. Its formation, disappearance, and re-emergence raise important questions. It's a special nation composed of people through whom God has chosen to accomplish His will and offer salvation to all mankind.

Second, humans are prone to sin, and no nation run by mere mortals should be supported unconditionally without accountability. The entirety of the Bible is a testament not only to God’s truth and goodness but also to the pitfalls of man’s folly — even great men like David, Solomon, and Peter.

Ironically, it’s possible that both Cruz and Carlson are speaking kernels of truth or at least asking important questions we must ponder.

History meets prophecy

To first address Cruz, we must pull back and reflect on the stunning facts surrounding modern-day Israel’s existence.

When I was writing my book “Armageddon Code,” an exploration of various Christian beliefs about the end times, Israel’s contemporary existence truly struck me, particularly when I read the prophet Ezekiel’s words in Ezekiel 38, which was likely written during the Babylonian captivity of the Jewish people in the sixth century B.C.

The prophet foresaw a future time when the Jewish people, who had been driven out and scattered, would come back to their homeland. For nearly 1,900 years after the Second Temple’s destruction in the year 70, the Jewish people were dispersed and persecuted; the idea there would ever again be a Jewish state seemed folly to most.

But the Bible boldly predicted its re-emergence. Ezekiel 37 speaks of a valley of dry bones — imagery invoking skeletal remains coming back together, with tendons, skin, and flesh re-growing. This visualization is said to be Israel as it is restored to the land, with the Lord proclaiming in verse 12: “My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel.”

For nearly 20 centuries, these words seemed almost implausible — until the Holocaust and its aftermath left the Jewish people around the world reeling and seeking refuge. Remarkably, on May 14, 1948, the modern state of Israel was born.

To deny the prophetic significance is true folly, as no other people group in history has seen its land disappear from the map only to re-emerge nearly two millennia later — all while events lined up with what a prophet penned more than 2,000 years before.

There’s undoubtedly something special about Israel and the Hebrew people, through whom Jesus came. Any student of prophecy knows that the geographic area is key to still-to-be-fulfilled events, and the book of Revelation highlights its involvement in the end times.

Defending freedom — with wisdom

Beyond theological considerations, Israel is one of the main bastions of sanity in the Middle East, a place where freedom reigns. The Jewish state is a key American ally. That's why constant pledges to wipe it off the face of the earth by political foes like Iran should spark deep concern.

This doesn’t mean America must co-sign each and every Israeli action, nor does it require that Americans participate in Israel's conflicts. People and nations sin, and Israeli malfeasance — if and when it occurs, just like America’s — must be called to account.

Moreover, from a purely nationalistic position, there are times when “America First” means steering clear of international crises. Past military debacles and quagmires should be overwhelmingly pertinent testaments to our need for caution.

But there are also times when “America First” means intervening to protect American interests. Poor past decisions and wars don’t render every conflict unworthy; such a posture could leave the U.S. in a perilous place.

There’s no world in which a nuclear Iran is good for anyone, and burying our heads in the sand while pretending it's not happening is begging for terror.

So yes: Modern-day Israel holds prophetic significance and meaning. It’s a good, solid, and biblical posture to defend the Jewish people.

But even if you deny the biblical foundation of this argument, it’s morally expedient for our nation to help a friend ward off fiendish foes — enemies that also seek America’s destruction.

Still, such deterrence should always be done in a prayerful, political balance that ensures we truly weigh our engagement against truth, goodness, and American interests. As is the case in all things, discernment is key.

Mother of Michigan church shooting suspect is member of church; suspect attended a few services in last year: Police

Police in Michigan said the mother of the suspect accused of opening fire at a suburban Detroit church on Sunday is a member of the church — and that the suspect attended services there in the last year.

Wayne Police in a news release said they received multiple 911 calls just after 11 a.m. Wayne is about a half hour southwest of Detroit.

'We are grateful for the quick actions of the church’s staff members.'

A witness told police he saw the suspect driving erratically in a silver SUV in the parking lot of CrossPointe Community Church after which the suspect parked the vehicle. The suspect — a white male wearing camouflage clothing and a tactical vest — was retrieving guns from his car and headed to the church, police said.

Police said minutes later, more calls poured in — this time saying the suspect was firing shots and that a church member driving a pickup truck hit the suspect.

Senior Pastor Bobby Kelly Jr. told the Detroit News that the church member actually drove over the suspect: "He was run over by one of our members who saw this happening when he was coming into church."

What's more, the gunman shot at the vehicle repeatedly, Wayne Police Chief Ryan Strong told the Detroit Free Press at a news conference Sunday evening.

Police told Blaze News that this photo shows the vehicle that a church member used to hit the shooting suspect. The shooting suspect reportedly fired repeatedly at the vehicle.Photo by Emily Elconin/Getty Images

Upon hearing the gunfire, police said the church security team locked the church's front doors and exchanged gunfire with the suspect outside. Police said a member of the security team shot and killed the suspect. First responders pronounced the suspect dead after performing life-saving measures, police said.

One member of the church's security team was shot in the leg and taken to a hospital, where he was last listed in stable condition after a successful surgery, police said. The wounded security team member did not fire a weapon at the gunman, Deputy Chief Finley Carter III told Blaze News, adding that he was one of three security team members involved.

Kelly told the Detroit News the attacker didn't enter the church building, but several shots were fired into the church. Carter added to Blaze News that police haven't yet determined how many rounds the gunman fired. No other church members were hurt, the Detroit News added.

Police said an investigation has identified the shooting suspect as 31-year-old Brian Anthony Browning of Romulus, Michigan. Romulus is about 12 minutes south of Wayne.

Police said the suspect was armed with an AR-15-style rifle and had more than a dozen fully loaded magazines as well as a semi-automatic handgun with an extended magazine and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

The suspect's mother is a member of the church, police said, adding that he attended services there two or three times over the course of the last year.

Police said a search warrant was executed at the suspect's residence where additional rifles, several more semi-automatic handguns, and an additional large amount of ammunition were seized and confiscated.

Police said the suspect had no previous contacts with Wayne police or criminal history — but police added that the investigation suggests he may have been suffering a mental health crisis. Deputy Chief Carter added to Blaze News that the image of Browning shown above is not a mug shot but rather his driver's license photo.

Police also said in its news release that there is no evidence that the act of violence was connected with the Middle East conflict.

In addition, police confirmed that a livestream video of church members reacting to gunfire indeed shows Sunday's incident:

A Wayne resident on Monday recalled to Blaze News the sounds of the shooting, noting that what actually was happening wasn't immediately apparent to him.

"I heard everything," the man recounted to Blaze News on the condition of anonymity, adding that "I was in my backyard and heard loud noises coming from the church."

The resident — who was just a few hundred feet from the church — added to Blaze News he "thought it was construction" and "then I go to my job and see police cars." He added that he later learned the details of the shooting and that it was "really sad."

"I know people who go to the church," the man told Blaze News, adding that they're dealing with some trauma but are managing it.

Police said about 150 people were at a special Vacation Bible School service when the suspect began shooting, the Detroit News said, adding that Strong said more children than usual were in attendance.

“We are grateful for the quick actions of the church’s staff members, who undoubtedly saved many lives and prevented a large-scale mass shooting,” Strong told the Detroit News. “I would add that the church parishioners and staff members were trained in responding to emergency situations, which also saved lives.”

Strong told the Detroit News the suspect's motivation is not yet clear.

Church members launched a security team about 10 years ago in the wake of violence committed at other places of worship around the country, Kelly added to the Detroit News while noting that CrossPointe hadn't received threats of violence.

Kelly added to the Detroit News that children in attendance Sunday were "doing good" and that members were being mutually supportive: "We will be convening our leadership to put a formal plan in place for the aftermath." It isn't clear when the church will resume holding services.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

MLB star reclaims the rainbow — then shatters a core leftist lie

It took only one Bible passage to expose the myth of leftist "tolerance."

On June 13, the Los Angeles Dodgers hosted their annual "Pride Night," a celebration of LGBTQ ideology and activism. As part of the special night, Dodgers players wore special-edition team caps featuring the Dodgers logo overlaid with rainbow colors.

Christians believe that Jesus is Lord of all creation — including over culture, identity, and sexuality.

Enter Clayton Kershaw, the teams's 10-time All-Star pitcher and committed Christian. He decided to add his own special touch to his cap. Inscribed next to the rainbow-colored team logo, Kershaw wrote: Gen. 9:12-16.

It was a subtle yet powerful reminder that the LGBTQ lobby does not own the rainbow — but God does.

Bible basics

The passage that Kershaw referenced on his cap points to one of the most famous stories in the Bible.

After God destroyed the earth with the flood, God made a covenant with his servant Noah and all creation in which he promised never again to destroy creation with the chaos waters. The sign of that covenant, God explained, is the rainbow.

Genesis 9:12–16:

And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all future generations: I have placed my bow in the clouds, and it will be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I form clouds over the earth and the bow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all the living creatures: water will never again become a flood to destroy every creature. The bow will be in the clouds, and I will look at it and remember the permanent covenant between God and all the living creatures on earth.”

The Hebrew word for "bow" in Genesis 9 is the same Hebrew word that means a bow used in war and hunting. Interestingly, nearly every usage of the word in the Old Testament refers to the weapon, the only exceptions being in Genesis 9 and Ezekiel 1:28.

The meaning of the rainbow is significant: It's a sign of God's power, his promises, and his mercy — not personal pride in sin and anti-God ideologies.

Leftist (in)tolerance

Like clockwork, leftists (ironically) unable to coexist with people who disagree with them blasted Kershaw. One viral X post summed up their outrage.

"Clayton Kershaw will always be a Dodger great, but it’s things like this that make him a lot less likable. Just wear the hat. Be a tolerant Christian and accept that there are others who believe differently than you," the post reads.

The message behind the post is obvious: Submit. Shut up. Keep your Christianity to yourself.

This is the kind of "tolerance" leftists demand. It no longer means disagreeing respectfully or giving people space to live by their own reasonable convictions. In the leftist worldview, "tolerance" is a one-way street — and there's no room for any views but theirs.

Ironically, the demand for "tolerance" pretends that a double standard doesn't exist. While leftists want Christians to be tolerant of the LGBTQ agenda, they're simultaneously demonstrating intolerance for Christianity. Leftist "tolerance" is a core lie of the liberal agenda, and it's how you know the demand for "tolerance" from everyone else is not genuine.

Truth untamed

To modern leftists, "tolerance" is silence, compliance, affirmation, and total surrender — or else. The problem is that Christianity doesn't operate on these terms.

Faith in Jesus is not a hobby. It's an all-encompassing truth claim that changes literally everything. Christians believe that Jesus is Lord of all creation — including over culture, identity, and sexuality.

To be "tolerant" in the way that leftists demand — such as embracing, promoting, and affirming anti-God ideologies — would require Christians to reject the lordship of Jesus Christ. This "tolerance" guts Christianity of its moral clarity and truth claims, and it reduces Jesus to a private guru who never makes demands of us. And the "tolerant" Jesus that leftists imagine certainly never contradicts LGBTQ ideology.

But the real Jesus doesn't bend to the leftist agenda. Real Christianity bears witness to truth, speaks with conviction, and refuses to be muzzled. When God's truth is weaponized and his symbols are co-opted for anti-God ideologies, Christians must stand up and speak out with conviction, wisdom, and clarity.

That's exactly what Kershaw did. Leftists hate this because biblical truth spoken by bold Christians is both a light that illuminates leftist lies and a disinfectant that wipes them away.

Reclaim the rainbow

In this cultural moment, Christians live under constant pressure to compromise. Leftists love Christians who stay quiet, keep their heads down, and privatize their faith, but despise Christians who dare challenge the leftist agenda and stand up for biblical truth.

But Kershaw didn't back down. His simple protest reclaimed the true meaning of the rainbow, exposed the leftist double standard on "tolerance," and reminded Christians how to act courageously in a culture that looks down on biblical truth.

Let us follow Kershaw's lead.

Reclaim the rainbow. Boldly stand on God's truth. And never cower to leftist demands for "tolerance."