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.

Yes, Ken Burns, the Founding Fathers believed in God — and His 'divine Providence'

Ken Burns has built his career as America's memory keeper. For decades, he's positioned himself as the guardian against historical revisionism, the man who rescues truth from the dustbin of academic fashion. His camera doesn't just record past events — it sanctifies them.

For nearly five decades, Burns has reminded Americans that memory matters and that history shapes how a nation sees itself.

Jefferson's 'Nature’s God' wasn’t a placeholder. It was a real presence. He sliced up the Gospels but still bowed to the idea of eternal moral law.

Which makes his recent performance on Joe Rogan's podcast all the more stunning in its brazen historical malpractice.

At the 1-hour, 17-minute mark, Burns delivered his verdict on the Founding Fathers with the confidence of a man who's never been wrong about anything.

They were deists, he declared. Believers in a distant, disinterested God, a cosmic clockmaker who wound up the universe and wandered off to tend other galaxies. Cold, clinical, and entirely absent from human affairs.

It's a tidy narrative. One small problem: It's so very wrong.

The irony cuts so deep it draws blood. The man who made his reputation fighting historical revisionism has become its most prominent practitioner. Burns, the supposed guardian of American memory, has developed a curious case of selective amnesia, and Americans are supposed to pretend not to notice.

The deist delusion

Now, some might ask: Who cares? What difference does it make whether Washington believed in an active God or a divine absentee landlord? The answer is everything, and the fact that it's Burns making this claim makes it infinitely worse.

This isn't some graduate student getting his dissertation wrong. This is America's most trusted historical documentarian, the man whose work shapes how millions understand their past. When Burns speaks, the nation listens.

When he gets it wrong, the mistake seeps like an oil spill across the national story, quietly coating textbooks, classrooms, and documentaries for decades.

Burns is often treated as an apolitical narrator of history, but there’s a soft ideological current running through much of his work: reverence for progressive causes, selective moral framing, and a tendency to recast American complexity through a modern liberal lens.

Burns isn't stupid. One assumes he knows exactly what he's saying. If he doesn't — if his remarks on Rogan's podcast represent genuine ignorance rather than deliberate distortion — then we have serious questions about the depth of his actual knowledge. How does someone spend decades documenting American history while missing something this fundamental?

The truth is that Americans have been lied to about the Founders' faith for so long that Burns' deist mythology sounds plausible. The secular academy has been rewriting these men for decades, stripping away their religious convictions, sanding down their theological edges, making them safe for modern consumption. Burns isn't breaking new ground. He's perpetuating a familiar falsehood.

Taking a knee

Let's start with George Washington, the supposed deist in chief. Burns would have us believe the general bowed not to God, but to a kind of cosmic CEO who delegated all earthly duties to middle management. But at least one contemporary account attests that Washington knelt in the snow at Valley Forge — not once, but repeatedly.

He called for the national day of "prayer and thanksgiving" that eventually became the November federal holiday we know today. He invoked divine Providence so frequently you’d think he was writing sermons, not military orders.

His Farewell Address reads more like a theological tract than a retirement speech, warning that “religion and morality are indispensable supports” of political prosperity. Does that sound like a man who thought God had checked out?

John Adams, another Founder often branded a deist, wrote bluntly that “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”

Adams saw the American Revolution as the outgrowth of divine intervention. As he wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1813, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were ... the general principles of Christianity.”

And what of Jefferson? By far the most heterodox, even he never denied divine order. His “Nature’s God” wasn’t a placeholder. It was a real presence. He sliced up the Gospels but still bowed to the idea of eternal moral law. Whatever his quarrels with organized religion, he did not believe in a silent universe.

Some of these men were, philosophically at least, frustrated Catholics. They couldn’t fully accept Protestantism, but they had no access to the Church’s intellectual infrastructure. The natural law reasoning that permeates their political thought — Jefferson’s “self-evident truths,” Madison’s checks and balances born of man’s fallen nature — comes straight from Aquinas, filtered through Locke, Montesquieu, and centuries of Christian jurisprudence.

The Founders weren’t Enlightenment nihilists. They weren’t secular technocrats. And they certainly weren’t deists. They were men steeped in a moral framework older than the American experiment itself.

Burns, for all his sepia-toned genius, has a blind spot you could drive a colonial wagon through. His documentaries glow with progressive reverence — plenty of civil rights and moral reckoning, but the Almighty gets the silent treatment. God may have guided the Founders, but in Ken’s cut, he barely makes the final edit.

The sacred and the sanitized

I mentioned irony at the start, but it deserves more than a passing nod. That's because the septuagenarian's own cinematic legacy contradicts the very theology he now peddles on podcasts.

His brilliant nine-part series "The Civil War" captured the moral agony of a nation tearing itself apart, and it did so in unmistakably religious terms. Here Burns treats Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address — haunted, prophetic, bathed in biblical cadence — with reverence, not revisionism.

The series understood something essential: Americans have always been a biblical people. They see their history not just in terms of dates and treaties, but in terms of sin, sacrifice, and redemption. Sacred story, divine purpose — this was the language of American reckoning.

The Founders weren’t saints, and they weren’t simple. They read Greek, spoke Latin, studied Scripture, and debated philosophy with a seriousness that puts modern politicians to shame. But they weren’t spiritual agnostics, either.

They were men of imperfect but active faith, shaped by the Bible, steeped in Christian moral tradition, and convinced that human rights came not from government but from God.

They didn’t build a republic of personal preference. They built one grounded in enduring truths that predated the Constitution, anchored to the idea that law and liberty meant nothing without a higher law above them.

Burns may deal in memory, but his treatment of religion reveals something else entirely. He doesn’t misremember. He reorders. He filters faith through a modern lens until it becomes unrecognizable.

Memory isn’t just about what’s preserved — it’s about what’s permitted. And when the sacred gets cast aside, what’s left isn’t history. It’s propaganda with better lighting.

Cardinal Burke calls for an end to 'persecution from within the Church'

The change in popes earlier this year has enlivened the international debate about the Catholic liturgy and tradition, especially about the traditional Latin mass. With Vatican deadlines approaching later this year, everyone is anxious to see what Pope Leo XIV's legacy will be.

Cardinal Leo Burke recently announced his hope that the new pope would "reconsider" the recent teachings of Pope Francis, which led to "persecution from within the Church" regarding the discontinuation of the Latin mass.

'Unfortunately, the current restrictions put in place by the recently deceased Pope Francis have caused confusion and hurt to the faithful who are seeking to worship the holy Trinity with the ancient liturgy and rituals.'

During a conference with the Latin Mass Society, Cardinal Burke was asked what he hopes the new pope, Leo XIV, will do regarding the late Pope Francis' restrictions on the Latin Mass.

"It is my hope that he will put an end to the persecution of the faithful in the Church who desire to worship God according to the more ancient usage of the Roman right," Burke, over video, told the conference.

Cardinal Burke signaled that he had already expressed his hopes for the future of the Latin Mass to Pope Leo XIV: "I certainly have already had occasion to express that to the Holy Father. ... It is my hope that he will restore the situation as it was after 'Summorum Pontificum' and even to continue to develop what Pope Benedict had so wisely and lovingly legislated for the Church."

"Summorum Pontificum" (2007) was Pope Benedict XVI's affirmation of the traditional celebration of the holy Mass in Latin. It was later restricted by Pope Francis' own motu proprio, "Traditionis Custodes" (2021).

Benedict's letter emphasized that the traditional Latin Mass and Novus Ordo were a "twofold use of one and the same rite," while Francis called for liturgical unity, limiting the extent to which the Latin Mass could be used.

Pope Francis' restrictions on the Latin Mass have been met with a great deal of resistance from the faithful, yet some dioceses have insisted on obedience to this order.

Many Catholics have argued against the legitimacy of "Traditionis Custodes," including liturgical scholar Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, who said in a 2021 speech at a Catholic Identity Conference, "The traditional Mass belongs to the most intimate part of the common good in the Church. Restricting it, pushing it into ghettos, and ultimately planning its demise can have no legitimacy. This law is not a law of the Church because, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, a law against the common good is no valid law."

Charlotte, North Carolina, however, has become a focal point in this controversy because Bishop Michael Martin recently announced that he would expedite the change in his diocese.

On May 23, Bishop Martin announced that the Latin Mass would cease to be offered by the four parishes in his diocese that celebrate it. He said the transition would be completed by the deadline of July 8, 2025.

That deadline, however, is three months ahead of an existing October 2025 deadline for the transition.

But in an unlikely turn of events, Bishop Martin announced on June 3 that he would push back the deadline to the Vatican's original October deadline. He cited pastoral concerns, both from parishioners and priests.

“It made sense to start these changes in July when dozens of our priests will be moving to their new parishes and other assignments,” Bishop Martin told local Catholic News Herald. “That said, I want to listen to the concerns of these parishioners and their priests, and I am willing to give them more time to absorb these changes.”

Photo by Grzegorz Galazka/Mondadori Portfolio via Getty Images

“I support the letter of His Eminence, Cardinal Burke, and his attempt to bring about Catholic unity under the peaceful provisions established by Pope Benedict XVI for the traditional Latin Mass. Unfortunately, the current restrictions put in place by the recently deceased Pope Francis have caused confusion and hurt to the faithful who are seeking to worship the holy Trinity with the ancient liturgy and rituals,” Dr. Taylor R. Marshall, president of the New Saint Thomas Institute, told Blaze News.

“I recently met with another cardinal in Rome who agrees with Cardinal Burke. We hope that the new pontiff, Pope Leo XIV, restores the generosity of Pope Benedict XVI by allowing the traditional Latin Mass to Catholics,” Dr. Marshall continued.

Bishop Martin also told the local outlet that the diocese would abide by any formal instruction from the Vatican in the interim.

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

Together, pope and patriarch return to Nicaea on 1,700th anniversary of defining moment in Christendom

Seventeen centuries ago, bishops from around the known world gathered in Nicaea to affirm and codify the core tenets of the Christian faith. Now, as the anniversary of that defining moment in Christendom approaches, leaders on either side of the Great Schism are preparing to return, drawing East and West closer and renewing hope in the promise of Christian unity.

In the year 325, Emperor Constantine I called over 250 bishops — 318, according to tradition — to convene during the pontificate of Pope Sylvester I in the Bithynian city of Nicaea, 55 miles southeast of present-day Istanbul. It was the largest gathering of bishops in the church's history up until that time.

While the council would ultimately address a number of practical and ecclesiastic matters, it prioritized tackling the Arian heresy, which entailed a rebuke and an affirmation of the divinity of Christ — "God from God, light from light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, of the same substance as the Father, by Whom all things were made" — and setting the date on which to commemorate Jesus' resurrection.

This dogmatic council was of critical importance both then to the unified church and now to Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and other Protestants, perhaps most notably for its production of the Nicene Creed — a statement of faith, mutually held as authoritative, that predates both the Chalcedonian schism and the Great Schism.

Pope Leo XIV and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople are making a joint trip to the place where their predecessors met 17 centuries earlier. While various obstacles some figured to be insurmountable still stand in the way of full reunification, the meeting of the Christian leaders on this particular anniversary and the anniversary itself have sparked renewed interest in Christian unity and the ground that the faithful share in common.

Of popes and plans

Prior to his passing, Pope Francis proposed celebrating the 1,700th anniversary with Orthodox leaders in a Nov. 30 letter to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, who previously indicated a joint trip was expected to happen in late May.

Pope Francis noted in his letter to the patriarch that the Catholic Church's "dialogue with the Orthodox Church has been and continues to be particularly fruitful," yet acknowledged that the "ultimate goal of dialogue, full communion among all Christians, sharing in the one Eucharistic chalice, has not yet been realized with our Orthodox brother and sisters," which "is not surprising, for divisions dating back a millennium, cannot be resolved within a few decades."

'It is good whenever the pope and the patriarch meet.'

Prior to heading back to Toronto from Rome, where he participated in the conclave that elected the new pope, Archbishop Emeritus Thomas Cardinal Collins told Blaze News, "The 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea is most important for all Christians, because it was there that the bishops clarified the basic Christian faith in the divinity of Christ. The Nicene Creed, from this council and the next one, in Constantinople a few years later, is still the basic expression of our faith in the Trinity."

First Council of Nicaea. Found in the collection of Saint Sophia Cathedral, Kiev. Photo by Fine Art Images/Heritage Images/Getty Images

"The division of East and West that occurred much later in 1054 is most unfortunate and has impeded the spread of the gospel," continued Collins. "But the churches of East and West, while having different theological and liturgical styles, recognize one another's apostolic succession and, with a few issues still in dispute, basically agree on doctrine as well. One thing that divides us is historical memories, but increased cooperation has brought some healing there."

'The remembrance of that important event will surely strengthen the bonds that already exist.'

Cardinal Collins noted further that "it is good whenever the pope and the patriarch meet. All Christians, facing so many external dangers, need to work together. The anniversary of Nicaea, which occurred long before the division of East and West, is a perfect opportunity to deepen our knowledge and love for one another, but especially Jesus. The closer we are to Him, the closer we will be to one another."

Pope Francis, then evidently of a similar mind, told Patriarch Bartholomew I that the anniversary would be "another opportunity to bear witness to the growing communion that already exists among all who are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

"This anniversary will concern not only the ancient Sees that took part actively in the Council, but all Christians who continue to profess their faith in the words of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed," wrote Pope Francis. "The remembrance of that important event will surely strengthen the bonds that already exist and encourage all Churches to a renewed witness in today's world."

The interest in a joint trip was evidently mutual.

During a March address in Harbiye, Turkey, Patriarch Bartholomew underscored his desire for a joint celebration of the anniversary, reported the Orthodox Times. He also emphasized the importance of the Council of Nicaea.

"The Council of Nicaea stands as a landmark in the formation of the Church's doctrinal identity and remains the model for addressing doctrinal and canonical challenges on an ecumenical level," said Patriarch Bartholomew.

Photo by Vatican Media via Vatican Pool/Getty Images

Their plans hit a major snag the following month.

Pope Francis died hours after Easter Sunday — the first time the Catholic and Orthodox Churches had celebrated Easter on the same day in eight years.

"He was due to come to our country, and together we would go to Nicaea, where the First Ecumenical Council was convened, to honor the memory of the Holy Fathers and exchange thoughts and wishes for the future of Christianity," Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew said in the wake of Pope Francis' passing. "All of this, of course, was canceled — or rather postponed."

'We are preparing it.'

"I believe that his successor will come, and we will go together to Nicaea to send a message of unity, love, brotherhood, and shared path toward the future of Christianity," added the patriarch.

It would not be clear for several days whom the papal conclave would elect as Francis' successor and whether he would have a similar interest in an East-West convention in Nicaea on the anniversary of the council.

The Chicagoan steps up to the plate

Various leaders in the Christian East welcomed the new bishop of Rome following his May 8 election.

Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, among them, expressed hope that Pope Leo XIV will "be a dear brother and collaborator ... for the rapprochement of our churches, for the unity of the whole Christian family, and for the benefit of humankind," reported Vatican News.

Days later, Pope Leo XVI reportedly stated, "The meeting with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew will take place; we are preparing it."

When asked about the significance of the joint trip, the likelihood of East-West reunification, and Orthodox interest in such reunification, Fr. Barnabas Powell, a parish priest in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America speaking on his own behalf, told Blaze News, "There is simply no way one can be faithful to Christ and not long for the unity of all Christians."

RELATED: Not Francis 2.0: Why Pope Leo XIV is a problem for the 'woke' agenda

Photo (left): Abdulhamid Hosbas/Anadolu via Getty Images; Photo (right): Simone Risoluti - Vatican Media via Vatican Pool/Getty Images

"We Orthodox pray for the unity of the churches in every service. Our Archbishop [Elpidophoros of America] has proven by his prayers and actions that he longs for unity," said Fr. Powell. "But unity isn't merely accepting certain propositional proposals. St. Paul said the Church is the bride of Christ, and this profound witness of the identity of the Church is ontologically connected to the mystery of relationship and love. This means we must work to know one another and not merely know about one another."

"This is hard work in light of the tragic centuries we have been apart. But just because something is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't try," added Fr. Powell.

The Greek Orthodox priest expressed optimism about the joint trip to Nicaea, noting that as the "first Nicaea showed us that we are to gather together to struggle and dialogue through our challenges, so this is the normal Christian discipline for us today."

'I'm not in the odds-making business, but there is certainly justified hope.'

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America notes on its website that the "anniversary celebration brings together Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants to reflect on the enduring significance of Nicaea, fostering conciliarity, dialogue, prayer, and a renewed commitment to the pursuit of Christian unity, echoing the spirit of the first ecumenical council."

Monsignor Roger Landry, national director of the Pontifical Mission Societies in the United States, told Blaze News that over the past six decades, popes and the patriarchs of Constantinople have been regularly "meeting, praying, and slowly working for restored communion, as have the churches they lead."

Msgr. Landry suggested that "there's no question" that one of Pope Leo XIV's top priorities, "as we celebrate the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea and move toward the 1000th anniversary of the lamentable split between East and West in 1054, will be to take whatever steps, big or small, that will help the church breathe with both lungs again in communion" — a reference to Pope St. John Paul II's 1995 metaphor of the Western and Eastern churches as two lungs.

Echoing Cardinal Collins and Fr. Powell, Msgr. Landry noted that there remain various obstacles in the way of restoration of full communion — including the date of Easter, the role of the pope, the Filioque controversy, the sacrament of marriage, the respect for the legitimate autonomy of the Eastern churches — but there is nevertheless "a mutual desire for that communion and a mutual humble dependence on God to reveal the path forward."

"I'm not in the odds-making business, but there is certainly justified hope because the issues that divide us are small in comparison to the faith, sacraments, life, and calling that unite us," Msgr. Landry told Blaze News. "We are moving together in the right direction."

In the meantime, he suggested that the ongoing separation "is a scandal that hinders the witness Christians are called to give of God."

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew's joint trip to Nicaea with Pope Leo XIV is hardly the only celebration of the anniversary that has brought East and West together.

Earlier this month in Freehold, New Jersey, hierarchs, clergy, seminarians, and faithful from Eastern and Western traditions — including elements of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA, the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church in America, the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of New Jersey, the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Passaic, the St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Eparchy, and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn — participated in an ecumenical prayer service "testifying to the unifying power of the Nicene Creed and the enduring vision of the Council Fathers."

Similar celebrations have been held elsewhere across the world.

The Catholic Church's International Theological Commission stated in a recent publication concerning the Council of Nicaea and the 1,700th anniversary:

The celebration of the 1,700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea is a pressing invitation to the Church to rediscover the treasure entrusted to her and to draw from it so as to share it with joy, with a new impetus, indeed in a "new stage of evangelisation." To proclaim Jesus our Salvation on the basis of the faith expressed at Nicaea, as professed in the Nicene-Constantinople symbol, is first of all to allow ourselves to be amazed by the immensity of Christ, so that all may be amazed, to rekindle the fire of our love for the Lord Jesus, so that all may burn with love for him. Nothing and no one is more beautiful, more life-giving, more necessary than he is."

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

Why Trump's religious liberty agenda terrifies the left — but tells the truth

In a Rose Garden ceremony on May 1, the National Day of Prayer, President Donald Trump announced the creation of a Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty. Even though I couldn’t be there, I knew about the commission because I have the honor of being one of its members.

I can hardly say how much religious liberty means to me, and I was thrilled to know we have a president who understands its vital importance — and sees how scandalously it has been under attack in recent years.

This is the very soul of our republic: a nation grounded in God-given rights, moral clarity, and the enduring belief that freedom begins with the liberty of conscience.

But one is hardly surprised the secular left did not respond well to the announcement, carping that the commission was formed for ulterior motives, hidden agendas, and division.

The folks at Politico, for example, accused the president of “brushing aside separation of church and state,” thereby trumpeting their willful misunderstanding of the famous phrase.

Of course, “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution, but it does appear in a letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Baptist congregation in my hometown of Danbury, Connecticut, in 1802. It represents an utterly central idea about religious liberty, one that is precisely the opposite of what secularists have been twisting it to mean for decades.

Religious liberty means that churches must be protected from the state, not that the state needs to be protected from churches. Jefferson was reassuring the Danbury Baptists that the government would never interfere with their right to worship — nor banish religion from public life.

But secularists persist in pretending that it means the opposite.

The Constitution itself says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This idea underscoresthe centrality of the “exercise” of religion in public life and clarifies that government cannot mandate what kind of religion people practice.

It is that simple.

Far from erasing religion from public life, or preventing believers from shaping public policy or living out their faith in society, the Constitution protects these things.

The origins of our country tell a beautiful story: It was founded as a safe haven from government-mandated worship.

Those who seek to denude our country of religious influence are at odds with our history, our Constitution, and our founders’ vision. Fundamentalist secularists put forth a destructive distortion of our founders’ vision and undermine precisely what has made our country a beacon of hope and justice for people of every faith.

This commission’s goal is to strengthen the liberty of every single American — regardless of that person’s faith and even of whether that person has any faith. It also aims to restore those liberties attacked by hostile and misguided secularists.

Our Declaration of Independence states that our liberties come from God — not from government. It says that “we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” and “among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

What could be clearer?

In my book "If You Can Keep It," I discuss how the founders understood that self-government and liberty presupposed a virtuous citizenry, a virtue that comes from religious faith. Power corrupts, so without faith and virtue, freedom would eventually turn on itself.

The idea is this: While the government must never mandate faith, it must vigorously preserve religious liberty so that faith is not crushed by government power.

Trump's Religious Liberty Commission gets this right. Government must be kept out of religion. His EO declares: “It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce the historic and robust protections for religious liberty enshrined in Federal law.”

This is not about establishing any religion but about protecting the freedom to believe, to speak, and to live according to one’s conscience. Nowhere does the EO limit what religion this is to be.

America has been and must continue to be a haven for freedom of speech and thought, which is exactly what the founders envisioned: a country where “religious voices and views are integral to a vibrant public square,” where “religious people and institutions are free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or hostility from the government.”

This vision stretches back to the early settlers: Pilgrims, Quakers, Baptists, and others who fled Europe to escape religious persecution. They sought a land where they could freely choose, follow, and express their faith.

The Religious Liberty Commission honors their legacy by safeguarding that right.

The goal of the Commission is to protect:

The First Amendment rights of pastors, religious leaders, houses of worship, faith-based institutions, and religious speakers.
Attacks across America on houses of worship of many religions.
De-banking of religious entities.
The rights of teachers, students, military chaplains, service members, employers, and employees.
Conscience protections in health care and vaccine mandates.
Parental rights in education and religious instruction.
Government displays with religious imagery.
The right of all Americans to freely exercise their faith without fear or government censorship.

These are not just Christian issues. These are human liberty issues. They apply to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Christians, and those of any or no faith.

Unsurprisingly the biggest concern of the legacy media is the LGBTQ agenda, which, of course, is markedly at odds with many religions. Sharia law reserves some of its harshest punishments for same-sex relationships. So why do these critics describe the commission as a “Christian nationalist” exercise other than as a cynical and calculated smear?

As I’ve written about in several of my books, it was the silence of the churches in Germany in the 1930s that led to the rise of Nazis and opened the door to unspeakable evils. The Religious Liberty Commission simply allows a platform for religious voices to be heard, and it reaffirms that America is a nation where faith can thrive without government interference.

The founders made that promise back in 1791, and while it’s tragic that we’ve come to the point where we need our president to reaffirm this, we must support his action.

The Religious Liberty Commission fulfills what the founders envisioned — a nation where faith is not censored but celebrated. A place where believers are not exiled from the public square but welcomed as full participants in our democracy.

This is the very soul of our republic: a nation grounded in God-given rights, moral clarity, and the enduring belief that freedom begins with the liberty of conscience.

This commission is not merely constitutional. It’s courageous. And it’s exactly what America needs.

I, for one, am immensely humbled that I can work alongside President Trump and the magnificent members of this commission to ensure the religious liberty of every American can be protected so that it can thrive. I pray that our society would lean into our heritage, that we would follow God first, and that liberty would continue to thrive.

May God continue to bless our nation for His purposes in history.

Not Francis 2.0: Why Pope Leo XIV is a problem for the 'woke' agenda

Lots of people are wondering whether Pope Leo XIV is a reformer in the same vein as Pope Francis or more of a traditionalist like Francis’ two predecessors. It depends on the issue, but to those who think he is a clone of Francis, they are wrong. Importantly, he is not an ideologue.

It is striking to see some celebrating what they claim is a “woke” pope, while others are bemoaning that he is one. Neither is right.

The left exists for one thing — power — and leftists are masters at deceiving people.

Beware: All the alarms going off are false.

An article published at Alternet is cheering “Our New Woke Pope.” Why? Because he criticized Vice President JD Vance for saying love should begin with loving your family, then others.

Then-Cardinal Robert Prevost, an Augustinian priest, said on X that “J.D. Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn’t ask us to rank our love for others.”

It is absurd to conclude from this that the new pontiff is a “woke” pope. Vance was saying love must be set in proper order, and many Catholic theologians agree. No matter, theological disputes are common in all religious circles, but standing alone they do not make anyone “woke.” This is simply a childish way to politicize matters.

Then we have right-wing commentator Laura Loomer. She is branding our new pope “woke” and a “Marxist.” She is badly educated.

To show how crazy those on the extreme left and right are, consider what the Nation is saying. It is a left-wing publication that championed Stalin, the genocidal maniac. Those at the outlet are raising the flag for Pope Leo XIV because they see in him what Pope Leo XIII stood for during his pontificate.

Those at the Nation are right to say our new pope identifies with Leo XIII, but wrong to say that the late 19th and early 20th-century pope was a social justice warrior in the left-wing tradition. They are heralding him for his “sharp critiques of capitalism.” Maybe if they actually read the 1891 encyclical "Rerum Novarum," they wouldn’t sound so silly.

Pope Leo XIII wrote this encyclical eight years after Marx’s death in 1883. He foresaw the horrors that Marx’s ideology would deliver. He said that “ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the leveling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation.” He also made the case for private property, which is hardly an expression of socialism.

Orthodox Catholics will be happy to learn that Pope Leo XIV is strongly pro-life. He is opposed to abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. He is also pro-marriage and the family, properly understood.

He has criticized in no uncertain terms the “homosexual lifestyle” and “alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children.” This is great news for practicing Catholics — the ones in the pews who actually pay the bills — but not for dissidents. He has also condemned gender ideology being taught in the schools of Peru. “The promotion of gender ideology is confusing, because it seeks to create genders that don’t exist.” As such, he opposes the exploitation of sexually confused young people.

On immigration, Leo is much more in the liberal camp. He is opposed to the Trump policies and has even criticized the president of El Salvador for his crackdown on illegal immigration. How the heads of state are supposed to deal with those who are crashing their borders, causing misery for its citizens, is something he may have to address.

Is Pope Leo XIV a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent? He’s a Republican, having pulled the GOP lever in the 2012, 2014, and 2016 elections. But apparently he did not vote in the 2016 general election and chose to vote by absentee ballot in 2024. It appears he is more of a Bush Republican than a Trump Republican. But he is certainly not a “woke” or “Marxist” activist.

If some progressives who wanted Francis II are not expressing dismay in public, don’t be fooled. It is because they want to have entrée with the new pope. The left exists for one thing — power — and leftists are masters at deceiving people.

It looks like practicing Catholics will have in Pope Leo XIV someone they can rally around.

This essay was adapted from an article originally published by the Catholic League.

War on faith: How anti-Catholic violence is exploding almost unnoticed

As Catholics around the world eagerly awaited white smoke from the Sistine Chapel, a pastor in rural Pennsylvania watched a very different kind of white smoke pouring from a humble chapel at his church.

At 9:02 p.m. May 6, a 32-year-old man named Kyle Kuczynski allegedly detonated a stick of dynamite on the altar of the chapel at St. Teresa of Calcutta Church — so named because Mother Teresa once visited it — in Mahanoy City. Surveillance footage turned over to law enforcement revealed that Kuczynski had been casing the chapel, entering at least three other times earlier in the week.

It is high time for the federal government to take real action that will deter violence and ensure the safety of its churches.

The bombing marked the 500th documented act of violence or vandalism against a Catholic church in the United States in the last five years.

CatholicVote, the nation’s largest lay Catholic advocacy organization, has tracked each incident, from the destruction of a Nativity scene at a church in the Florida Keys to the smashing of the crucifix at a church in Emmonak, Alaska.

The disturbing long-term pattern of attacks began in May 2020.

As civil unrest gripped the country, Catholic churches were caught up in the chaos, with incidents like satanic graffiti spray-painted on walls and bricks thrown through stained-glass windows. A historic church in California, built in 1790, was burned to the ground.

But even as the national climate calmed down, the attacks against Catholic churches accelerated.

The first wave of attacks was usually tied to loosely related left-wing movements. Others had more broadly spiritual themes. Statutes of Jesus, Mary, and saints were destroyed, often in eerie ways such as beheadings. Altars were ransacked. Nativity scenes were vandalized. More churches were set on fire.

The violence took a darker turn when the draft of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision was leaked in May 2022.

Dozens of Catholic churches were attacked by pro-abortion activists working under the banners of Jane’s Revenge, Ruth Sent Us, and other domestic extremist networks. In one incident, pro-abortion rioters attempted to storm a Catholic church in Manhattan; when they were thwarted by parishioners guarding the doors, the rioters resorted to hurling profanities and performing a strange stunt involving a baby doll.

In one particularly sinister case, someone posted a note threatening a mass shooting if abortion were banned on the door of a college dormitory for Catholic students at the University of Nebraska at Omaha.

The tracker specifically excludes cases that are clearly motivated by material gain, like thefts of cash from the poor box. The attacks have common threads of politically and spiritually tinged hatred. Take, for example, a 2023 incident in rural Arkansas in which an intoxicated man took a sledgehammer to a stone altar at an abbey and extracted 1,500-year-old relics of saints that were sealed inside and not externally visible.

Hundreds of statues have been damaged or destroyed. Bricks have been thrown through stained-glass windows in acts of hate that hearken back to the civil rights era. Dozens of altars have been ransacked. Five cases involved gunshots fired at churches, including a remote abbey in Missouri in which nuns were sleeping. A few holy water fonts have been sabotaged with urine and feces. Children have been traumatized by threatening messages.

An estimated $36 million in damages has been caused by the attacks. Fifty of the attacks involved arson, with several churches declared a total loss.

But the price tag does not tell the full story. Some of the damages are not quantifiable, such as irreplaceable antique stained-glass windows or consecrated hosts and relics that have been stolen. Plus, the need to hire security guards or install new security equipment — costs that are usually not covered by insurance — far exceeds repair and replacement price tags.

Precious artifacts donated by immigrants or grandmothers, or slaved over by parishioners, have been lost. In several cases, clergy and parishioners have been physically attacked, including one priest in Kansas who was killed last month.

The violence hearkens back to grim periods in the 19th and 20th centuries when Catholics faced similar attacks and had their loyalties constantly questioned.

This violence was completely unabated during the Biden administration.

The second Catholic president dedicated zero federal resources to combatting the problem. Not a single federal arrest or prosecution was made in any of the cases. No task forces were convened, and no strong statements of condemnation came from the Biden White House. Local arrests have been recorded in only about 30% of the incidents. Pastors have reported that local law enforcement are diligent but hamstrung by a lack of resources that the federal government could have provided.

Fortunately, there is some hope on the horizon.

The Trump administration has vowed to combat anti-religious violence, and Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, recently pledged to prosecute perpetrators of attacks on churches, which can be federal crimes under the FACE Act.

As all eyes are on the Catholic Church, it is high time for the federal government to take real action that will deter violence and ensure the safety of its churches. Anti-Catholic bigotry cannot be tolerated any longer.

How biblical justice finally caught up to a leftist judge

For years, Democrats have wielded the phrase “no one is above the law” like a cudgel, particularly when it suited their political vendettas against Donald Trump and other political opponents.

Of course, they never really meant it. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton, Anthony Fauci, and other “allies” are above the law — as are illegal aliens (amazingly).

When a judge like Dugan acts as if her robe grants her immunity, she defies not only human law but divine principle.

But never let hypocrisy get in the way of a good talking point, right?

During Trump's first term, they chanted it as they pushed the Russia collusion hoax, impeachment circuses, and endless investigations built on evidence so weak that if I had to choose between standing on a wet paper towel suspended over the Grand Canyon or their evidence, I would choose the paper towel.

When Trump was out of office, their zeal only intensified. New York Attorney General Letitia James campaigned on a promise to “get” Trump, weaponizing her office to pursue civil fraud cases built on shaky grounds. Special counsel Jack Smith, appointed by the Biden Justice Department, went after Trump with indictments over classified documents and Jan. 6 cases that many legal scholars argued were more about politics than justice.

The left’s mantra was clear: Trump, his supporters, and anyone who dared challenge their narrative must be held accountable, no matter how flimsy the charges or how selective the enforcement.

Now, with the arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan by the FBI on April 25, the tables have turned. The same principle that Democrats championed applies, and it’s being enforced against one of their own.

No one is above the law — not even a judge.

The facts: Dugan allegedly aided an illegal alien in evading arrest

The FBI arrested Judge Dugan on felony charges of obstruction of justice and concealing an individual to prevent arrest, stemming from her alleged actions on April 18 at the Milwaukee County Courthouse.

According to a criminal complaint unsealed by the DOJ, Dugan allegedly deliberately interfered with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents attempting to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national illegally in the United States.

Flores-Ruiz, previously deported in 2013, faced misdemeanor battery charges in a domestic abuse case and was scheduled to appear in Dugan’s courtroom. ICE agents, armed with an administrative warrant, waited in the courthouse hallway to detain him after his hearing.

What followed was a brazen act of defiance against federal law.

Court documents reveal that Dugan, upon learning of the ICE agents’ presence, became “visibly angry” and called the situation “absurd.” She confronted the agents, demanding that they produce a judicial warrant — a requirement she knew was unnecessary for ICE’s administrative action. When the agents explained their authority, Dugan misdirected them to the chief judge’s office, a deliberate attempt to distract them.

While the agents complied, she allegedly then escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a restricted jury door, bypassing the public exit where ICE waited, according to the DOJ.

This wasn’t a mistake; it was a calculated effort to help an illegal alien evade arrest. The affidavit notes that only deputies, juries, court staff, and in-custody defendants typically use this exit, making Dugan’s alleged actions highly unusual and intentional.

Flores-Ruiz’s temporary escape — lasting about 22 minutes before agents chased him down on foot — put both the community and law enforcement at risk. FBI Director Kash Patel stated, “The Judge’s obstruction created increased danger to the public.”

Dugan’s charges are rooted in federal law: 18 U.S.C. § 1505 “forbids anyone from corruptly, or by threats of force or by any threatening communication, influencing, obstructing, or impeding any pending proceeding before a department or agency of the United States” and carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 1071 prohibits concealing a person from arrest, which adds up to another year in jail.

The DOJ’s complaint is clear: Dugan didn’t just fail to cooperate; she actively thwarted federal immigration enforcement, violating her oath to uphold the law.

Attorney General Pam Bondi underscored this during an interview on Fox News, stating,

No one’s above the laws in this country. … And if you are destroying evidence, if you’re obstructing justice, when you have victims sitting in a courtroom of domestic violence and you’re escorting a criminal defendant out a back door, it will not be tolerated, and it is a crime in the United States of America. Doesn’t matter who you are; you’re going to be prosecuted.

Since the judge's arrest, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has also suspended her. This is noteworthy since the Wisconsin Supreme Court is controlled by a liberal majority. According to the AP, “In its two-page order, the court said it was acting to protect public confidence in Wisconsin courts during the criminal proceedings against Dugan.”

This is not overreach; this is justice.

A powerful message: The rule of law is back

The arrest of a sitting judge for lawless actions sends a powerful message: Judges are not above the law.

For too long, some black-robed jurists have acted as untouchable oligarchs, issuing rulings that defy precedent, logic, and the will of the people while cloaking their activism in judicial immunity.

The Founders envisioned a government of checks and balances, where no branch — executive, legislative, or judicial — could wield unchecked power. James Madison warned in Federalist No. 47 that the accumulation of power in any one branch “may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

When judges like Dugan place themselves above federal law, they undermine the separation of powers and erode the republic’s foundation.

If judges can flout immigration laws with impunity, what stops them from nullifying other statutes or constitutional protections?

This isn’t hypothetical.

In 2019, Boston Judge Shelley Joseph faced similar obstruction charges for allegedly helping a twice-deported illegal immigrant evade ICE. Though the federal charges were dropped in 2022, it was only after Judge Joseph agreed to submit to the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct; in June, she will be subject to a public hearing as part of the process.

In a scathing 111-page report, the Commission “charges that Judge Joseph has engaged in willful judicial misconduct that brought the judicial office into disrepute, as well as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and unbecoming a judicial officer.”

Like Joseph, so with Dugan: Her arrest is a necessary corrective, a reminder that the judiciary serves the law — not the other way around.

Arresting lawless judges isn’t 'fascism' — it’s Christian

The Bible reinforces the principle of equal justice under the law, a cornerstone of both Christian and American values.

Leviticus 19:15 commands, “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” This verse rejects favoritism, whether for the powerful or the marginalized, demanding impartiality.

Similarly, Deuteronomy 16:19 warns, “You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous.” Dugan’s alleged actions — shielding an illegal alien while obstructing federal agents — perverted justice by favoring ideology over duty.

Proverbs 28:5 adds, “Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.” True justice, as scripture teaches, applies the law consistently, regardless of status, wealth, or office.

When a judge like Dugan acts as if her robe grants her immunity, she defies not only human law but divine principle. The Trump administration’s willingness to hold her accountable aligns with this biblical call for righteousness in governance.

Democrats are outraged. Spare us, please.

Democrats and their allies are predictably outraged, calling Dugan’s arrest an assault on judicial independence. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers accused the Trump administration of “undermining our judiciary at every level.” U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) labeled it “shocking” and “overreach.”

But their protests ring hollow.

Where was their concern for judicial integrity when they cheered the politicized prosecutions of Trump? Where was their outrage when Biden’s DOJ targeted political opponents? Leftists' selective indignation exposes their hypocrisy: “No one is above the law” apparently applies only to those they dislike.

Dugan’s arrest isn’t about punishing dissent; it’s about enforcing accountability. If judges can obstruct federal law without consequence, then the rule of law is a sham and the American people are subject to the whims of unelected elites.

The broader context of Dugan’s actions cannot be ignored. The Trump administration has prioritized immigration enforcement, responding to a crisis that saw over 2.5 million apprehensions of migrants at the southern border in 2023 alone, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Illegal immigration strains communities, burdens taxpayers, and, in cases like Flores-Ruiz’s, can intersect with criminality.

Judges who aid and abet illegal aliens undermine national sovereignty and public safety. And Joseph and Dugan’s cases aren’t isolated. Just one day prior to Dugan’s arrest, federal authorities arrested a former New Mexico judge and his wife for allegedly harboring an illegal immigrant linked to the Tren de Aragua gang. In response to these charges, Judge Joel Cano has been “permanently banned from the bench by his colleagues, according to state Supreme Court documents.”

If you’re keeping count, that’s three lawless judges who are being held accountable for breaking the law, subverting America’s national sovereignty, and making a mockery of our judicial system and the very Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

Trump is clearly not just trying to “take revenge” on judges who disagree with his policies; he is trying to defend the Constitution and the American people. Because at the end of the day, these are not victimless crimes but deliberate acts that erode trust in our institutions.

A new sheriff in town

Trump’s DOJ, under leaders like Bondi and Patel, is signaling a new era of accountability. The January 2025 memo from Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove directed prosecutors to pursue charges against local officials who obstructed immigration enforcement, citing laws against conspiracy and harboring.

This isn’t authoritarianism; it’s the executive branch fulfilling its constitutional duty to enforce federal law. The arrest of Hannah Dugan is a bold step toward restoring the rule of law, ensuring that even those in high office face consequences for breaking it.

This isn’t tyranny; this is a victory — a reminder that justice, when applied equally, strengthens the nation. Let the leftists cry foul; their double standards no longer hold sway.

No one is above the law, including Judge Hannah Dugan. Good.

This article is adapted from an essay originally published at Liberty University's Standing for Freedom Center.

Why modesty is a countercultural virtue Christians can't afford to ignore

I grew up in what many call “purity culture,” a movement where modesty was highly emphasized, especially for women. My parents had clear standards for my sisters and me, and many church messages for women we heard focused on how women ought to dress. While some of those teachings were rigid or based more on preference than biblical principles, I didn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

But the American church today seems to have done just that, largely abandoning modesty as a topic of discussion altogether.

When we understand who we are in Christ, modesty flows naturally from a heart that desires to honor God and serve others.

Our culture tells us modesty is outdated, judgmental, and even offensive. Because of this, many churches have gone silent on the issue, afraid of being labeled legalistic or judgmental. But silence isn’t faithfulness. We’re called to speak the truth on all topics, including the uncomfortable ones.

Christians are not called to conform to the culture’s sensitivities but to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). God’s word is unchanging — even when society’s standards shift with fashion trends.

1. Modesty begins in the heart

The Bible does not give us exact measurements or dress codes, but it does offer principles that guide how we should present ourselves. Modesty, at its core, is a matter of the heart.

In 1 Peter 3:3-4, it teaches that true beauty is not found in outward adornment but in "the hidden person of the heart," marked by "a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious." This doesn't mean women must be shy or passive. Rather, it calls for inner humility, a settled heart that seeks God’s approval over man’s.

Proverbs 31:30 reminds us that “charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.” Outer beauty fades — as 1 Peter 1:24 says, we wither like grass — but godly character endures.

Modesty begins with knowing who we are in Christ, having nothing to prove and no need to compete for worldly attention.

2. Our clothing should reflect our calling

The way we dress should reflect our identity as followers of Christ. Romans 12:2 calls us not to conform to the world but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. That includes how we think about our appearance and how we present ourselves to others.

Modesty is not about being frumpy or outdated. Some of the most fashionable women I know dress modestly and beautifully. Style and modesty are not mutually exclusive.

What matters most is the heart behind our clothing choices: Are we seeking to honor God or to gain attention?

I remember my older brother telling me how admirable it was when a woman dressed with confidence and dignity and had no need to flaunt her figure off to feel more secure. It stuck with me because, like many teenage girls, I wrestled with self-image. His words helped me see that modesty was not about restriction but about integrity and self-respect. Still, modesty isn’t about gaining male approval, either — it’s about pleasing the Lord first and foremost.

We are reminded in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. We are not our own — we were bought at a price. Therefore, how we dress should reflect that reality, honoring God rather than drawing attention to ourselves and our bodies.

3. Modesty honors others but doesn’t bear their sin

Many of us grew up hearing, “Don’t cause your brother to stumble.” And while there’s truth worth unpacking here, it’s essential to be biblically accurate.

In Matthew 5:28, Jesus places the responsibility for lust squarely on the individual: “Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Men are accountable for their thoughts and actions. Women are not responsible for managing a man’s sin.

However, this does not mean we disregard how our actions impact others. Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 speak to the importance of not using our freedom in Christ in ways that harm a fellow believer’s conscience. The apostle Paul’s point isn’t that one believer can make another sin by accident — it’s that love should lead us to be mindful and considerate of others’ weaknesses.

Consider alcohol, for example. If a fellow believer struggles with an alcohol addiction, we could choose to abstain out of love. Similarly, modesty can be an act of love and service. While we are not responsible for someone else's sin, we can avoid adding unnecessary temptation or distraction.

As Christian women, we should be a refuge — not a stumbling block — for our brothers in Christ. That means resisting the urge to flaunt our bodies or post provocative images. It’s not about shame; it’s about love.

Holiness means choosing to build others up — not draw their eyes down.

4. Modesty rejects self-exaltation and embraces humility

Ultimately, modesty is not just about clothing — it’s about character. It reflects our posture before God and others.

Philippians 2:3 exhorts us: “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.”

Biblical modesty rejects the culture of self-promotion and materialism. It doesn’t aim to manage someone else’s lust but to glorify God through humility and honor. We don’t dress modestly because we’re ashamed of our bodies but because we know our worth is not defined by how much skin we show. It’s always a good rule of thumb to be more dressed than less.

As women in Christ, we have a profound opportunity to demonstrate our identity in Him — not by following fashion trends or seeking affirmation that’s purely of the world but by choosing dignity, wisdom, and love in all things, including how we dress.

5. Modesty is a witness to the world

In a culture obsessed with self-expression and physical allure, modesty offers a powerful and countercultural testimony. When we choose to dress with discretion and dignity, we’re not just making a personal choice — we're making a public statement about whom we belong to. When we choose not to post half-naked photos of ourselves, that alone makes us stand out in a world marked by women flaunting every inch of their bodies.

Matthew 5:16 says, “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” How we present ourselves is one of the many ways we can reflect Christ to a watching world.

Our clothing can either draw attention to ourselves or point others to something greater — our identity in Christ. Modesty, when rooted in love and humility, quietly testifies to the transforming work of the gospel. It tells the world our worth is not in what we wear or how we look but in who Jesus is and what He has done for us.

The early church was known for being different — not just in doctrine but in daily life. Today, modesty is one of the ways Christians can stand out in a way that is gentle, dignified, and compelling. It's not about dressing to appear “better” than others but about choosing a lifestyle that honors God and invites others to wonder what’s different about us — and why.

Modesty should never be about a set of rules, shame, or man-made standards. It’s about reflecting the beauty of Christ in our hearts, our words, and yes — even our wardrobes. When we understand who we are in Christ, modesty flows naturally from a heart that desires to honor God and serve others.

Let us walk in the freedom of Christ, using our freedom not to indulge the flesh but to display the fruit of the Spirit — especially in the daily choices of what we wear.

Is your kitchen table off limits to Jesus?

Throughout the Bible, we are told that once we become followers of Jesus, we are part of God’s family. One family.

But I don’t think we are doing a good job of living like family, at least not here in the West. The problem is that we don't understand the crucial role of Christian hospitality.

A love that would be noticed

Loving one another is our primary responsibility when it comes to our fellow believers, and loving one another is a good practice for learning how to love our neighbors and the lost among us, too.

The lost must see our love for one another because, as the apostle John told us (John 13:35):

By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.

How did the early church demonstrate this love to the world?

Their practices included gathering together daily for fellowship, meals, prayer, and teaching. Acts 2:42-47 illustrates families “doing life together” — to use a current churchy phrase — but for them that meant daily, communal, self-sacrificial living.

My house doesn’t belong to me. Your house doesn’t belong to you. Our homes are a gift meant to be shared.

Daily? Communal? Self-sacrificial? Have you ever considered what it might look like if we tried to more closely pattern the early church in this practice?

Author Rosaria Butterfield certainly has. She is living it, in fact, as she describes in a book she wrote several years ago called "The Gospel Comes with a House Key: Practicing Radically Ordinary Hospitality in Our Post-Christian World."

Radically ordinary hospitality

Most nights at the Butterfield house, more than just immediate family sits around the table. The Butterfields open their home for communal dinners with their fellow church members, and meals include a time in the word, prayer, and singing. Feeding a dozen or a couple dozen people is not unusual.

Other church members help bring food as well and sometimes host such gatherings. But the Butterfields have made an ironclad commitment to hospitality and making their church family a real family, with members who are intimately aware of each others’ needs, sorrows, victories, and joys.

Just like a “real” family.

There are some small groups, within churches, that might approximate this kind of commitment to each other, if they meet regularly in each other’s homes — but I think that’s rare.

And in churches where home fellowships are not even encouraged, especially in bigger churches, it’s all too easy to pop in and out on any given Sunday without even speaking to another human, much less building a relationship with them.

This is particularly problematic for our single brothers and sisters, who literally have no family to go home to after Sunday services.

As Butterfield notes in her book:

Kent and I practice daily hospitality as a way of life because we must. We remember what it is like to be lonely. We remember the odd contradiction: to be told on the Lord’s Day that you are part of the family of God but then to limp along throughout the rest of the week like an orphan begging bread. ... We believe that the Bible’s high calling for singleness compels us to live communally when we can and to feast nightly on meals and Scripture and prayer with doors wide open.

Did I mention this is 'radical'?

There’s a lot in the above passage. Not only are the Butterfields offering communal dinner most nights, with all the work and expense that entails — but they are also advocating living “communally” as it relates to singles.

If we are family — and in light of how God teaches us to view people like the widows and the orphans — I think these are fair questions:

Why does anyone go home alone after church, especially singles? For that matter, why do any families go home without a chance to fellowship with another family or two?
Why are we so intent on protecting our privacy and/or independence? Imagine if every Christian who is currently single had the option of renting a room within a Christian family. Or even in a house with other singles! Are we as believers meant to live life day after day alone? (Hint: The answer is no. See Psalm 68:5-6.)
Is all this something our churches should be encouraging and perhaps even facilitating? (Hint: The answer is yes.)
Are these ideas we should all thoughtfully consider how we might implement? (You know the answer.)

What is Christian hospitality?

That’s the real question here. I used to envision opening my home — at carefully selected times entirely of my own choosing and convenience — to people I wished to be closer to, serving a delicious meal on nice dishes and a lovely tablecloth with vases of fresh flowers decorating my perfectly cleaned house, appropriate soft music playing in the background.

This is an “ideal” that gives most of us a severe case of anxiety, and no helpful books of hospitality tips or recipes can really make it less stressful.

But that is not what Christian hospitality is. Not at all. Really.

Butterfield says:

Our homes are not our castles. Indeed, they are not even ours.

This is the key point of the book — and the starting place for true Christian hospitality.

Our homes are a gift to be used to love others. Starting with our family — and that means our blood family and our church family. If our home is always to be used to love our family, why is it not open to all of our family more often?

Why is hospitality a once-every-so-often rare occasion requiring superhuman preparation, with exhaustion and relief once it's over?

In my view, it's nearly impossible to practice biblical hospitality regularly if both dad and mom work outside the home. A full-time homemaker can incorporate hospitality as part of her daily life rhythms. Should we not be opening our homes to each other daily as a practice?

Loving our singles

Along those lines: Why are we not encouraging singles from our church family to live in our families? God put them there! Why are we ignoring them or assuming they prefer to live alone in a sterile apartment?

Are we under the mistaken impression that this would adversely affect our children?

Surely the opposite is true, according to Butterfield:

It is good for children to have many Christian adults pouring into their lives, helping them apply faith to the facts of a hard situation.

That’s our bottom line. My house doesn’t belong to me. Your house doesn’t belong to you. Our homes are a gift meant to be shared, first with family, with the caveat that family means more than just our kids. It means our church family, and/or any believer we encounter who might need our hospitality, whether it’s around the table or in the spare bedroom.

This requires sacrifice. You might not be able to walk around the house in your underwear. You might not be able to spend hours binge-watching Netflix. You might not both be able to have full-time jobs. It will involve a sacrifice of time, effort, and money.

Did I mention that our time and effort and money also don’t belong to us?

Where Rosaria and I don’t see eye to eye

Our home is also a tool to love our neighbor (meaning both our brethren and nonbelievers), and this is where I take exception to Butterfield’s perspective on hospitality.

Throughout her book, she reiterates her view that her home is open at virtually all times to everyone — believer and nonbeliever alike, or as she calls them, “family” and “neighbor.” Her goal is that neighbors will be transformed (by Christ) into family, and that’s a mission with which I agree wholeheartedly.

But I think there are problems with her approach, namely that she combines the two categories at inappropriate times. Butterfield writes:

And those who don’t yet know the Lord are summoned for food and fellowship.

This statement is part of her description of a nightly communal meal at her house, where church members and neighbors freely mingle (the neighbors know they are welcome to come any time, just like her church family).

But spiritual endeavors are never to be pursued in concert with unbelievers. That is exactly what 2 Corinthians 6:14 talks about. We can never really fellowship with unbelievers — they are from a different spiritual world.

What’s more, their presence in an environment where believers have gathered to pursue true fellowship — including sharing our most intimate prayer needs — is harmful to the growth of those family relationships. Family fellowship is by definition for family. It is the ultimate “safe place.” It is not where our unbelieving neighbor should be, generally speaking.

So as much as I admire the Butterfields for opening their home to their neighbors, I don’t believe this is a biblical approach to family (meaning our church family) fellowship.

Does our home play a role, then, in loving our neighbor? It sure does. Butterfield is absolutely right about that. And her book gives many examples of how her family is exemplary at loving their neighbors.

She’s also right that our Christian hospitality is not just for our church family — although that is where it should start. Opening our homes to our brethren is an excellent way to begin prying our grasp free of what we may have seen as our sovereign castle.

It’s time to start.

This article was adapted from an essay originally published on Diane Schrader's Substack, She Speaks Truth.