James Talarico's false gospel of consent



In his 1539 tour de force "The Institutes of the Christian Religion," John Calvin wrote:

And it becomes us to remember that Satan has his miracles, which, although they are tricks rather than true wonders, are still such as to delude the ignorant and unwary.

That warning feels timely when Scripture is invoked not to illuminate truth, but to sanctify the spirit of the age.

American Christians increasingly encounter Scripture filtered through political frameworks that recast its central doctrines in therapeutic or ideological terms.

Pro-choice Jesus?

Texas Democrat state Rep. James Talarico recently argued on Joe Rogan’s podcast that the Bible affirms a woman’s right to abortion. His reasoning centers on the story of Mary in Luke 1. According to Talarico, before the Incarnation, God sought Mary’s consent. From that, he concludes that “creation has to be done with consent” and that forcing a woman to carry a child is inconsistent with the life and ministry of Jesus.

Specifically, Talarico asserted that the Bible — the inerrant and infallible word of God and the most important moral road map ever given to humanity — supports a woman’s right to kill her unborn child. On Rogan’s show, he grounded that claim in the story of Mary:

Before God comes over Mary, and we have the Incarnation, God asks for Mary’s consent. … The angel comes down and asks Mary if this is something she wants to do, and she says … let it be done. … To me that is an affirmation … that creation has to be done with consent. You cannot force someone to create. … It has to be done with freedom. … And to me that is absolutely consistent with the ministry and life and death of Jesus.

This is a remarkable interpretation, because it is not what Luke says.

Assent vs. consent

In Luke 1:26-38, Gabriel does not ask Mary a question or seek her permission. Across major English translations and historic Christian traditions alike, the text records no request for consent — only a declaration of what God will do. Gabriel announces: “Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.”

The only question in the entire exchange is Mary’s — after she is told what will happen: “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” Gabriel replies by pointing to God’s power: “For with God nothing shall be impossible.” Mary then responds, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.”

That is assent — humble submission to God’s revealed will — not consent in the modern, contractual sense. Assent is agreement; consent is permission. Mary was not asked for permission. She freely expressed obedience to what had been declared.

Throughout Scripture, when God acts to fulfill His redemptive purposes, He does not canvass human preferences. In Job 1, when Satan is permitted to test Job’s faith, God does not first consult Job. On the road to Damascus, the risen Christ does not ask Saul whether he is open to a career change. He confronts him, humbles him, and commissions him.

God’s sovereignty is not contingent upon human authorization.

Projecting politics

To read Luke 1 as a divine appeal for permission is to project modern autonomy backward into an ancient text. It is eisegesis dressed up as compassion. It reshapes the Incarnation — the central miracle of Christianity — into an endorsement of procedural self-determination. That move says more about contemporary politics than it does about first-century Judea.

Talarico is right about one thing: The conception of a child is a holy matter. But holiness in Scripture is not synonymous with personal autonomy. Holiness is what belongs to God and reflects His purposes.

Christians have historically distinguished between God’s unique act of creation ex nihilo and human procreation within creation. A child conceived by a man and a woman bears the image of God. That image is not a private possession to be revoked; it is a gift.

To ground abortion rights in the Annunciation is therefore doubly strained. First, because the text does not describe a request for consent. Second, because the child at the center of the story is not an abstraction but the incarnate Son of God — the clearest possible affirmation that life in the womb is not disposable.

RELATED: Is Trump targeting Talarico? Colbert’s lie exposed

Scott Kowalchyk/CBS/Getty Images

God's justice, not class warfare

Talarico also invokes Mary’s Magnificat — her song in Luke 1:46-55 — emphasizing its language about scattering the proud and sending the rich away empty. This has long been read in some quarters as evidence that Jesus’ mission was primarily political: a revolutionary program of economic leveling.

Yet the Gospels resist that reduction. Jesus speaks often about wealth, but His warnings concern idolatry of the heart, not the mere possession of resources. In parable after parable, wealthy figures appear without blanket condemnation. The dividing line is not income but allegiance — whether one serves God or mammon.

The Magnificat celebrates God’s justice, not class warfare. It announces the reversal of human pride before divine authority. To turn it into a manifesto for contemporary policy debates is to flatten its theological depth.

There is a broader concern here than one legislator or one podcast appearance.

American Christians increasingly encounter Scripture filtered through political frameworks that recast its central doctrines in therapeutic or ideological terms. Words like “justice,” “freedom,” and “consent” are imported into passages that were written to reveal God’s character and His plan of redemption, not to ratify modern slogans.

When believers lack grounding in the text itself, such reinterpretations can sound persuasive. They appeal to familiar moral intuitions and baptize contemporary assumptions with biblical language.

But the authority of Scripture rests not in its adaptability to the spirit of the age, but in its resistance to it. When politics begins rewriting the Annunciation, Christians should recognize the warning signs.

False prophets

Jesus Himself warned of such distortions: “And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not: For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect” (Mark 13:21-22).

The danger is not always open hostility to the faith. It is the subtle refashioning of Christ in our own image.

The Annunciation is not a lesson in personal sovereignty. It is a revelation of divine initiative. God acts; Mary receives. Her greatness lies not in negotiating terms, but in faithful obedience: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord.”

That posture — humility before God’s word — is increasingly countercultural. It does not flatter our sense of autonomy. It does not place human choice at the center of the story.

Yet Christianity has always insisted that salvation begins with surrender, not self-assertion.

To know the Bible

James Talarico may fade from public attention. The temptation to refashion Scripture in the image of prevailing politics will not. The greater danger is not that politicians cite the Bible inaccurately. It is that Christians cease to know it well enough to recognize the difference.

A nation unfamiliar with its founding documents is vulnerable to distortion. A church unfamiliar with its Scriptures is vulnerable to something worse.

The more believers read, wrestle with, and internalize the Bible, the less susceptible they will be to interpretations that trade theological substance for cultural applause.

The Incarnation does not endorse a “gospel of consent.” It proclaims a sovereign God who enters history for the salvation of His people — and a young woman who responds not with negotiation, but with trust.

Norma McCorvey: Reluctant Jane Roe who answered to higher judge



Eight years ago this month, Norma McCorvey died in a Texas nursing home, far from the cameras and courtrooms that once made her the most famous anonymous woman in America. There were no placards, no protests, no press.

She may be gone, but her name endures. The world knew her as “Jane Roe,” the plaintiff whose case redrew the legal landscape and reshaped the conscience of a nation.

Her story reflects a familiar pattern: individuals raised to symbolic status, then discarded once the moment passes.

Her beginnings weren’t marked by power, but by poverty and disorder. Born in rural Louisiana and raised in Texas, she grew up in a home shaped by absence and anger. Her father left early. Her mother battled alcoholism. Punishment was common; tenderness was rare. By adolescence, she had run away, fallen into petty crime, and entered state custody. Order came through institutions rather than through a steady home. Survival, not stability, shaped her youth.

Adulthood brought little relief. She married at 16 and left soon after. Her first child was taken and adopted by her mother. A second was placed for adoption. By 21, she was pregnant again — alone and impoverished, with few options and little guidance.

Alone and impoverished

Texas law allowed almost no abortions. Friends suggested that she claim rape to qualify. The claim failed. Through a chain of referrals, she met two young attorneys seeking a pregnant woman willing to challenge the statute. She agreed. She wanted an abortion. Instead, she became the primary figure in a legal battle she neither directed nor fully understood.

The case moved slowly. She never attended the hearings. She gave birth and placed the baby for adoption. When the Supreme Court ruled in 1973, she wasn’t celebrating. She later said the decision meant little to her at the time. The country changed. Her circumstances did not.

Yet the ruling transformed American life. Abortion became both a protected right and a permanent point of conflict. Clinics multiplied. Protest lines formed. The decision that bore her pseudonym ushered in a legal order under which millions of unborn children would be terminated. In the first half of last year alone, even after the overturn of Roe v. Wade, nearly 600,000 abortions occurred, averaging more than 3,000 each day. The scale is sobering.

An unexpected turn

In the years that followed, McCorvey worked around abortion clinics and publicly supported abortion rights. She spoke for the cause and lived within its orbit, lifted and used by larger forces.

Public relevance did not bring private peace. Her personal life remained unsettled. Addiction, loneliness, and fractured relationships followed her into middle age.

Then, in the mid-1990s, an unexpected turn.

While working at a Dallas clinic, she encountered pro-life volunteers who spoke with steady kindness. They addressed her not as a symbol but as a person. Conversation replaced confrontation. One day, she paused before a poster showing fetal development. The image stayed with her.

Soon after, she left her job.

RELATED: Bernard Nathanson: Abortion architect who found mercy in Christ

Sydney Morning Herald/Antonio Ribiero/Getty Images

Won by love

In 1995, she was baptized into evangelical Christianity in a backyard swimming pool. In her 1997 memoir "Won by Love," McCorvey described the experience as a turning point, one that reshaped both her public advocacy and her private life.

Three years later, she entered the Catholic Church, a decision widely covered at the time by both secular and religious press. Her public stance changed. She described her role in Roe v. Wade as the greatest mistake of her life. She marched, protested, and testified, urging Americans to reconsider what the nation had embraced.

Her conversion drew admiration from some and skepticism from others. In a 2020 documentary, "AKA Jane Roe," previously recorded interviews surfaced in which McCorvey suggested that financial incentives had influenced aspects of her pro-life advocacy.

The claims reignited debate over the sincerity of her conversion. Friends and clergy who knew her well disputed that account, describing a woman who prayed daily and took her faith seriously. The tensions remain unresolved. Human lives rarely fit neat narratives.

What remains clear is that her life traced a restless search for belonging and forgiveness. She was not a simple figure. At times blunt and belligerent, at others wounded and weary, she carried deep contradictions. She stood at the center of a historic decision, often seeming invisible within it.

Familiar terrain

Her story reflects a familiar pattern: individuals raised to symbolic status, then discarded once the moment passes. She served as a standard-bearer and later a cautionary tale — celebrated, contested, and set aside. Rarely was she treated as a person.

For Christians, this terrain is not unfamiliar. Scripture offers no flawless heroes, only flawed men and women redirected by grace. David fell. Peter denied. Paul persecuted. Grace did not erase their past; it changed their course.

No honest telling can minimize the consequences of Roe v. Wade. The decision reshaped law, medicine, and family life. McCorvey’s participation in that moment remains a grave part of her legacy.

Yet Christian faith insists that no life lies beyond redemption. The gospel does not deny sin; it denies that sin has the final word.

In her later years, friends described a woman quieter and gentler, less concerned with public approval and more attentive to eternity. She spoke of regret. She spoke as someone who looked back on what she had represented and felt the weight of it.

Eight years on, Norma McCorvey’s life resists easy telling. History will continue to debate her. Movements will continue to claim her. In the end, judgment belongs to God, who sees what no one else can.

Nothing is more countercultural than Lent



We live in a world where self-absorption reigns supreme. Accordingly, the concept of self-denial is incomprehensible to most and anathema to others. Yet this is what Lent means. It is the most countercultural idea in America — and indeed in the entire Western world. That’s because we’ve lost our moorings, which are grounded in Christianity.

The dominant culture celebrates self-indulgence, not self-denial. Drug users are only one example.

Like any virtue, self-denial atrophies if it is not practiced. And the results of atrophy are inauspicious for everyone.

The streets of New York abound with smoke — the sweet smell of marijuana is everywhere. This is also true in many urban areas, as the pace of legalization quickens. Some, like the editorial board of the New York Times, which supported legalization, are now shocked to learn that a record number of Americans are hooked on drugs, jamming hospitals and driving recklessly. Habitual users are psychotic, functioning like zombies. Their nonstop vomiting should be a wake-up call, but it isn’t. This is the cost of “liberation.”

The dominant culture also celebrates gambling, yielding similar results.

Not only can we bet on games, we can bet on each play. Bookies have been replaced by phones, and allegiance to the home team is waning, as the only thing that matters is winning. Some ballparks, like the home of the Washington Commanders, even have betting stations for fans too bored to simply watch the game. A growing number of young men are addicted to gambling, finding themselves deeper in debt. This is the cost of “liberation.”

Many young women choose sex to satisfy their craving for self-indulgence. If they wind up pregnant, they find their “solution” at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Young, promiscuous men are just as irresponsible, looking to medical technology to rid themselves of their self-induced diseases. This is the cost of their “liberation.”

Self-denial is admittedly not easy, and it is more difficult in societies that glamorize self-indulgence. But it is a virtue that actually does liberate.

One way to show people that we love them is by making sacrifices that redound to their benefit. Making sacrifices requires a degree of self-denial — giving up something to aid someone else. Mother Teresa could not have comforted those in her employ without great sacrifice, and it was her capacity for self-denial that allowed her to prevail.

Like any virtue, self-denial atrophies if it is not practiced. And the results of atrophy are inauspicious for everyone. A society that views self-denial as oppressive is nurturing narcissism, not selflessness. Yet that is what we are doing, led, as always, by the ruling class.

Self-indulgence is not only self-destructive; it is ultimately antisocial. We are all affected by those who allow their appetites and passions to conquer them, and that is why it is incumbent on those who occupy positions of moral authority — clergy, parents, and teachers — to welcome Lent, regardless of their religious convictions.

This essay originally appeared at Catholicleague.org.

7 ways to know if you're saved



In a world where millions claim to be Christians while living lives indistinguishable from anyone else, it’s critical to understand the importance of authentic faith. It’s a bit more than “all you have to do is believe” (explained here), which is an unsupportable position according to scripture and Jesus’ own words.

But a companion misunderstanding is that you should never question your own faith. Some even say it’s a sin to do so.

As you examine your thoughts and attitudes and actions in the clear light of scriptural teaching, the Spirit will show you things to work on — guaranteed.

But again — that’s not what the Bible says.

The apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, told them to test themselves to see if they were in the faith — “examine yourselves!” he exclaimed (2 Corinthians 13:5). It’s never wrong to thoughtfully examine our own hearts to ensure we’re on the right track.

So having established that it’s not wrong — and in fact, it's desirable to examine ourselves — let’s answer the million-dollar question: How do we know we are saved?

1. Understand what happens at salvation

Obviously, you won’t know if you’re saved if you don’t know what being saved means. It means that God has freely given you:

  • Eyes to see the truth of the gospel. You sincerely believe that Jesus lived, died, and rose again to pay for your sins.
  • A heart to repent. You recognize your sin separates you from a holy God, and you want to pivot to a life in relationship with your creator. You want to align with His plans for your life, not your own.

In that moment when those things happen, God does a miracle:

  • He brings a dead person to life.
  • He wipes your slate clean (even the sins you’ll still commit) because they were all nailed to the cross, so you are now justified — you are officially “righteous” because you are cleansed.
  • You are saved from eternal separation from God (hell).
  • God Himself, the Holy Spirit, comes to dwell in you, and the process of your sanctification (becoming more like Christ) begins. (It will take your whole life!) The Holy Spirit also seals you in Him, which means you will never lose this salvation.
  • You are promised that one day you will be glorified, which means when you die, you will be free of all worldly cares and sins and will be in the very presence of Jesus.

So in light of the mind-boggling gifts you, the new believer, have just been granted — how else do you know you’re saved?

2. Learn to recognize the presence of the Holy Spirit

In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul says:

In Him, you also, after listening to the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation — having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. (Ephesians 1:13-14)

The Bible is clear that the Holy Spirit indwells us at the moment of salvation. It is not something that comes later, as some mistakenly teach. His presence in us is indeed proof of our salvation:

However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. (Romans 8:9)

And later in that same chapter:

For as many as are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. ... The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God. (Romans 8:14, 16)

So — the Holy Spirit in us helps us know that we belong to God. How, exactly?

Well, are you different than you were before you believed? Or more accurately, do you desire to be different, to love and serve the God who saved you? (Because it’s always about the heart’s desire, not some perfect behavior.)

If you want to change your life to align with God, that prompting is coming from the Holy Spirit. The Spirit’s assurance works in tandem with something else though.

3. Use scripture as a mirror

Are you reading and studying the Bible? Again — more precisely — do you have the desire to do so, even if you struggle to find a place for that in your busy schedule? Because the Holy Spirit will convict you of your need to be in the Word. If you’re feeling that prodding, that is itself an assurance of salvation. The Holy Spirit is in you, working.

And when you obey that prompting, He will illuminate the Bible for you to help you begin to become more like Jesus. As you examine your thoughts and attitudes and actions in the clear light of scriptural teaching, the Spirit will show you things to work on — guaranteed.

If you are wanting to be in the Word and wanting to obey the Spirit’s leading to change as you learn — that is a powerful assurance of your salvation.

RELATED: The laws freaked-out AI founders want won't save us from tech slavery if we reject Christ's message

Photo by Bloomberg/Getty Images

4. Seek out other believers

Are you in relationships with other believers? Are you going to or at least looking for a church? This life can’t be lived sitting on the sofa watching screen church — it requires real human interaction due to (among other things) the commandment Jesus gave us to love one another, which is impossible from your comfy couch.

Again, it comes down to obedience. The Spirit will prompt you to seek out other believers, because God designed us to be in those relationships, serving and loving each other, and being served and loved.

If you’re obeying Him in this, that is also a powerful assurance that you are saved, because stepping into an entirely new group of people we’ve never met before —which is how most of us start finding a church — does not come particularly easy to anyone.

5. Check your life for 'fruit of the Spirit'

The Bible brims with teaching about fruit — we’re supposed to produce good fruit as followers of Jesus. More on this here, but for now, let’s look at what the Bible explicitly calls out as the “fruit of the Spirit” living in us (Galatians 5:22-23):

  • Love
  • Joy
  • Peace
  • Patience
  • Kindness
  • Goodness
  • Faithfulness
  • Gentleness
  • Self-control

John MacArthur calls this “attitude fruit” — the attitudes we should begin to exhibit once we are saved. So that’s the fruit of the Spirit — attitudes the Spirit helps us develop.

But in that same chapter of Galatians, Paul also lists some opposites. “Deeds of the flesh” he calls them, which include:

  • Sexual immorality
  • Impurity
  • Sensuality
  • Idolatry
  • Sorcery
  • Enmities
  • Strife
  • Jealousy
  • Outbursts of anger
  • Selfish ambition
  • Factions
  • Envying dissensions
  • Drunkenness
  • Carousing
  • “and things like these”

So are you more characterized by deeds of the flesh or the Spirit?

Or again let’s ask the right question — which do you desire to be more characteristic in your life? If it’s the good stuff, that is a desire implanted by the Holy Spirit within you — again, an assurance of salvation. And He will help you transform that desire more and more into reality, which will strengthen your assurance as well.

6. See how others have tackled this question

Q: What are some of the signs of genuine saving faith?
A: From the excellent website gotquestions.org

Q: What kind of things do and do not prove the genuineness of saving faith?
A: From Grace to You, John MacArthur’s website

7. Take heart from the words of Jesus

As I’ve written before, the question isn’t “will you believe in Jesus?” The question is “will you follow Jesus?”

If you repented and believed (described above), and now your desire is to follow Him and become more like Him — that desire is from the Holy Spirit within you, and you are assuredly saved. As Jesus said:

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish — ever; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one. (John 10:27-30)

A version of this essay previously appeared on She Speaks Truth.

Headed for sainthood? Catholic Church to beatify friars butchered in America for defending Christian marriage



Five Franciscan friars who traveled from Spain in the late 16th century to what is now Georgia were savagely murdered for defending the dignity of the sacrament of marriage. They are now well on their way to sainthood.

Monsignor Fred Nijem, drawing from the notes of Fr. Conrad Harkins — the vice-postulator for the canonization cause of the Georgia Martyrs — explained in Southern Cross magazine that "the missionaries met their death near present-day Darien. The reason for their death was their defense of the sanctity of marriage. The catalyst for their death was their refusal to allow a Catholic to take a second wife."

'They gave explicit and immediate witness of fidelity to Christ.'

According to the official website for the Georgia Martyrs, the friars lived for years with the coastal Indians of the Guale territory, learning their language, preaching the gospel, and welcoming many into the faith.

Among the coastal converts was a man named Juanillo, next in line to become tribal chief.

Friar Pedro de Corpa challenged the newly minted Christian's decision to take a second wife, vowing to oppose his rise to power if he persisted in his polygamic choice. The Indian evidently did not appreciate this challenge to his power.

Msgr. Nijem indicated that:

Juanillo left the mission and returned under cover of darkness, and bludgeoned Fr. Pedro to death, and impaled his severed head at the mission landing. The remaining four missionaries were also killed. The Guales had decided to dispatch all the "troublesome friars," who interfered with them having many wives.

All of the nearby friars were brutally murdered except for Friar Francisco de Avila, who was kidnapped and tortured until St. Augustine's governor managed to secure his release — 10 months later. Despite the cruelty he suffered at the hands of the Indians, de Avila refused to testify against them at trial in order to spare their lives.

RELATED: 'Pure bigotry': CNN fearmongers about 'Christian nationalism' in election-narrative tease

St. Francis of Assisi. Photo by: Bildagentur-online/Universal Images Group via Getty Images.

Prior to his death, Pope Francis recognized the murdered men of the Order of Friars Minor — four of whom were priests — as martyrs whose slayings were committed out of hatred for the Catholic faith.

The Vatican's Dicastery for the Causes of Saints recently announced that the Georgia Martyrs — Friars Pedro de Corpa, Blas Rodríguez de Cuacos, Miguel de Añón, and Francisco de Veráscola as well as lay brother Antonio de Badajoz — will be beatified at a ceremony in Savannah, Georgia, on Oct. 31.

An English translation of the dicastery's announcement notes that "aware of the risks connected to the apostolate, they gave explicit and immediate witness of fidelity to Christ and His message by fully transmitting the teaching of the Church."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops notes on its website that "all Christians are called to be saints. Saints are persons in heaven (officially canonized or not), who lived heroically virtuous lives, offered their life for others, or were martyred for the faith, and who are worthy of imitation."

Where official recognition by the Catholic Church goes, there are three steps to sainthood.

First, a candidate who "lived a heroically virtuous life or offered their life" is recognized by the pope as "venerable." The second stage is beatification, which requires a finding of "one miracle acquired through the candidate's intercession." Finally, for canonization, a second miracle is required.

The UCCB noted, however, that "the pope may waive these requirements. A miracle is not required prior to a martyr's beatification, but one is required before canonization."

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

'Midwinter Break' offers a rare grown-up love story



Faith-based films have come a long way, baby.

Remember the hardscrabble tales told by the Kendrick Brothers (“Fireproof,” “Facing the Giants”) on shoestring budgets? Think Kirk Cameron and a sea of unfamiliar faces.

'The way that faith shows up in this particular film is around a sense of longing ... I wanted a sense of yearning for something.'

Or the “God’s Not Dead” franchise, a saga that mainstream critics lined up to smite like so many pinatas?

Now faith is more mainstream than ever in pop culture circles. Amazon teamed up with Jon Erwin’s Kingdom Story Company to create the popular “House of David” series for Prime Video. Netflix partnered with Tyler Perry and DeVon Franklin for a line of original faith-based films, including last year’s “Ruth & Boaz.”

Newer, faith-friendly films boast recognizable stars like Oscar-winner Hilary Swank (“Ordinary Angels”), Kelsey Grammer (“Jesus Revolution"), and Dennis Quaid (the “I Can Only Imagine” series).

Defying easy labels

“Midwinter Break” — which hits theaters Friday — offers something that’s aesthetically different while spiritually profound. The indie drama focuses on an older couple, Stella and Gerry (Lesley Manville, Ciarán Hinds), traveling in Amsterdam.

Their decades-old marriage teeters when Stella recalls a traumatic experience and an unfulfilled spiritual promise. The drama looks nothing like a standard faith-based film, which some critics have derided as sanding too many of life’s rough edges smooth.

The story’s core conflict is deeply religious and handled with care. It defies easy labels but may resonate all the same.

“Midwinter Break” director Polly Findlay treats the marriage and subject matter with a delicacy that belies her status as a first-time filmmaker. It helps that she brought a heady background in live theater to the task at hand.

Shared vocabulary

Another obvious benefit? Having two veteran stars building a credible marriage on the brink of collapse. Manville and Hinds also brought significant stage experience to the film, offering a “shared vocabulary” when the cameras turned on, Findlay tells Align.

That, plus three days of rehearsal, ensured the couple’s on-screen bond appeared like it was decades in the making.

“We were able to read [the script] a lot together and build a shared sense of back history,” Findlay said. “They didn’t want to plan too much in advance. They wanted to feel things in the moment, to riff off each other and improvise.”

Manville and Hinds aren’t kids anymore. She’s 69 and he’s 73, and it’s rare for films to feature older couples either falling in love or navigating years of complicated romance.

“That was something I was really drawn to ... a grown-up love story,” she said. “It’s not always documented on screen. The relationship is a series of new beginnings. And so, it’s really, really hopeful without being sentimental.”

A key part of the film finds Stella reflecting on a life-changing event in her younger years, a time when she was with child. What flowed from that pivotal moment got lost over the years, but the Amsterdam journey finds it rushing back to the present.

RELATED: ‘The Case for Miracles’: A stirring road trip into the heart of faith

Fathom Entertainment

A life unlived

“For Stella, her faith is very, very real of course, and very specific. The way in which that faith manifests itself in her is a product of the country that she’s from, the moment in time from which she’s from ... and the things that happened to her in the past,” the director says.

“The thing that she’s carrying with her in a more macro way, is ... a thing we can all related to, a sense of a life unlived.”

Manville captures that challenging arc.

“As she gets older ... there’s a whole different Stella that could have been if she made choices differently,” she says.

Different layers

For the director, bringing faith to the screen meant different layers of storytelling.

“The way that faith shows up in this particular film is around a sense of longing ... I wanted a sense of yearning for something running underneath it,” she says, adding the Amsterdam setting enhances that with its beauty and “sense of melancholy.”

“Midwinter Break” can be heavy, and audiences won’t know if this relationship can survive the couple’s marital chasm. That reflects both Stella’s faith and the harsh realities of any long-term relationship.

It’s a duality that spikes the film’s waning moments.

Some couples can loathe each other in the morning and, later, realize what they’ve built is both precious and vital, she notes.

“Sometimes your emotion toward somebody is red, and sometimes it’s blue ... you can just go from red to blue without necessarily having to go through purple, because that’s how we are,” she says. “It felt important for those moments of despair and doubt to feel 100% and that somehow the kind of hope you then arrive at is dependent on going through that 100%.”

God Requires You To Agree With Democrats, Democrats Announce

People who live by the assumption that all faith is a meaningless and expedient surface posture can't speak to people who have actual faith.

'Pure bigotry': CNN fearmongers about 'Christian nationalism' in election-narrative tease



Democrats, the liberal media, and activist outfits have concern-mongered for years about the imagined threat posed by "Christian nationalism," a catchall term used to describe their ideological foes who also happen to be Christian in a nation almost entirely founded by Christians and where today over six in 10 adults are Christian.

CNN appears keen to revive the left's moral panic on-theme ahead of the midterm elections with an hour-long documentary titled "The Rise of Christian Nationalism."

'If you’re worried about Christians radicalizing then maybe you should stop shooting up our schools, churches and now hockey rinks.'

Newly released teaser videos and a corresponding press release hint at the documentary's apparent political purpose: to instill fear in viewers over a supposed movement that host Pamela Brown claims is "working to redefine America as a Christian nation in the home, in a marriage, in schools, and in government" — a movement that Brown reckons is supercharged and unified in the wake of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk's assassination.

The network noted in its overview for the documentary, which airs Sunday, that:

Brown examines the growing influence of Christian nationalism, an ideology rooted in the belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that its laws and institutions should reflect Christian values. Through immersive reporting and on-the-ground access, the episode explores how a movement once largely confined to the margins of white evangelical culture has gained new visibility and political power.

Brown apparently believes she gleaned generalizable insights into "Christian nationalism" by chatting with critics and kicking around Christian communities linked to Pastor Doug Wilson, a theologian credited by the Wall Street Journal months ago with leading the rise of "Christian nationalism" under President Donald Trump.

"We embedded with a community under Pastor Wilson’s umbrella and spoke to women who have left the church and are now sounding the alarm," said Brown. "No matter where you live or what you believe, what we learned is especially consequential at this moment."

RELATED: Blue-state city leans into battle against ACLU over archangel Michael statue honoring police

Photo by Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images

In one preview, Matthew Taylor — a specialist in "Muslim-Christian dialogue" who wrote a book sounding the alarm about imagined Christian threats to democracy — tells Brown that Kirk's memorial service "was one of the most potent examples of this shift in our culture that we're experiencing right now, where a large segment of American Christians are being activated by these ideas, radicalized by these ideas that say that they are the persecuted ones and that they need to stand up for Christians' rights."

Despite his intimation to the contrary, the ideas Taylor figures for radicalizing are based in fact. Christians, persecuted around the globe, are frequently targeted in the U.S., where radicals have not only sought to legislatively curb religious liberties but attacked churches and the faithful.

Brown, referencing a clip in which Taylor suggests that Christians take Trump for an "anointed figure" because he survived the assassination attempt in Pennsylvania, said that "this is just one example of why Christian nationalists are having such a moment right now."

While some viewers might suspect that these alleged "Christian nationalists" are simply followers of Christ who also vigorously support their nation, definitions and criteria vary.

Brown defines "Christian nationalism" as "an ideology rooted in the belief that our country was founded as a Christian nation and that our laws and institutions should reflect Christian values."

The CNN host appears to be casting a big net granted a 2022 Pew Research Center survey found that six in 10 American adults said the founders intended America to be a Christian nation.

The Public Religion Research Institute, a group that has in recent years characterized Christian nationalism as "a major threat to the health of our democracy," has a slightly less vague understanding and can supposedly deduce if someone is a Christian nationalist on their responses to the following five statements:

  • "The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation."
  • "U.S. laws should be based on Christian values."
  • "If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore."
  • "Being Christian is an important part of being truly American."
  • "God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society."

In the wild, "Christian nationalist" appears in many cases to be a term externally applied, not chosen.

Vice President JD Vance, for instance, doesn't check all of the PPRI's boxes, having indicated that Americans don't have to be Christian but that "Christianity is America's creed." Nevertheless, he is frequently branded as a "Christian nationalist."

Despite stating in 2024 that "Christian Nationalism" is "a boogeyman they've invested to silence you," and having made a point of noting months before his murder that he had never described himself as a Christian nationalist, Kirk is branded as such in Brown's CNN documentary.

Patriotic Christians were quick to lambaste Brown and CNN over the documentary and the timing of its release.

Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts noted that "it's no accident that Pamela chose the first week of Lent to release this. The world saw one of the most prominent voices on the Right martyred by a radical leftist, with his death celebrated by the Left at large — but it’s conservative Christians you need to worry about."

"This is pure bigotry from an increasingly anti-Christian, anti-American Left that tolerates all kinds of dogmas influencing people’s politics — except those of conservative Christians," added Roberts.

Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, stated, "If you’re worried about Christians radicalizing then maybe you should stop shooting up our schools, churches and now hockey rinks. Killing Charlie and the 'this is what you get' messaging from the media was pretty radicalizing too."

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

The hottest part of this message isn’t political



My Ash Wednesday message for 2026 comes with an assist from the recently deceased Jesse Jackson.

In 1977 — just four years after the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling — he wrote:

Even if one does take life by aborting the baby, as a minister of Jesus Christ I must also inform and/or remind you that there is a doctrine of forgiveness. The God I serve is a forgiving God. The men who killed President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. can be forgiven. Everyone can come to the mercy seat and find forgiveness and acceptance. But — and this may be the essence of my argument — suppose one is so hard-hearted and so indifferent to life that he assumes there is nothing for which to be forgiven. What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person, and what kind of a society, will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually? It is that question — the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mindset with regard to the nature and worth of life itself — that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth.

Obviously, I can’t know where Jackson’s heart finally landed when his Maker came for him. But if you’re shocked that he ever wrote something like that — given his later career as a Democrat presidential candidate — take it as a cautionary tale about cutting deals with the spiritual forces of this world.

Unlike Jackson — who, by all appearances, grew less bold as he chased worldly gain — we must become bolder, no matter the cost.

Jackson went from writing one of the strongest arguments you’ll ever read against casual abortion to serving, in effect, as a son of Moloch. That turn required choices: the old temptation to “be like God,” to treat gifts and platforms as personal property, to barter them for worldly influence. And after making that bargain, he ended up with an affair, a child out of wedlock, and a political career that finished in disgrace.

We love to play God. We love to fancy ourselves “the people we’ve been waiting for,” as Barack Obama once put it. And in the process, many start to believe — through misplaced worship and inflated self-regard — that no God exists at all.

Believe me, I know. I’ve stood on the edge of that same abyss. I’ve asked myself the stupid question: Is the stove really too hot to touch?

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. But hell is hotter.

By God’s grace, I remembered — in my own season of spiritual dying — that I am a sinner who needs mercy before I became too proud to believe God and His truth didn’t exist. So the things of heaven are on my horizon as I prepare for a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Israel and await the birth of my second grandchild.

RELATED: ‘Force of nature’: President Trump responds to the death of Jesse Jackson

Photo by David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images

I chose Easter in the end. But all of us, at some point, play Good Friday roulette with our salvation because we know God is merciful and mercy triumphs over judgment. True — but mercy does not cancel judgment.

Christians have argued for 2,000 years about whether a person can lose salvation. Fine. But the goal of the faithful should include this: Stop living like we exist to keep that argument going. Do you even narrow road, bro?

Finish your race, my friends. The consequences of not doing so are eternal.

So unlike Jackson — who, by all appearances, grew less bold as he chased worldly gain — we must become bolder, no matter the cost. That leap of faith is the toll for walking the narrow road. That is discipleship.

Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. Thus saith the Lord.

James Van Der Beek's message about finding God resurfaces after death: 'I am worthy of God's love'



Actor James Van Der Beek found love from God before his passing.

Since the 48-year-old "Dawson's Creek" star's death from cancer, support has poured in for his family by the millions. However, a video from Van Der Beek's journey with faith may provide an even longer lasting impression than some of his films.

'If I'm worthy of God's love, shouldn't I also be worthy of my own?'

Van Der Beek passed away on February 11, with his family delivering the message on his Instagram account.

"Our beloved James David Van Der Beek passed peacefully this morning. He met his final days with courage, faith, and grace," the message read.

Nose-to-nose with death

Since then, fans have reconnected with a message the actor posted on his birthday on March 8, 2024. At that time, Van Der Beek said he was on the road to recovery after having to look his own mortality in the eye, coming "nose-to-nose with death."

"All of those definitions that I cared so deeply about were stripped from me," he said, after saying he viewed himself as an actor. Being away for cancer treatment meant he could "no longer be a husband" and no longer "pick up his kids and put them to bed."

"I could not be a provider because I wasn't working. I couldn't even be a steward of a land," Van Der Beek continued. It was at this point the Connecticut native revealed how he felt about his identity as a "skinny, weak guy alone in an apartment with cancer."

RELATED: Scott Adams made Trump plausible before anyone else would

Worthy of God's love

"I meditated, and the answer came through. I am worthy of God's love simply because I exist. And if I'm worthy of God's love, shouldn't I also be worthy of my own? And the same is true for you," he posited.

Van Der Beek admitted to his audience that he believed this revelation came to him because of "all the prayers and the love that have been directed toward me."

He added, "However it sits in your consciousness, however it resonates, run with it. ... I am worthy of love because you are. Thank you for the love and prayers everyone. Have a blessed day."

Van Der Beek leaves behind his wife, Kimberly, and six children. Since his passing, many celebrities have come out in support of his family, emphasizing how kind of a soul the actor was.

'Forever in my heart'

This included WWE star Stacy Keibler, who said, "Spending these final days with you has been a true gift from God. I have never been so present in my life," according to Page Six.

NFL legend Brett Favre revealed he was good friends with the Van Der Beek family, remarking on their shared faith, laughs, and conversations over the years.

"The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" actor Alfonso Ribeiro shared multiple heartfelt messages online, stating that he was with Van Der Beek before his passing.

"I'm so broken right now," Ribeiro wrote. "I will forever be in debt for all they’ve given me and my family. He will live forever in my heart."

RELATED: Actor James Van Der Beek calls out Democrats for not holding primary debates, calls them 'back room' decision-makers

'Dawson's Creek' (1997). Photo by Warner Bros./Getty Images

'No debate no democracy'

Throughout his illness, Van Der Beek remarked how financially straining the ordeal had become. He had even auctioned off jerseys from his beloved football movie "Varsity Blues" to pay for cancer treatment in November.

The actor's family has posted a Go Fund Me campaign, which as reached nearly $2.3 million at the time of this writing. Director Steven Spielberg reportedly donated $25,000 as well.

In 2023, Van Der Beek made headlines after criticizing the Democratic Party for not holding a primary to choose their presidential candidate.

"How do we have a government, how do we have democracy if we're letting a small, little back room of people make all the important decisions for us?" he asked at the time.

"That's not a democracy, and it doesn't work. Because y'all have been wrong about a lot these last couple years in that back room. No debate no democracy."

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