The American Church is Undergoing a Season of Exposure

The Evangelical Christian church in the United States is undergoing one of the most thorough and sobering seasons of exposure and cleansing ever seen.  This has been percolating for some time, but in recent months and years, the scope of the exposures has substantially increased.  The cleansing is across several denominations and expressions, in churches large and small.

Much of the current exposure is due to social media and independent investigative podcasters with large online followings.  While there are pitfalls to these particular means of exposure, the dark secrets, cover-ups, and manipulative tactics of corrupt leaders in churches can now be aired more quickly and more thoroughly than was possible in previous decades, and I consider it a net good.

God’s timing is the greatest mystery of faith, but what’s occurring is a sovereign move of His hand.  The LORD has determined that the present moment is His appointed time to clean house.  For sincere Christians in every stream, it is wrenchingly painful to watch this purification process unfold.

For believers desiring to remain anchored in their convictions, it’s a humbling (if not downright humiliating) experience to have perceptions shattered and realize that esteemed people they thought were godly actually were not.  Wolves are usually skilled communicators, masters at hiding their destructive patterns until they finally become so visible as to be undeniable.

And if a church environment turns out to be a mixture of good and bad, of truth and deceit? Spiritual cognitive dissonance besieges the minds of people who are often already confused and hurting as they struggle to understand how God’s Word might have been faithfully proclaimed from the pulpit and taught within its ministries, yet indisputably rotten fruit appeared in the lives of leaders.  Many wonder: How did the Gospel truths they espoused not yield transformative change where it truly mattered?

Barna Research reveals that over a quarter of American adults report that past experiences with religious institutions fuel doubt in Christ.  As Teasi Cannon aptly noted last week, many such people exit churches in self-preservation, not rebellion, forced to conclude with genuine sorrow: “If this is Christianity, I can’t survive here.”

Not to diminish the severity of the current scandals, but gross compromises and distorted doctrines among God's people are not new.  The New Testament records how sexual immorality and the abuse of the Lord’s Supper existed in the early Church among the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 5:1-5 and 11:17-34).  The Galatians were called foolish, having been bewitched into another Gospel (Galatians 3:1).  Individual wolves in the Church are not new either, as the Apostle Paul had to turn Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan that they might be taught not to blaspheme (1 Timothy 1:20).

Churches and ministries dealing with a dreadful mixture of righteousness and grievous sin are also not new.  Among the seven churches addressed in the Book of Revelation, some had exhibited remarkable faithfulness to God in ways He commended them for (Pergamum, Thyatira, and Ephesus), but He also had to rebuke them for their compromises. (Revelation 2:1-29).

Many centuries later, as the contemporary West convulses, the Judeo-Christian norms and ethics that have long undergirded society have eroded.  A significant contributing factor to this erosion is pervasive distrust and rejection of religious institutions that have simultaneously furthered and covered up sins that have wounded people, the same sins that the churches claim to oppose doctrinally.

As the exposure continues, it leaves many newly sobered Christians thinking and asking: “This is terrible.  This cannot be the abundant life in the Kingdom about which Jesus spoke.  What should we do now?  What can we do?  Where do we even go from here amid this fierce heartache and countless people harmed in God’s name?”

The only response that makes any sense, and maybe it sounds simplistic, is genuine repentance.  In Acts 3:19, Peter speaks to the men of Israel about how they had rejected the Holy and Righteous One (Jesus), saying: “Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.”

We, too, have forgotten the holiness and righteousness of God.  We would do well to rend our proverbial garments and earnestly cry out to Him, even if we have not been directly involved in or impacted by such a scandal.

If you’re a believer in Jesus Christ who is grieved to the core by the rampant sin in the camp that is manifesting nowadays, continue to search your heart before the Lord, and repent of anything and everything that would grieve Him.  Each one of us needs it.  Pray that a fervent love for God’s righteousness resurges in the Church, and that reverential fear of the Lord return in great measure to His House.  Intercede that His people remember the awesomeness of a holy God, and that He is not mocked (Galatians 6:7).

Our sin is great, and we do not deserve His mercy.  But His mercy is vast, and it triumphs over judgment (James 2:13).

Because if I know what animates committed Christians who are clinging to Jesus amid this disruptive chaos, it is an earnest yearning for another Great Awakening, an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and revival — the precursor of which is repentance.  May it sweep our land like wildfire; it’s our only hope.

Perhaps then, as seen in the pattern of Scripture, God may grant us the times of refreshment in His presence that the remnant longs for in this sin-saturated world.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Why Christianity is Public Faith by Design

Modern Christianity has embraced a contradiction.  We insist that faith is deeply personal — yet fiercely resist allowing it to be public.  We claim Jesus is Lord of all — yet confine Him to the private sphere.  We preach transformation — yet recoil when that transformation disrupts public life.  This version of Christianity feels polite.  It feels safe. It is also foreign to Scripture.Christianity was never designed to be private.

Acts 17 gives us a clear picture of how the early Church understood its mission.  Paul does not retreat into personal spirituality when he arrives in Athens.  He does not restrict his message to religious gatherings or wait for a more culturally comfortable moment to speak. He reasons in the synagogues (Acts 17:17), engages strangers in the marketplace (Acts 17:17), stands before philosophers at the Areopagus (Acts 17:19-22), and addresses the civic and intellectual center of one of the most influential cities in the ancient world.  He brings the Gospel into the center of public life because that is where people live, think, argue, and decide.

The accusation leveled against Paul and his companions was not that they believed privately — it was that they acted publicly: “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also” (Acts 17:6).  That charge was not an insult.  It was an accurate description of what happens when the Gospel is proclaimed without apology. Christianity does not turn the world upside down because it hides.

The idea that religion belongs strictly in the private sphere is not biblical — it is modern and political.  For roughly two centuries, Western culture has discipled Christians into silence with a simple and relentless rule: Keep your faith to yourself.  Don’t bring Scripture into public debate.  Don’t connect faith to politics, ethics, or law.  Don’t let your convictions show where they might make someone uncomfortable.

But this rule was never given by Christ.  Jesus declared Himself Lord not merely of hearts but of heaven and earth — “All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to Me” (Matthew 28:18).  That declaration is the foundation of the Great Commission, and it is unmistakably a public claim.  A private lord is no lord at all.  If Christ is King, His authority cannot be confined to the inner life without being denied altogether.

Christianity makes public claims.  That God created the world (Genesis 1:1).  That Christ rose bodily from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).  That morality is objective and grounded in the character of God (Romans 2:14-15).  That judgment is real and coming (Acts 17:31).  That salvation is found in no other name (Acts 4:12).  These claims cannot remain private because they describe reality itself — the reality in which every human being lives — whether they acknowledge it or not.

If Jesus truly rose from the dead, that fact applies to every person in every nation in every generation.  It is not a preference.  It is not a perspective.  It is history.  And if moral law is real, it governs societies, not just souls.  Truth does not retreat politely into subjectivity simply because the culture wishes it would.

Public Christianity offends because it refuses to accept one of the modern world’s most cherished assumptions: That belief is optional and truth is negotiable.  Paul’s message in Athens was not offensive because he was rude or abrasive — Luke’s account shows him engaging thoughtfully and even quoting their own poets (Acts 17:28).  It was offensive because it challenged authority, identity, and autonomy.  He confronted their idolatry (Acts 17:29-30), named their moral ignorance (Acts 17:30), dismantled their philosophical frameworks, and announced the inevitability of judgment by a risen Christ (Acts 17:31).  And he did all of it publicly, in the open air, in the cultural heart of the Greek world.

This is why the early church was persecuted — not because it believed differently from its neighbors, but because it refused to stay quiet about what it believed.  Nero did not throw Christians to lions for their private devotions.  He threw them to lions because their public allegiance to another King threatened him.

Many Christians avoid public faith in the name of peace and civility.  But silence does not create peace — it preserves illusion.  When faith withdraws from public life, other worldviews do not.  Every society will be shaped by some set of beliefs about God, man, morality, and purpose.  The only question is whose beliefs will shape it.  As the psalmist declared, “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3). The righteous do not answer that question by leaving the foundations unguarded.

Christianity cannot abdicate public space without surrendering influence to falsehood. Silence does not make the Church more loving — it makes it irrelevant.  And an irrelevant Church is not a safe Church.  It is a disobedient one.

Christianity is public because Christ’s lordship is total.  He does not reign only over church services, personal devotions, and private morality — He reigns over truth, law, culture, nations, and history itself.  The prophet Isaiah declared that “the government shall be upon His shoulder” (Isaiah 9:6), and the apostle Paul affirmed that in Him “all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17) — all things, not some things.  To proclaim Christ as Lord while denying His authority over public life is not humility — it is incoherence.  It is attempting to honor a King while refusing to acknowledge His Kingdom.

The Reformers understood this.  The Puritans who shaped early America understood it. The abolitionists who dragged the question of slavery into the public square understood it.  They did not succeed by keeping their convictions to themselves.  They succeeded because they refused to.

The church must decide whether it believes what it claims.  If Christianity is true, it must be spoken — not only in sanctuaries but in marketplaces, courtrooms, classrooms, and legislatures.  If Christ is Lord, He must be proclaimed over every domain that belongs to Him, which is every domain that exists.  If the Gospel saves, it must be shared openly with people who are perishing in plain sight.

Acts 17 leaves no room for a silent Church.  The faith that turned the world upside down did so because it refused to stay in its place, refused to accept the boundaries the culture drew around it, and refused to believe that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was anyone’s private business.  It was the most public announcement in human history — and the Church that carries it has no right to whisper.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

OH Christian Teacher Fought for Her Religious Rights and Won

Throughout her teaching career, Shawnae Carlisle never had an issue requesting time off for a religious observance.  Carlisle, a science teacher at Southeast Elementary School in Salem, Ohio (OH), is a member of The Church of God, a Worldwide Association (COGWA), which has 12,000 members in over 250 congregations worldwide.  It observes Old Testament holidays, including the Feast of Tabernacles each fall, along with four other holy days throughout the year.

For the entirety of Carlisle’s 15 years in the school district, she had requested and received approval for these days off without issue and consistently arranged substitute teachers and ensured full coverage for her classes.

That changed in October 2025, when the district denied her request for unpaid leave to observe the Feast of Tabernacles, citing what her legal team described as arbitrary and inconsistent reasons that did not align with its treatment of other teachers.  Unwilling to compromise her beliefs, Carlisle took the time off anyway and secured substitute coverage.  The district responded by suspending her without pay for five days.

When asked about her personal conviction for celebrating the holiday despite pressure from school officials, Carlisle said her faith is rooted solely in the teachings of Scripture.  “Based on the teachings of both the Old and New Testament, as well as Christ’s own example, I felt a deep personal conviction to follow God’s commands and walk in the footsteps of my Savior,” she told The Christian Post.

Carlisle said even when administrators refused her request, she knew what she had to do.  “When faced with a conflict between what the school district demanded and what I believe God requires, I am compelled to obey God rather than man,” she said. “Therefore, at the moment my superintendent informed me that my request for unpaid leave would not be granted, I understood clearly what I was still commanded to do.”

Despite her resolve, Carlisle said she was blindsided by the denial, noting she had not previously experienced antagonism toward Christian employees.  Lately, however, she said she’s seen her colleagues share similar experiences.  “Since my request was denied, multiple employees have been granted unpaid leave for several days, which raises concerns about inconsistent treatment,” she said.

Last month, the Salem City School District agreed to accommodate Carlisle’s religious observances going forward.  The settlement allows her to take unpaid time off for various holy days in accordance with her faith, reversing the prior suspension and removing any pressure to choose between her job and her beliefs.

While her attorneys at First Liberty Institute and the law firm Ashbrook Byrne Kresge Flowers LLC celebrated the outcome, Carlisle said she knows that other teachers may, at some point, find themselves in a similar situation.  She encouraged all teachers and other school employees of faith to engage in “an open and respectful discussion” with school officials to “affirm one’s convictions and clearly explain the situation.”

“This approach,” she added, “ensures that all parties are informed of the teacher’s intentions and may help lead to a reasonable resolution.”

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Graham Dismisses Backlash to Trump’s AI Jesus Meme

Evangelist and Samaritan’s Purse CEO Franklin Graham issued a statement last week dismissing the backlash to President Donald Trump’s since-deleted social media post depicting him as a robed, Christ-like figure with light emanating from his hands.  “I do not believe President Trump would knowingly depict himself as Jesus Christ — that would certainly be inappropriate,” Graham said.  “I’m thankful the President has made it very clear that this was not at all what he thought the AI-generated image was representing — he thought it was a doctor helping someone, and when he learned of the concerns, he immediately removed the post.”

After deleting the Truth Social post Monday following pushback from many of his supporters and House Speaker Mike Johnson (LA-R), Trump dismissed allegations that he was attempting to liken himself to Christ.  He instead said he thought the AI-generated image of him in first-century Middle Eastern garb depicted him as “a doctor” who was healing people.

On Wednesday, Trump posted another meme depicting Jesus embracing him at a podium in front of an American flag.  The meme caption suggested “God might be playing his Trump card” by elevating Trump to expose “these satanic, demonic, child-sacrificing monsters,” presumably referring to Democrats.  “The Radical Left Lunatics might not like this, but I think it is quite nice!!!” Trump wrote along with the meme.

Graham suggested he believed the president’s explanation for the first Jesus meme, expressed approval for the second one and accused Trump’s detractors of being driven by ill intentions while attempting to spin a non-story.  “When I looked at the illustration, I didn’t jump to the same conclusion as some.  There were no spiritual references — no halo, there were no crosses, no angels.  It was a flag, soldiers, a nurse, fighter planes, eagles, the Statue of Liberty, and I think this is a lot to do about nothing,” he said.  “There is so much ill-intended speculation.  I think his enemies are always foaming at the mouth at any possible opportunity to make him look bad.”

Graham used the more recent meme of Jesus hugging Trump as an opportunity to encourage everyone to seek Christ.  “I must say that I like the fact that this is a picture of Jesus whispering in his ear, or at least His hand on his shoulder, guiding him.  We all need that — we all need to be listening to Jesus,” he said.  “Again, I think there is an attempt to spin this into something that it isn’t.  Remember, President Trump didn’t draw this, he didn’t create it, he reposted it on his social media because he thought it was nice — I would have to agree.”

Graham's defense of Trump comes amid the president’s ongoing public feud with Pope Leo XIV over the war in Iran, which Graham defended last month by citing the Old Testament example of King David.

Graham expressed hope in his Thursday statement that the pope, who reportedly has no plans of visiting his native United States under the Trump Administration, could someday meet with Trump to thank him for his efforts in protecting religious liberty.  “I’m not a Catholic, I’m an evangelical, but I appreciate how President Trump has defended religious freedom for people of all faiths, including millions of evangelicals and Catholics in the U.S. and around the world.  He is the most pro-Christian, pro-life president in my lifetime, and he doesn’t shy away from it,” Graham said.  “I would hope that the President and Pope Leo can meet at some point, and that the Pope would have the opportunity to thank the president for his efforts to protect religious liberty for Catholics and people of all faiths,” he added.

Graham, a longtime Evangelical supporter of the president, has repeatedly made headlines in recent weeks.  On Palm Sunday, Trump posted a private letter Graham sent to him last October, which urged him to seriously consider his eternal state, accept Jesus Christ as his Savior and cease trusting in his own works if he hopes to go to Heaven. 

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Tucker Carlson Prompts a Theological Firestorm

The Tucker Carlson Network (TCN) prompted intense theological debate the other week for an X post claiming Muslims love and revere Jesus Christ, which came a day before Carlson said President Donald Trump is acting like the Antichrist.

“The people in charge don’t want you to know this, but Muslims love Jesus,” read the TCN post, which drew more than 11.3 million impressions shortly thereafter.  “Islam reveres Him [Jesus] as a major prophet and messenger of the Lord, believes He performed miracles, and states that He will return to Earth to defeat the Antichrist.”

The post suggested the Islamic reverence for Jesus is what prompted Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to condemn Trump’s Truth Social post from Easter Sunday, which depicted him as a Christ-like figure with light emanating from his hands.  Trump deleted the meme following outrage, claiming he believed the AI-generated image was him as “a doctor.”

TCN’s post was met with pushback from many X users, including some figures who have generally been supportive of Carlson.

Calvin Robinson, a cleric in the English Catholic Church in North America who was a recurring guest on Carlson’s Fox News program, suggested his characterization of Islam failed to take into account that Christians are severely persecuted in many parts of the Muslim world.  “I have a lot of time for Tucker.  But Islam is his blind spot,” Robinson wrote in an X post.  “ ‘Moslems love Jesus’ may or may not be true.  But they most certainly do not love Christians.  Christians are the most persecuted people around the world.  Especially in Moslem-majority countries. Islam is oppressive.”

Others echoed Robinson by pointing out the large number of Christians who are martyred for their faith by radical Muslims each year, as well as the theological gulf that separates Christians and Muslims regarding the divinity of Christ.

“Muslims reject the divinity of Jesus, reject Jesus as the Son of God, reject Jesus as the second person of the Trinity.  In 2025, 4,849 Christians were murdered for their faith. 93% were murdered by Islamists in Africa.  But tell us more how Muslims love Jesus and His followers,” said conservative podcaster Liz Wheeler.

“Muslims don’t love Jesus: they love a bastardized version of Him that neither scriptures nor history recognizes.  They don’t believe He’s God, or that He died and rose again. Rather, they believe when He returns, He will ‘break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax,’ ” said Protestia, a popular Christian X account.

Dan Burmawi, an author and former devout Muslim from Jordan who converted to Christianity, posted a lengthy response to TCN’s post, claiming that the Quran’s apparent respect for Jesus and Mary is deceptive and merely serves “to affirm Islam’s false narrative.”

“Muslims love to parade the Quran’s mentions of Jesus and Mary as if it’s some grand gesture of respect,” said Burmawi, who is also the founder and CEO of the Ideological Defense Institute, a nonprofit research and educational organization that provides information and analysis about the Middle East.  Burmawi went on to cite verses from the Quran that confuse biblical figures, which he said proves its author “was historically and theologically illiterate.”  The Quran also dishonors Jesus by denying His key claims, portraying His apparent crucifixion as a divine deception and lying about the Gospel in an attempt to redefine Him as lower than Muhammad, Burmawi said.  “The Quran strips Jesus of everything that makes Him the cornerstone of Christianity.  It denies His divinity (Quran 5:116), denies His Sonship (Quran 19:35), and denies His redemptive death on the cross (Quran 4:157).  Instead of being the Messiah who sacrificed Himself out of love, the Quran portrays Him as a weakling who needed Allah to deceive people in His place,” Burmawi said.

Burmawi's line of reasoning was echoed by Salam Almasri, a research fellow at the Ideological Defense Institute, who wrote an op-ed arguing that interfaith assertions of Islam being fundamentally peaceful or respectful toward Jesus are “a profound act of intellectual dishonesty” intended to “annex” Christ and redefine Him on Islamic terms.

Christian author and broadcaster Eric Metaxas described TCN’s post as “anti-Christ propaganda” and pushed back against Carlson’s comments during a later episode of his podcast.  Citing remarks he made earlier this week at the final White House Religious Liberty Commission hearing in Washington, D.C., where he warned that “some faiths hate liberty and some faiths love liberty,” Metaxas said Carlson’s characterization of Islam was wrong to neglect that Muslims ultimately dismiss Jesus as a mere prophet eclipsed by Muhammad.  “So imagine that they have this plausible deniability, where they say — and Tucker is now spouting these Islam talking points — that ‘we revere Mary and we revere Jesus.’  It’s complete nonsense. They don’t say He is the Messiah. They don’t say we worship Him as Lord.  None of that stuff.  So, it’s completely meaningless, but the headline is that Tucker is pushing this,” he said.  “It is very difficult to fathom how he could be pushing these lies, why he would be pushing these lies.  It’s bizarre,” added Metaxas, who has increasingly become an outspoken Carlson critic in recent months.

The Wednesday edition of TCN’s morning newsletter acknowledged the “firestorm” set off by the previous day’s edition, but suggested Americans are generally ill-informed about Islam and the Muslim world, which he maintained was “no accident.”

“The forces supporting the Iran War do not want the public to realize that the Quran heralds the Christian savior as a prophet and messenger of the Lord.  This does not mean Christianity and Islam are aligned.  They definitely are not,” the newsletter said in part.  The newsletter went on to argue that anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S., fueled by neoconservatives, wrongly portrays Islam itself as the root cause of Middle Eastern terrorism, and that Islamic terrorists commit violence not because they are Muslim, but because they are evil criminals who use religion as a justification.  It likened such behavior to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “[invoking] Amalek to excuse his mass killing of innocents” or Nathuram Godse assassinating Mahatma Gandhi “in the purported name of Hinduism.”

The uproar is the latest in the contentious debate that has erupted within Trump’s political base over the war in Iran, which has raised concerns regarding the role that religion and eschatological beliefs are playing in it.

During his weekly monologue on Wednesday evening, Carlson condemned Trump for what he described as an increasingly sacrilegious attitude toward Christianity, citing his ongoing public feud with Pope Leo XIV and multiple social media posts since Easter that Carlson said were “a mockery of God.”

Observing Trump has never shown similar disrespect toward Judaism, Carlson alleged that forwarding the foreign policy interests of the Israeli government — or “Israelism” — has become the dominant civic religion of the U.S. government, even when it “abets the murder of Christians” or inflames conflicts that spill their refugees into historically Christian nations.

Reading from the description of “the man of lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 and the prophecy of a boastful king in Daniel 11:36, Carlson suggested the president is exhibiting characteristics typically associated with the Antichrist, though he said it remains “unclear” if Trump is that figure.

Much of Daniel 11 has historically been considered to be a prophecy regarding Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a Seleucid king who reigned from 175 to 164 B.C. and whose desecration of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem prompted the Maccabean Revolt.

Christians have disagreed over whether Daniel 11:36 and the later parts of the chapter are a further reference to Antiochus IV, or if it refers to a future figure referenced in 2 Thessalonians, who will exhibit the same blasphemous spirit.  The church has also long debated the identity of the man of lawlessness, with various interpretations including Roman emperors such as Nero, the papacy or a man yet to be revealed.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The Question Jesus Didn’t Correct

One of the quiet assumptions shaping much of modern Christian theology is that Israel has been spiritually eclipsed.  The Church, we are told, sometimes subtly, sometimes explicitly, has replaced Israel as the focal point of God’s redemptive purposes.  Israel belongs to the past; the Church belongs to the present and future.  And yet, the book of Acts refuses to cooperate with this assumption.

If we allow Acts to speak on its own terms: historically, geographically, and biblically, it presents a far more integrated vision.  In Acts, Israel remains central to the Kingdom of God, not as a rival to the Church, but as the covenantal and geographic stage upon which God’s redemptive drama unfolds, past, present, and future.

The interpretive key appears immediately after the resurrection.  “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6).  This question matters far more than many Christians realize.  These are not confused outsiders.  These are resurrected-Christ-trained apostles, men who have spent forty days being taught by Jesus “about the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3).  If anyone should have had their theology corrected by now, it would have been them.

But Jesus does not rebuke them.  He does not say, “You misunderstand … Israel no longer matters.” He does not say, “The Church is now the true Israel.”  He does not say, “There will be no future restoration of Israel.”  Instead, He responds: “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by His own authority” (Acts 1:7).  In other words, the expectation is correct.  The timing is not yours to know.

This exchange stands as New Testament proof for the continuation of the promises and prophecies of the Old Testament that God will restore Israel.  Jesus affirms the premise of the question while withholding the schedule.  The Kingdom will be restored to Israel, but according to the Father’s sovereign timetable.

Acts immediately reinforces this truth through the physical, geographic details of Jesus’ ascension.  Jesus ascends into Heaven from the Mount of Olives, just east of the old city of Jerusalem, the same ridge long associated with Israel’s prophetic future.  As the disciples stand staring into the sky, two angels deliver a statement that permanently anchors Christian eschatology to a place: “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky?  This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).

This is not poetic language.  It is a directional, locational promise.

Jesus ascended bodily, visibly, and geographically from the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem.  The angels declare that He will return in the same manner.  This aligns seamlessly with the prophets of Israel, particularly Zechariah, who foretold that the Lord’s feet would stand on the Mount of Olives on the day of His return (Zechariah 14:4).

For Christians, this is decisive.  We do not believe Jesus will return to London.  We do not believe He will return to New York.  We do not believe He will return to Rome.  We believe He will return to Jerusalem.

Acts refuses to spiritualize the Second Coming.  The same book that launches the global mission of the Church also insists that history will culminate in a very specific place.  The Kingdom of God may expand to the ends of the earth, but it resolves in Israel.

Jesus’ commissioning statement confirms this pattern: “You will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).  This is not merely a mission strategy. It is a theological map.  The Gospel does not bypass Jerusalem; it begins there.  It does not abandon Judea; it spreads through it.  It does not erase Israel; it extends from it.  Acts presents a Kingdom that expands outward without ever severing itself from its covenantal and geographic center.

Pentecost reinforces the same truth.  It occurs in Jerusalem.  On a Jewish feast day. Among Jewish pilgrims from the nations.  With Peter preaching from Jewish Scripture. Proclaiming a Jewish Messiah.

Far from announcing Israel’s replacement, Pentecost confirms Israel’s role as the launching point of God’s end-time purposes.  The nations are not saved instead of Israel, but through Israel’s Messiah, in Israel’s city, according to Israel’s Scriptures.

Throughout Acts, the apostles consistently affirm Israel’s covenantal identity.  Peter proclaims that Jesus fulfills “the covenant God made with your fathers” (Acts 3:25). James, at the Jerusalem Council, quotes the prophets to show that Gentile inclusion does not negate Israel’s restoration but accompanies it (Acts 15).  Paul preaches the Kingdom while affirming the hope of Israel, not dismissing it.  Gentiles are welcomed fully into the people of God — but Israel is never described as rejected, displaced, or obsolete.  Acts presents the Church not as a replacement for Israel, but as a participant in Israel’s story.

When Christians disconnect from Israel, the Bible becomes abstract rather than geographic, the Kingdom becomes spiritualized rather than embodied, and God’s promises become conditional rather than covenantal.

If God can permanently abandon Israel, the Church has no assurance that it will not one day be abandoned as well.

Acts begins with a question about the restoration of Israel and follows it immediately with a promise about the return of Jesus to the same place from which He ascended.

The Kingdom has been inaugurated but not completed.  The Church has been commissioned but not enthroned.  Israel has been regathered into the story but not yet fully restored.

Acts leaves the story open because history itself is still moving toward its appointed climax.

The Kingdom of God has a past rooted in Israel, a present expressed through the Church, and a future that, according to Jesus and His angels, returns to Jerusalem.

Acts does not allow us to choose between Israel and the Church.  It demands that we honor both, under one covenant-keeping King who ascended from Jerusalem, and who will return there again.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

What to Think When People Call You a “Christian Nationalist”

Throughout Scripture, even in the earliest days of the Church, those who spoke God’s truth into public life were often given names meant to humiliate and discredit them.

The very name “Christian” was, in its origin, a term of reproach.  In Antioch, where “the disciples were called Christians first” (Acts 11:26), the label was not bestowed as an honor, but as a way of marking them out — identifying them with Christ in a manner meant to ridicule and marginalize.

The pattern is hardly anything new

• The prophet Elijah was called “the troubler of Israel.”
• The prophet Jeremiah was accused of weakening the nation.
• The apostle Paul was labeled “a pestilent fellow,” a “mover of sedition” among the people.

In each case, the charge was not merely disagreement; it was an attempt to silence.

The message was clear: discredit the messenger, and you can dismiss the message.

In our own time, a similar pattern has emerged.

One of the most effective ways to silence a Christian voice in the public square today is to attach a label to it — one that sounds dangerous enough that no further argument is required.  That label is “Christian nationalism.”

It is invoked in media, academia, and even within the Church itself.  It is used broadly, often vaguely, and almost always with negative connotations.  For many pastors and church leaders, the mere possibility of being associated with it is enough to produce hesitation, if not outright silence them.

Part of the label’s power lies in the word “nationalism” itself.  It is not a neutral term in the modern mind.  In the 20th century, some of the most oppressive regimes in history wrapped themselves in the language of national identity.  The party led by Adolf Hitler was known as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.  Though its ideology was far more complex and far more sinister than the word alone suggests, the association remains.

As a result, the term “nationalism” often evokes images of authoritarianism, coercion, and extremism. When the word is joined with “Christian,” the effect is immediate. Suspicion is cast before any explanation is given.  The label does not arrive empty — it arrives loaded!

But before such a charge is accepted, it should be examined.

There are, to be sure, distortions of the Christian faith that wrongly merge the mission of the Church with the ambitions of the state.  There are those who speak as though a nation could be equated with the Kingdom of God.  The Church is not the state.  Neither is the Gospel of Christ advanced by force.

But this is not what most faithful pastors and believers mean when they speak to the moral issues of the day.

To suggest that applying biblical truth to public life is inherently dangerous is to misunderstand, even misrepresent, the very nature of the Christian faith itself.

Jesus Christ is not Lord over a narrow corner of private devotion.  He is Lord of all.  His authority extends not only to the heart, but to the home, to the church, and to the broader ordering of human life. Scripture speaks not only to personal salvation, but to truth and falsehood, to right and wrong, to justice and injustice, and to the created order itself.

When Christians affirm the sanctity of life, they are not engaging in political extremism; they are affirming that human beings are made in the image of God and, consequently, life is sacred at every stage.

When they uphold the biblical definition of marriage, they are not seeking control; they are bearing witness to God’s design, which cannot be defied without serious consequence.

When they speak about the importance of family, truth, or moral responsibility, they are not advancing a political agenda; they are applying timeless truth to present realities in ways consistent with God’s order and most conducive to human flourishing.

If such convictions are now considered suspect, then the issue is not with the convictions themselves, but with a culture increasingly unwilling to tolerate them.

This, of course, is where the danger lies.

The label “Christian nationalism” is often used to turn faithfulness into suspicion, and genuine Christian conviction into extremism.  It works to silence pastors and other church leaders by discrediting them before they ever speak.  In this way, the label becomes not merely descriptive, but profoundly strategic.  It functions as a preemptive muzzle.  When it succeeds, the consequences are significant.

Pastors who withhold what God has spoken and avoid applying Scripture to the moral issues shaping people’s lives do not become more faithful to the Gospel; they become less so.  As Martin Luther, the great reformer, warned:

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ … Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

The Gospel does not exist in abstraction.  It speaks into real lives, real communities, and real cultures.  It calls sinners to repentance, but repentance from what?  It calls for transformation, but according to what standard?

If the Church is unwilling to name the sins that are normalized in the culture, then its call to repentance becomes vague.  If it refuses to address the lies that dominate public life, then its proclamation of truth becomes disconnected from reality.

Faithfulness requires more.  It requires the courage to speak — not carelessly, not harshly, not with partisan spirit, but clearly, biblically, and without apology where God Himself has spoken.  “For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth” (2 Corinthians 13:8).

This is not a call for the Church to become political in the narrow sense.  It is a call for the Church to be fully biblical.  Yet it is also a call to speak to politics whenever public policy blatantly disregards the moral law of God, defies His created order, or gives legal protection to what He has clearly condemned.

It is to declare the Lordship of Christ in a way that encompasses all of life.

It is to disciple believers not only in private devotion, but in how to think, live, and act in a world increasingly at odds with the truth.

It is to understand that remaining quiet when truth is being openly denied is not neutrality — it is absence.  It is like a soldier who has abandoned his post.

The accusations may come.  The labels may be applied.  This should not surprise us. We should anticipate it.

Name-calling, false labels, derogatory expressions, and even mockery have been used against faithful followers of Jesus Christ throughout the Church’s history.

But the question is not what we will be called.  The question is whether we will be faithful to the one who has called us.

The Church has never been sustained by the approval of the culture; it has always advanced in spite of it.  Even the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).

In the early centuries, Christians refused to bow to Caesar, when it cost them their livelihoods — and, in many cases, their lives.  In a world that treated human life cheaply, they rescued abandoned infants and cared for the sick during plagues when no one else would.  Their faith did not conform to the culture; it confronted it.

Centuries later, believers such as William Wilberforce labored tirelessly against the slave trade, standing against entrenched economic and social systems because they believed the Gospel demanded it.  Their convictions were railed against at first.  They were zealously resisted.  Still, they persevered, and the world is better for it.

In America, pastors and churches played decisive roles in movements for justice and moral reform, often at great personal cost.  They did not wait for cultural approval before they spoke.

They were not trying to control the culture; they were bearing witness to the truth.

The pattern is unmistakable: whenever the Church has been most faithful, it has often been most out of step with the world around it.

This principle does not change.

• It does not bend to the pressures of the moment.
• It does not yield to labels.
• It does not retreat when challenged.
• It stands.

And in every generation, there must be those who are willing to stand with it.

• Not for the sake of influence.
• Not for the sake of power.

But for the sake of faithfulness to Christ, and for the sake of a world that still desperately needs the light, even when it calls that light darkness and that darkness light.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Christian Artemis II Pilot Reflects on God’s Creation from Space

On Easter Sunday, Victor Glover, the Christian U.S. Navy captain piloting NASA’s Artemis II mission, reflected on God’s creation and the Bible, saying in part, “As we are so far from Earth and looking back at the beauty of creation, I think, for me, one of the really important personal perspectives that I have up here is that I can really see Earth as one thing. ... You have this oasis, this beautiful place that we get to exist together.”

Ahead of the April 1 mission, a reporter asked how he felt about becoming the first African American to fly around the moon.  Glover replied that the mission belonged not just to “black history” or “women’s history,” but to human history.

Glover said he hopes that one day people will look past race.  “I hope we push that one day,” he said in a Spectrum News video posted on X by Eric Daugherty of RightLineNews.

Artemis II is the first crewed test flight in NASA’s Artemis campaign and the first to carry astronauts aboard the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft.  The four-person crew spent 10 days on a loop around the moon to confirm Orion’s ability to operate in deep space before next year’s Artemis III mission.

The Artemis IV mission is planned to land astronauts on the lunar surface, with later flights targeting Mars.

Reid Wiseman is commanding the mission, with Glover serving as pilot.

Christina Koch, a NASA astronaut, is the first woman to pass to the lunar distance, and Jeremy Hansen of the Canadian Space Agency is the first Canadian on such a voyage, noted the Daily Citizen.

An elder from Glover’s church said he was praying that God’s name will be glorified, according to The Christian Chronicle.  “He’s just a top-shelf guy and down to earth, but with all the experiences and accolades,” Brent Hankins, an elder at the Southeast Church of Christ in Friendswood, Texas, the congregation about 6 miles from NASA’s Space Center Houston that Glover and his wife, Dionna, call home, said.

Hankins said that as a shepherd, he has come to love and support the Glover family, and to cheer and pray for them.  “It was a rush,” he said of witnessing the launch.  “I mean, I think we all had tears in our eyes.  When we got to about five seconds in the countdown, the magnitude of that was pretty overwhelming.”

Glover was born in Pomona, California, graduated from Ontario High School in 1994 and holds a bachelor’s degree in general engineering and three master’s degrees.  He served as a test pilot on the F/A-18 Hornet, Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler, logging 3,500 flight hours in more than 40 aircraft, more than 400 carrier landings and 24 combat missions.

He was selected in 2013 as one of eight members of NASA’s 21st astronaut class and in 2018 was assigned to Crew-1 as pilot.  He later served 168 days as a flight engineer on the International Space Station (ISS).  He and his wife have four children.

Glover told The Christian Chronicle in a 2023 podcast interview that his belief and his professional life are “interwoven.”  “My career is fed by my faith,” he said.  “Anytime I do something that’s pretty risky, I pray.  Before I fly, every time I fly.  Definitely when you go sit on top of a rocket ship.”  He added, “In the military, there’s a saying that there are no atheists in foxholes.  There aren’t any on top of rockets, either.”

He had been in the military for 26 years, and he said that working at NASA frequently produced conversations about creation and faith.  “We talk about our solar system, and I will often refer to the beauty of creation,” he said.  “People hear that, and it’s like a trigger word for certain folks.  But that’s in church and at NASA.”

He said he doesn't accept that faith and science are in opposition.  “They don’t actually work against each other like some people like to claim that they do,” he said, drawing parallels between the Big Bang account of the universe’s origins and the Genesis creation narrative, saying the two trace a similar sequence.  “Theoretical physics has actually not said that what’s in the Bible is not how the universe began,” he said.

He put the moon’s age at about 4.5 billion years and said biblical genealogies do not need to conflict with that figure, since the Gospel’s power lies not in chronological precision but in its message.

Glover said he carried prepackaged communion supplies to the ISS and received the sacrament each week.  “I was able to worship in space,” he said.  He called the experience “special and not special at the same time,” adding that it gave him a new sense of why the ritual held its significance regardless of location.

After returning to Earth, he said the view from orbit had changed his thinking about humanity’s place in the universe.

NASA had searched for life elsewhere and found it only on Earth, he said, a realization that made the planet seem small but profoundly important.  He recalled visiting Israel, where an Arab student addressed him as “brother.”  “We are all brothers and sisters,” Glover said.

The last crewed mission to the moon was Apollo 17, which launched on December 7, 1972.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

SCOTUS Sides With Counselor Who Challenged Law Requiring Affirming Kids’ Gender Confusion

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) sided with a Christian mental health counselor who challenged Colorado’s (CO) ban on “conversion therapy.”

The justices held 8-1 that CO’s law, which forces counselor Kaley Chiles to affirm minors’ gender dysphoria even when they desire help feeling comfortable in their bodies, “regulates speech based on viewpoint.”

“Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.  “Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.  It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented alone, warning the “fallout could be catastrophic” because the majority ignored “medical consensus.”

“It is baffling that we could now be standing on the edge of a precipitous drop in the quality of healthcare services in America,” she wrote.  “But the Court sees fit to bring us one step closer to that fate today.  Stranger still is the fact that this possibility looms in the 21st century—given what science now enables us to know about medical conditions and treatments, what our cases say, and what we all should have learned by now from history.”

Gorsuch noted that medical consensus “is not static; it evolves and always has.”

“A prevailing standard of care may reflect what most practitioners believe today, but it cannot mark the outer boundary of what they may say tomorrow,” Gorsuch wrote.  “Far from a test of professional consensus, the First Amendment rests instead on a simple truth: ‘[T]he people lose’ whenever the government transforms prevailing opinion into enforced conformity.”

CO’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law was passed in 2019 and defines “conversion therapy” as efforts to “change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity,” including romantic attractions or gender expressions.

First Amendment concerns would be implicated no matter “what the State’s preferred side is,” Justice Elena Kagan noted in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“Consider a hypothetical law that is the mirror image of Colorado’s,” Kagan wrote. “Instead of barring talk therapy designed to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, this law bars therapy affirming those things.  As Ms. Chiles readily acknowledges, the First Amendment would apply in the identical way.”

During a press conference following the ruling, Chiles said she hopes “this win for free speech will fuel a greater pursuit of truth.”

“Kids deserve real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake, and that they are wonderfully made,” Chiles said.  “I’m grateful that my speech is protected, but I’m even more excited that families and children seeking access to counseling that respects biological reality will be able to get the help they need.”

Alliance Defending Freedom Chief Legal Counsel Jim Campbell, who argued the case before the SCOTUS in October, said the decision will help protect counselors from similar laws in “more than 20 other states and over 100 localities around the country.”

“Families should be able to access counseling that respects biological reality,” Campbell said.  “Because of this ruling, they can.  From professional groups to medical malpractice verdicts, the tide is turning on the issue of gender ideology and the truth is coming to light.”

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

When Persecution is Documented But Not Addressed—What Comes Next?

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) issued its 2026 annual report on March 4, 2026, highlighting persecution hotspots around the world today.  Yet a critical question remains: Will the US government take that report and turn it into effective policies to help the persecuted?

Todd Nettleton with The Voice of the Martyrs USA explains that USCIRF’s annual report was meant to be “step one” in a process established by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.  “That [report] goes to the State Department, and the State Department ultimately makes the determinations of Countries of Particular Concern, Special Watch List, [etc],” Nettleton says.

However, the US State Department has not issued an International Religious Freedom Report (IRF) for two years.

“It’s like, okay, is this [USCIRF report] all we’re going to get?  Is this the end of the process?  Or is this as it was designed, ‘step one’ and now we’ll see what the State Department does with that?” Nettleton says.

The IRF report from the State Department provides practical tools for the US to support religious freedom around the world.  Among other outcomes that respect human rights, this freedom can remove barriers to the gospel spreading.  

“I want to express appreciation for the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, the work that they do throughout the year, to identify, to document, to shine a light on violations of religious freedom around the world,” says Nettleton.  “It helps us here at Voice of the Martyrs, when sort of the government is saying the same things that we’re saying about, in our case, only about Christians being persecuted.”

For example, the Commission has recommended that the US redesignate Nicaragua as a Country of Particular Concern.  Nicaragua is also a country that VOM USA has designated as “Restricted” this year for its intensifying persecution of Christians.

“It is a country where pastors have been arrested.  Pastors have been kicked out of the country.  The government is using technology purchased from China to monitor people digitally — monitor where they are, monitor what they’re doing,” says Nettleton.  “Most of us don’t know that that’s happening.”

If you’re a US citizen, consider contacting your government representatives and expressing your interest in seeing this State report issued.  But no matter where home is for you, you can respond in prayer as you consider the Commission’s annual report findings.

“There are 29 countries, so you could literally pray through that list every month and use this as a sort of government-issued prayer guide on behalf of our persecuted brothers and sisters,” says Nettleton.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

POTUS Shares Letter from Franklin Graham

President (POTUS) Donald Trump shared a letter on Palm Sunday that had been sent to him by evangelist Franklin Graham last year, which urged him to seriously consider his eternal state, accept Jesus Christ as his Savior, and cease trusting in his own works—if he hopes to go to Heaven.

In a letter dated October 15, 2025, Graham congratulated Trump for securing a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and the return of remaining Israeli hostages, which he praised as “incredible accomplishments” and “an answer to prayer” amid Trump’s “historic” leadership.  He also praised Trump for being a peacemaker, noting that Jesus promised blessing for such figures.

Graham went on to exhort the POTUS to remember that, despite his many accomplishments and apparent blessings, neither he nor anyone else can earn favor before God and salvation from Hell apart from trusting in the righteousness and atoning death of Jesus Christ, performed on their behalf.

“This week you commented to the media that you might not be heaven bound,” Graham wrote, referring to remarks Trump made last October, walking back previous comments he made last August suggesting he might earn a place in paradise by inking peace deals.

Trump’s initial comments prompted a flurry of theological debate among his Evangelical supporters, many of whom worried that Trump maintained a faulty view of the Gospel, despite hearing it many times and narrowly escaping death multiple times.

“Maybe you responded in jest, but it is an important issue to know for certain that your soul is secure and will spend eternity in the presence of God,” Graham told Trump in his letter.  “The only One who can save us from Hell is Jesus Christ.  You can't save yourself; I can’t save myself.”

Graham, whose father, the late Rev. Billy Graham, preached in person to more people than anyone in history, warned that “good works, prominence, [and] success” are powerless to gain entry into Heaven, adding, “The only way to Heaven is through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.”

Though Graham was accused by some X users and media outlets of promising Trump he was going to Heaven, Graham’s letter clearly presented Trump’s salvation as conditional upon his faith, which he noted is inextricable with repentance.

“God requires us to turn from our sins and, by faith, believe in our heart that Jesus came to earth, died on the cross for our sins, was buried, and God raised Him to life on the third day,” said Graham.  “If you accept that by faith and invite Him to come into your heart, you ARE heaven bound, I promise you,” he added.

Graham closed his letter by promising prayer for Trump and quoting the Gospel message from Romans 10:9: “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

Trump shared Graham’s letter amid concerns even from some of the president’s staunchest supporters regarding his increasingly mean-spirited attacks in response to the suffering and death of his enemies.

Trump drew scorn for celebrating the death of former special counsel and FBI Director Robert Mueller earlier this month, provoked Christian rebuke for attacking his political foes during the National Prayer Breakfast in February and prompted two-thirds disapproval from Republicans for mocking the late Hollywood director Rob Reiner after his own son gruesomely murdered him and his wife in December.

During his eulogy for the late Charlie Kirk at his memorial last September, Trump admitted that he “disagreed” with Kirk when it comes to forgiving one’s enemies, noting, “I hate my opponent.  And I don’t want the best for them.”

“Erika [Kirk], you can talk to me and the whole group, but maybe they can convince me that that’s not right, but I can’t stand my opponent,” he added to Kirk’s widow, who famously forgave her husband’s murderer during the same memorial.

Despite some accusations of cynicism from detractors on social media, Graham’s letter drew approval from figures such as evangelist and Trump supporter Sean Feucht, who expressed hope last fall that the 79-year-old president’s remarks could indicate that he is at least thinking about eternity and questioning where he will spend it.

“He has no shortage of people that have clearly explained to him on phone calls, on conference calls, in person ... about the forgiveness of sins, repentance, by grace alone you can be saved, not by works,” Feucht said at the time.  “He’s heard it many, many times.  However, I do think it is amazing that he is acknowledging now that his good works alone — all his wealth, all his fame, all his stature, all his accolades, all his power — is not enough to get him to Heaven, and he’s right.  And that takes humility,” said Feucht.  “I believe God is moving his heart closer than ever before,” he continued, adding that he is praying that Trump would have a public conversion experience before he leaves office.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Almost Unanimously, 1,200 TX School Districts Vote Against Allowing Prayer and Bible Reading Time in School

In Texas, the law allows public school districts to provide time for students and educators to pray or read the Bible or other religious texts during school.

Known as “SB11,” the statute said that school boards had to vote by March 1 whether to adopt a policy requiring schools in their district to provide a period of the school day during which students—at the direction of their parents—may pray and read their Bible or other religious text.  Under the law, such religious activity would occur in a designated space, pursuant to explicit parental permission, and would never be broadcast over the school public address system.

Implementing this policy was an opportunity for school districts to show how respectful they are to the presence of religion on a public-school campus.  Doing so would be a clear acknowledgement of tolerance and inclusion of religion, especially for so many students and teachers whose faith is a central part of their lives.

But most school districts missed a key opportunity to offer something of great benefit to their students and employees.  The vast majority voted against implementing the measure.  Only 15 out of 1,200 school districts in the Lone Star State voted in favor.

Many districts rejected the optional policy due to “data and safety concerns,” since, for accountability purposes, particularly in larger schools, there would need to be a record of the students who participated in the prayer time.  Apparently, the “record” of students participating in biology class poses no threat, but students praying and reading religious texts does?

Other school districts across the state invoked the tired phrase, “separation of Church and State,” in order to scare school officials into enforcing a public-school campus entirely sanitized of religion. These vocal opponents of SB11 fret that respecting and tolerating the religious practices of public-school students would cause division, steal valuable instructional time, or even “squeeze in Christian religious opportunities and principles into the school day itself.”

That was the concern of one political scientist interviewed on the topic whose hand wringing revealed she hoped school officials would reject the tolerant-of-religion approach of SB11.  After all, the “scientist” intoned these are “educational professionals, and they know what their principal task is, it’s to teach these students (to) prepare for adult life.”

Except that is emphatically not the duty of “educational professionals.”  U.S. Supreme Court Justice James McReynolds said more than 100 years ago, it is “the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life.”  That may mean employing professional educators to do so, but, as Justice McReynolds recognized just two years later, “The child is not the mere creature of the state.”  If he were, then perhaps “educational professionals” might determine their future.

Rather, Justice McReynolds continued, “those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”  (To be clear, by “those who nurture him” Justice McReynolds meant the student’s parents.)

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced the notion that parents drive the educational (and religious) upbringing of their students, declaring that “the right of parents ‘to direct the religious upbringing of their’ children would be an empty promise if it did not follow those children into the public school classroom.”

And, so, SB11 rested on the solid legal footing as one way of schools accommodating “the natural duty of the parent” in directing the religious upbringing of their children.  Can we not tolerate a few moments for students to pray and read their religious text, and adopt a policy that supports it?

A state-enforced secularism lacks neutrality to one of the most central aspects of the human condition: religion.  Wouldn’t a welcoming, tolerant public school recognize the important place religion holds in the lives of students across the State of Texas?

In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court further rejected the idea that the government must suppress private religious expression in public schools to avoid violating the Establishment Clause.  The Court emphasized that the Constitution protects private religious exercise, even in a public setting.

Rather, the Court noted, “The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike.”

Can school districts not muster “respect and tolerance” for religious views during a small portion of the public school day?  That they must resort to “censorship and suppression” by demanding school boards reject the opportunity SB11 affords its parents and students reveals much about their opinion of freedom.  To them, the State of Texas should enforce freedom for the secular, but never the religious.

“Respect for religious expressions”—yes, even of public-school students—“is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch in Kennedy.

We hear a lot about “mutual respect and tolerance” for different points of view, often from school board officials and administrators themselves.  School districts had the prime opportunity to show their resolve to tolerate the religious needs of their students by giving them a small period of the day to pray and read their Bible.  They chose not to do so.

Many of the school districts that rejected the bill probably hoped to set an example of freedom and diversity for their students.  But it seems they did quite the opposite.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel