What Does America Stand For?

America is 250 years old, and the race to define it is still as frantic as ever.  The traditional position defines our country as just that: a tradition — a centuries-old heritage of specific freedoms and rights, jealously guarded by those who understand these rights to best promote human flourishing and “the public good.”  The Declaration of Independence, written 250 years ago, appeals to these rights as a tradition already old, as it charges the British monarchy with more than two dozen violations.

The Declaration of Independence then fuses this tradition with a more abstract and universal declaration of liberty, best known in its declaration of self-evident truths: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  But the Declaration was merely a declaration, not a charter, and it took decades — even centuries — for the ideals first promulgated in the Declaration to be fully realized in the U.S.A.  That doesn’t make them untrue; it just means that real life is far more complicated than an abstract argument.

There is another narrative competing to define America.  The radical position interprets U.S. history through the matrix of critical theory and intersectionality, dividing us into classes of “oppressor” and “oppressed” by both immutable characteristics (race, sex, nation of origin) and mutable ones (religion, education, wealth, sexual orientation, gender identity).

This narrative, which traces its ancestry through Karl Marx to the anti-Christian French Revolution, deems America fundamentally evil.  The original sin is racism, the bitter fruit is segregation, and the current proof of guilt is any existing inequality, whether related to racism or not.  Because the evil institution of race-based slavery existed in America at its founding, the whole nation is judged to be unforgivably and irredeemably racist.  The largely discredited 1619 Project was the mouthpiece of this narrative, but its hold on American imaginations far exceeds the scope of that ill-fated exercise.

Indeed, the racial division this project fostered still strikes at the very core of American unity. “Nobody black I know is really excited about the 4th of July,” asserted progressive media personality Joy Reid in a recent podcast.  “It is the celebration of slaveholders who freed themselves from having to pay taxes to the Crown for their slave empire.” Instead, she explained, “Juneteenth to me is the real thing that the 4th of July is, because we really were not a democracy until we ended slavery.”

It’s hardly likely that most black people in America share Reid’s sour perspective on Independence Day.  But her perspective wins a disproportionate hearing because it is shared by so many of the highly-educated elites who shape American public discourse.

For the past decade, that anti-American perspective on American history has been on full display at one of the most recognizable historical sites of all, Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, specifically at the President’s House Site from which Presidents George Washington and John Adams administered the Constitution’s earliest years.

In a January essay, American Main Street Initiative president Jeffrey Anderson described the site’s bizarre presentation of American history.  “Of the 30 ‘interpretive’ signs on display in the President’s House area, 25 focus on slavery or race relations,” he recorded.  “One other sign is about the archaeological process.  Only the four remaining signs focus more broadly on the first two presidents’ actions.  Of those four, the largest, on ‘Executive Decisions,’ includes such topics as ‘Race, Ethnicity, & Country of Origin,’ ‘Closing the Doors Against “Dangerous Aliens,”’ and ‘Driving the Indian Nations Out of the Northwest Territory.’”

The signs singled out President Washington, the father of his country, the man who set a precedent for voluntarily relinquishing power not once but twice, for particular calumny. They accused him of “injustice” and “immorality,” describing his conduct as a slaveholder as hypocritical, “deplorable,” “profoundly disturbing,” and as having “mocked the nation’s pretense to be a beacon of liberty.”

One sign claimed that “[e]nslaved labor played a dominant … role in the nation’s economy,” although slavery’s presence in the south contributed to its eclipse by the industrializing [N]orth. One claimed that slaves “built … the nation” (how could it be both immigrants and slaves?). Another claimed that the President House’s “close proximity” to the Liberty Bell “reminds us that liberty was not originally intended for all.”

At times, the signs spun a narrative even beyond the facts, Anderson argued.  “A plaque states that ‘[a]s Washington and Adams governed the new nation, slavery continued to grow’ — right above statistics showing that the portion of the U.S. population held in slavery dropped from 17.7% in 1790 to 16.8% in 1800, and that by far the fastest-growing segment of the population over that decade was free black Americans,” he wrote.

Anderson faulted the signage for implying “that no hope of placing slavery on the course of ultimate extinction was ever realistic,” and for making “little to no mention … of Washington’s historic actions while living there: appointing an all-star first presidential cabinet and the first six Supreme Court justices; thoughtfully navigating early controversies over how best to construe powers granted under the Constitution … charting a steady course in foreign affairs, thereby keeping America out of European wars; willingly ceding presidential power after two terms.”  Nor does the signage acknowledge that Washington worked as president to sell off land he owned “with the secret intention of using the proceeds to make it more financially feasible to free his slaves,” Anderson said.

All this resulted in a situation where, “until the Trump Administration took action, Washington was more heavily criticized at Independence Park than George III,” said Anderson.  “The hero of the American Revolution was portrayed as the villain of Independence Park.”

As the foremost American, Washington bore an outsized share of criticism, but the signage criticizing him was part of a larger project to criticize America as a whole.  The “signs’ ‘Slavery Timeline’ amazingly didn’t even mention the Civil War — but did find the space to highlight Juneteenth,” Anderson observed.  “The site essentially ignored the watershed events that took place there during America’s first two presidencies, and it discussed slavery without any nuance or even-handedness.”

Incredibly, these signs were installed before the exhibit opened in 2010, during the Obama Administration, and nearly a decade before the 1619 Project.  However, Anderson noted, the National Park Service (NPS) “Long-Range Interpretive Plan” was finalized in 2007 under President Bush.  Wokeness was already creeping through the government.

Anderson was not the first to notice the slanted signage at the Philadelphia President’s House. Soon after its installation, New York Times critic Edward Rothstein described the result: “an important desire to reveal what was once hidden ends up pulling down nearly everything else, leaving a landscape as starkly unreal as the one in which Washington could never tell a lie.  It is not really a reinterpretation of history; it overturns the idea of history, making it subservient to the claims of contemporary identity politics,” he wrote. “It would allow no differentiation and qualification, treating the site almost as if it were the Slave Market of Charleston.”

However, Anderson did raise the problems with the signs back to the attention of public debate.  With its characteristic dispatch, the Trump Administration’s NPS took down the woke signs shortly after Anderson’s essay was published.  And the NPS began a process of drafting and installing more proportional (and therefore accurate) signage. Unfortunately, nearly every action taken by the Trump Administration — no matter how well grounded in law — is followed immediately by a left-wing lawsuit, and the removal of these signs was no exception.

“Philadelphia sued in federal court and won at the district court level,” Anderson summarized. “The NPS put some of the signs back up before the Third Circuit Court issued a stay in response to the Trump Administration’s appeal, ordering that no further signs be hung until that court hears oral arguments on June 2.”

Of all the things on which the City of Philadelphia could focus its time and attention, it has chosen to quibble with the NPS over signage at an NPS site.

The City of Philadelphia’s lawsuit was supported by amicus briefs from Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate Caucus and the Avenging the Ancestors Coalition (ATAC, pronounced “attack”), a left-wing group that sponsors “Anti-July Fourth Day” events. ATAC founder Michael Coard declared that “July Fourth is a celebration of … rapes, castrations, lynchings, and enslavement,” and people who celebrate it are “traitors” who “embrace whiteness” and “the 1776 birth of the racist American nation.”

ATAC boasts that it “embedded” itself in the pre-2010 “development” of the President’s House site.  And now the radical signage makes a bit more sense.

Anderson spares more attention for the Pennsylvania Senate Democrats, whom he contends are simply wrong on the history.  They argued that “the 1787 U.S. Constitution denied the rights and humanity of enslaved people” by “failing to end the institution of slavery,” and that the Constitutional Convention “denied the slaves’ ‘humanity’ by ‘adopting the Three-Fifths Compromise,’” as Anderson summarized.

“But eliminating slavery wasn’t as simple as waving a wand, as the NPS’s replacement signs make clear.  Those signs note that it ‘took Lincoln and a bloody Civil War to finish the work that the Founders had begun and end slavery in the United States once and for all,’” Anderson responded.

As for the Three-Fifths Compromise, “The Pennsylvania Democrats could profit from reading the new NPS signs, which explain that ‘slave-holding delegates wanted enslaved people counted as whole persons to increase their political power,’” he continued, citing James Madison’s notes from the convention.  “In short, the injustice of the three-fifths clause was not that enslaved people weren’t counted fully, but rather that they were counted at all — thereby padding Southern representation in the House.”

The amicus brief charged the Trump NPS with obscuring “historical truths” by replacing the signs, but those signs often added information inconvenient to the simplistic, Marxist narrative that viewed America as fundamentally evil for the original sin of racial slavery.

Instead, Anderson notes one of the new NPS signs added a little-known piece of color about the lives of the slaves living there during Washington’s presidency.  “Slaves living in the President’s House” were at times “able to explore the city and sometimes even attend the theater, with Washington buying the tickets.”  The fascinating fact is hard to fit with any narrative; real life is far more complex because people are complicated.

More generally, Anderson writes, “Echoing Lincoln’s observations in his 1860 Cooper Union address, the new NPS signs note, ‘The words “slave” and “slavery” are not in the U.S. Constitution as ratified, nor the word “property” in connection with language alluding to slavery.’  These signs add, ‘At the Constitutional Convention, James Madison, a Virginian, said it would be “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man.”’”

In other words, many of the Founders, even Founders who owned slaves, recognized slavery as a moral wrong inconsistent with the principles they were trying to form in the new American government.  They therefore took actions to inhibit and restrict slavery, even though they failed to abolish it outright, or bear the personal cost of doing right by their slaves.  But an honest retelling of history must present the full picture, showing them as neither angels nor villains.

The Founders were men.  They faced problems and conundrums and made compromises, including moral ones.  Are politicians any better today?  The Founders also made many outstanding decisions that have withstood the test of time.  It is for these that they deserve to be remembered, not for their failures.  Their failures humanize them.  Their successes provide models from which government officials today (not to mention private citizens) can benefit.

The fate of the signage in Independence Park still rests in the hands of the courts. Indeed, the content of signage at NPS locations across the nation is currently under judicial review, as the Trump Administration seeks to correct decades of leftward drift in the federal bureaucracy.

Of course, the battle to define America’s identity stretches beyond the court system.  The contest between the traditional position and the radical position remains hotly contested, and every American stands on the front lines.  So, when you gather with family and friends at a backyard cookout, what stories do you tell?  What does America stand for?

 

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

If You Forget the Story, You Lose Your Identity

More than two decades ago, in 2004, Harvard professor Samuel Huntington warned in his book “Who Are We?” that America was facing a crisis of identity.  He argued that a nation cannot remain united without a common culture, a common history, and a common understanding of itself.  Remove those foundations, and a society inevitably fragments into competing tribes, interests, and identities.

Huntington pointed to the Anglo-Protestant Creed as the core of America’s unifying identity. He argued that America’s political institutions and civic ideals did not arise in a vacuum but were rooted in a culture shaped by Protestant Christianity.  If Huntington identified the foundation of America’s shared identity, educator E.D. Hirsch explained how that identity was transmitted: through a common biblical literacy that provided Americans with a shared vocabulary, history, and moral framework.  Without that shared knowledge, the cultural foundations of national identity inevitably begin to erode.

The Founding Fathers were immersed in biblical imagery. Benjamin Franklin famously proposed a national seal depicting Moses at the Red Sea.  The Israelites’ exodus taught lessons about liberty, tyranny, divine providence, and national purpose.

The Bible shaped how Americans understood freedom, law, covenant, human dignity, and self-government.  Even those who were not orthodox Christians were influenced by the biblical worldview that permeated colonial America.

But what happens when that biblical literacy disappears?

A nation that forgets its story loses its identity.  And when a people lose their identity, they become fragmented.  That is precisely what Huntington warned about.  Americans increasingly identify themselves by race, class, political ideology, or special interest rather than by a common national story.

The consequences of this loss of historical memory extend beyond America’s understanding of itself.  They also affect America’s understanding of one of the most important sources of its cultural inheritance: the Jewish people and the biblical story of Israel.

America’s affinity for the Jewish people did not begin with the modern State of Israel. For generations, Americans viewed Jewish history through the lens of Scripture and found in Israel’s story lessons about liberty, covenant, and national purpose.

As biblical literacy declines, Israel is increasingly viewed only through a contemporary political lens, ignoring its biblical and historical foundations.  Meanwhile, anti-Semitism has risen across America and the West.  Certainly, anti-Semitism has many causes.  Yet it is difficult to ignore the connection between a society that no longer understands the Bible and one that increasingly misunderstands the Jewish people whose history fills its pages.

The rise of anti-Semitism and the weakening of support for Israel did not occur overnight. The ground was prepared over decades as biblical literacy declined, historical memory faded, and Americans became disconnected from the sources that once helped them understand both their own identity and the identity of the Jewish people.

As America celebrates its 250th anniversary, we have an opportunity not merely to commemorate our history but to recover it.  We can rediscover the biblical foundations that shaped our nation and strengthen the shared identity Huntington warned was slipping away.

The Bible is not merely a religious text but one of the foundational documents of American civilization.  To understand America, one must understand the Bible.  And when that understanding is lost, we lose not only part of our history but part of our identity.

 

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

Judaism, Christianity, Islam Are Different Seasons of the Same Show

TX State Representative James Talarico (D) claimed in an interview this year that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are each different seasons of the same show, with Christianity as “the most violent.”  The remark extends a string of scandalizing statements by the self-described seminarian.  It is most noteworthy because it was not some past comment dredged from the depths of the internet, but it came during his current campaign for U.S. Senate, during an interview for a profile published in The New Yorker on February 23, 2026.

Referring to his campaign manager, Seth Krasne, Talarico said, “Seth and I talk about how Judaism is Season One of the show, Christianity is Season Two, and Islam is Season Three. I’m Season Two — the most violent season.  My religion has done more damage to both of those religions than they’ve done to each other.”

Few politicians can pack theological errors together as concisely as Talarico.  Here, Talarico sounds as if he is half-responding to subjects he half-learned.  These comments serve Talarico’s political purposes nicely (denigrating Christianity and praising Islam both appeal to the Democratic base), but he would be too intelligent to defend the substance of these comments if ever forced to think below the surface.

The first absurd claim is that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are Seasons One, Two, and Three, implicitly of the same show.  The claim suggests that these religions are fundamentally alike and therefore equal and interchangeable.  At root is the progressive belief that all religions are fundamentally about keeping behavior within acceptable limits.

Such notions may pass for wisdom in a class on Comparative Religion, which “is so much a matter of degree and distance and difference that it is only comparatively successful,” quips G.K. Chesterton in “The Everlasting Man.”  “We are accustomed to see the names of the great religious founders all in a row: Christ; Mahomet; Buddha; Confucius.  But in truth this is only a trick. … Those religions and religious founders, or rather those whom we choose to lump together as religions and religious founders, do not really show any common character.”  Chesterton grants that “Islam did come after Christianity and was largely an imitation of Christianity,” but it does not follow that the two should be lumped together as the same.

The most glaring difference is the God they worship.  Christians worship a personal, triune God; Muslims mock the notion of a trinity and maintain that Allah is so transcendent as to have no personal relationship with his creatures.  Jews likewise deny the Trinity, making the Christian God fundamentally distinct than the objects of worship in either Judaism or Islam.

The identity of God is a core principle for any religious system.  Fundamental differences here introduce fundamental consistencies when trying to string different religions together.  

Countless other doctrinal differences between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam could be described, including different understandings of salvation, holiness, revelation, and eschatology.

The one difference most relevant to highlight here is the disparate understandings of the relationship between church and state.  Christianity fundamentally divides church from state as two separate realms of authority.  Jesus taught, “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).  Even when Roman emperors began to claim jurisdiction over Christianity in the fourth century, some Christians pushed back. “What has the emperor to do with the church?” protested the North African Bishop Donatus in AD 347.  Christianity offers freedom, and so the church’s mission cannot be combined with state compulsion.

Islam, by contrast, is all about submission (as its very name means).  Islam recognizes no distinction between church and state; Islamic governments are inherently religious, and they enforce submission to Islam with the power of the sword.

This leads us to consider Talarico’s second absurd claim, that Christianity is the “most violent” of the three monotheistic religions.  Talarico has in mind the Crusades, a series of campaigns undertaken by Medieval Christendom to retake political control over the Holy Land, in which Jesus lived and died.

However, there are two major flaws with judging Christianity to be the “most violent” religion because of the Crusades.  The first is implied by the prefix of the word “retake.” Those who condemn Christianity for the Crusades usually stop their historical inquiry at around AD 1000. If we travelled further back in time to say, the sixth century, we would find flourishing, predominantly Christian societies in what would now be Tunisia, parts of Syria, and parts of Turkey.  Christians also played significant and influential roles in Egypt, the Levant, and other Roman provinces ringing the Mediterranean.

What happened to all those communities?  When Mohammed invented Islam in the early seventh century, Muslims launched a rapid campaign of conquest and forcible conversion, demolishing (not all, but many) Christian communities that had existed for centuries.  The westward tide of the Muslim conquest was not stemmed until Charles Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne, defeated a Moorish raid in central France at the Battle of Tours in 732.  In the east, Constantinople long impeded Islamic expansion, but after its fall in 1453 Muslim armies dominated eastern Europe for more than two centuries.  The apex of Muslim expansion in the east was the 1683 siege of Vienna, which was only broken by a famous Polish cavalry charge.

Even today, Islam commits far more violence against Christianity than vice versa.  From Madagascar to Congo to Sudan to Nigeria, it is Muslims killing Christians, not the other way around.  Christians face systematic persecution in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Muslim countries that is categorically worse than the freedom offered in countries (like the U.S.) long influenced by Christianity.

In summary, if it comes to comparing whether Muslims or Christians have invaded more of the other’s lands, Islam is by far the worse aggressor.

Yet such analysis is inadvisable due to the second major flaw in Talarico’s argument, which has to do with the difference between Islam and Christianity as religions.  Islam is a political religion, so when an Islamic ruler conquers territory, it is fair to say that Islam has conquered that territory.

Christianity is fundamentally different.  As Jesus explained, “My kingdom is not of this world.  If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews.  But My kingdom is not from the world” (John 18:36).  Recall the distinction made earlier between the Christian church and the state, which should lead us to distinguish “Christianity” (the religion of Jesus) from “Christendom” (a political and cultural arrangement with official state recognition of Christianity).  Although the church can wield spiritual authority over rulers, it cannot wield political authority.  Thus, when a king calls out his army and goes to war, even if he does it in the name of Christianity, it is not Christianity doing the fighting.

Consider too that Christians distinguish between deeds of the flesh and deeds of the Spirit, and they hold that every believer is locked in a lifelong conflict between his former, worldly way of life and a new, spiritual way of life.  Even if a ruler is a genuine Christian, he can still act in a worldly, un-Christian way.  Any worldly king can embark upon unjustified wars of conquest; therefore, such actions are worldly, not spiritual.  Even if a Christian king embarks upon an unjust war in the name of Christianity, it is not Christianity doing the fighting.

Thus, to call Christianity the “most violent” religion, Talarico must 1) ignore Islam’s bloody track record; 2) dissolve distinctions between Christianity and Islam; and 3) ignore Christianity’s own self-understanding.

This analysis has largely compared Christianity and Islam, while setting aside Judaism, the third religion.  The reason is that Judaism had no political power for about 1800 years after the Romans destroyed their homeland.  In every place they dwelt, they were a persecuted minority just trying to survive.  Thus, they do not present equal data for comparison.

But if Talarico really wants to know how much damage one religion can do to another, he should ask some Jews what they think about an Islamic mosque sitting on the site of the Jewish temple.  There are no churches in Mecca, nor in fact are any public churches permitted in all of Saudi Arabia.

Thus, Talarico’s surprising claim turns out to be groundless.  The religion of love that worships a crucified Messiah has actually not morphed into the bloodiest religion.  In times when Christianity had only nominal influence over the actions of temporal rulers, those rulers did claim to commit deeds of violence in the name of Christianity.  But such violence was no more Christian than it was pacifist.  Christianity has always faced libel and slander, so why should it receive anything different now from “a Christian who hates Christianity”?

 

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

The Verdict for Same-Sex Marriage Is In

As this year’s Pride Month comes to a close, there is some not so good news for the LGBTQIA+ movement.  According to Gallup’s latest annual survey, public support for same-sex marriage, the morality of homosexual conduct, and transgenderism has declined significantly over the past 11-years.

Support for same-sex marriage has fallen six percentage points from its high point in 2022 and 2023.  The percentage of Americans who believe same-sex sexual behavior is morally acceptable has dropped to 62%, its lowest level since 2016, the year after the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges forced states to recognize same-sex marriages.  The most dramatic shift, however, has come on transgenderism.  The percentage of Americans who view attempting to change one’s sex as morally acceptable has declined eight percentage points since 2021 and now stands at just 38%.

Why is this happening?  After all, major social changes have historically become more accepted over time, not less.  Americans are increasingly reconsidering what they were told because they have now lived with the results.  The experiment is no longer theoretical.  It has become personal.

Take interracial marriage.  In 1965, 48% of Americans favored state laws banning interracial marriage.  Two years later, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that such laws were unconstitutional because they amounted to “invidious racial discrimination.” While controversial in its day, that decision did not redefine the God-given meaning of marriage.  Rather, it affirmed the complementarian nature of marriage. As Americans witnessed the results, public acceptance steadily grew.  Today, according to Gallup, support for interracial marriage has reached a record high of 94%.

Clearly, that is not what has happened with same-sex marriage and the broader sexual ideology promoted during Pride Month.

Those of us who fought to preserve the natural and biblical understanding of marriage were often dismissed when we warned that redefining marriage would have consequences reaching far beyond marriage licenses.  I remember having a discussion in which a person in a same-sex relationship, asked me, “How does my relationship affect your marriage?”

“It doesn’t affect my marriage,” I replied.  “But it will affect our culture.  It will affect what my grandchildren are taught in school.  It will normalize something that God’s Word teaches is contrary to His design.”

That was always the point.  The debate was never about its impact on my marriage.  It was about the impact it would have in our schools, our laws, our institutions, and ultimately in the lives of the next generation.

Time could have proved those concerns unfounded.  The promise of “marriage equality” was that it was simply about allowing committed same-sex couples to formalize their relationships. Americans were assured that nothing else would change.  But that is not what happened.

More than a decade after the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell, Americans are no longer evaluating promises, they are evaluating results.  They are changing their minds not because someone crafted a better political argument, but because they have witnessed consequences many were assured would never come.

They have seen:

• Pride parades in major cities where public nudity and sexually explicit displays are celebrated in full view of families and children;
• Major corporations, universities, and professional sports organizations pressuring employees and athletes to affirm an ever-expanding list of sexual identities;
• Schools and entertainment normalizing gender ideology for children while Gallup reports that the percentage of Americans identifying as LGBTQ has more than doubled since 2012;
• A growing commercial surrogacy industry that intentionally deprives children of either their mother, their father, or both;
• Marriage continuing its long decline while birth rates fall to historic lows.

Perhaps nowhere have those consequences become more visible than in the rise of transgender ideology.  The “T” in the LGBTQ acronym has been used to justify policies that would have been unimaginable just a decade ago.  Young children are told they can decide whether they are boys or girls because sex is merely “assigned at birth.” Teenagers are given puberty blockers that interrupt normal development.  Radical surgeries with lifelong consequences are carried out on minors and young adults. Schools across the country facilitate gender transitions while keeping parents in the dark.

These are not isolated incidents.  Americans have also watched biological males enter girls’ locker rooms, compete in girls’ sports, and gain access to spaces long reserved for women. Millions of Americans are now connecting the dots.  They are seeing the fruit of abandoning God’s design for marriage, family, and the two sexes.  Once marriage is detached from the complementary union of man and woman, it becomes increasingly difficult to explain why mothers and fathers matter, why men and women are different, or why children have a right to both.

As we mark the 11th anniversary of Obergefell, Americans are no longer arguing over predictions; they are judging outcomes.  They have watched the promises of marriage redefinition play out in their schools, businesses, athletic competitions, churches, and families.

Increasingly, the American people are rendering their own verdict.  The great experiment of redefining marriage and reinventing the family has produced its results.  Americans are no longer judging promises — they are judging outcomes.  The debate over the Sexual Revolution is no longer about its promises.  It is about its consequences.

 

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

AI Is Not Just a Technology Problem – It’s a Church Discipleship Test

Over the past several months, there has been Christian fellowship discussions about artificial intelligence (AI) in four different states — not academic seminars or policy forums, but gatherings of ordinary believers: retirees, parents, teenagers, craftsmen, and church members meeting in homes, parks, and fellowship halls, wrestling with a world that keeps changing faster than most people can pray through.

One afternoon in Jackson, Wyoming, the pattern came into focus.  After the Sunday service, a community group of believers pulled chairs under a tree in a public park. Children played nearby.  Questions flew: “What exactly is this technology?”  “Can we trust it?”  Then the one that lingered: “What is it doing to our children, our churches, and our walk with Christ?”

Listen: AI is not merely a technological development.  It is a discipleship test for the church.

A Formation System, Not Just a Tool

The church has navigated disruptive technologies before — the printing press, radio, television, the internet.  What sets AI apart is that it does not merely carry information from one place to another.  It shapes how people think, what they desire, and how they read the world around them.

AI as a formation system — something that trains habits, narrows attention, and quietly rewires judgment through repetition.  That is a different category of concern than a hammer or a calculator.

James asks, “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach” (James 1:5, ESV).  The text assumes that wisdom flows from a personal God who knows us — not from a system that predicts our next word based on statistical patterns. When those two sources of guidance get confused in the believer’s daily life, the consequences are not merely practical.  They are spiritual.

Believers describe routing faith questions through an AI chatbot before they pick up their Bible or call their pastor.  One mother said her adult daughter forwards AI-generated answers to life questions for a second opinion.  In that case, a gospel conversation followed.  But the underlying question is: Who is forming whom?

When Convenience Becomes Authority

The most telling dynamic in these discussions is not opposition to AI.  It is deference to it.  People consult the algorithm first — before Scripture, before their pastor, before a trusted friend.  The shift does not happen through a deliberate choice.  It happens because the machine is there, instant, and confident.  Convenience, over time, becomes authority.

When an algorithm becomes the dominant voice on matters of truth and meaning — including spiritual matters — the problem has moved out of the technology column and into the theology column.

The Apostle John’s command runs across centuries to reach this moment: “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1, ESV).  Testing spirits requires the capacity to discern.  That capacity is built through prayer, Scripture, and embodied community — none of which an AI system supplies.

Jeremiah warned a generation that had stopped listening: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9, ESV).  A machine trained on the output of deceitful hearts carries that problem forward at scale.  It does not correct for human fallenness.  It amplifies it.

The Front Line: Our Children

If the church is catching up to AI, our children are already inside it — and the research numbers are not reassuring.

A nationally representative RAND survey conducted in late 2025 found that roughly one in eight American adolescents and young adults — an estimated 8.2 million young people — were already turning to AI chatbots for mental health guidance, and most were doing so without telling anyone.  A follow-up study published in JAMA Pediatrics in June 2026 put the figure at nearly one in five — a sharp climb in a single year.

An algorithm carries no moral responsibility.  It cannot love, it cannot grieve over a teenager’s pain, and it cannot be held to account when its counsel leads somewhere harmful.  It produces a response based on probability, not truth.  It knows nothing of the soul before it.

Proverbs 11:14 says, “Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety” (ESV).  Scripture pictures a community of embodied, accountable counselors — men and women who know the person they advise.  No chatbot qualifies.

This is not a secondary issue for the church.  AI is already shaping how the next generation understands identity, suffering, and where to go in crisis.

What the Church Must Do

The question is not whether AI will touch the life of the church.  It already has.  The question is whether the church will disciple believers in how to live faithfully within that reality.

Three things are necessary.

Scripture must hold its place as the final authority.  Paul wrote to Timothy: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17, ESV).  An AI system can summarize a passage.  It cannot breathe life into it.

Prayer must come before the search bar.  Not as a rule, but as a posture — a recognition that the One who knows us fully is available before we reach for any device.

And fellowship must remain the primary context of discipleship.  The writer of Hebrews was direct: believers must keep “not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another” (Hebrews 10:24–25, ESV).  Formation happens in person, not through a server.

Clarity, Not Fear

None of this requires technological withdrawal.  Christians are called to engage their world, not to leave it.  AI will keep advancing, and it will bring real benefits alongside real dangers.  But clarity is not optional.

AI is not merely changing what we do.  It is pressing on who we are becoming.  That is why the church must respond — not with alarm, but with conviction, truth, and the kind of faithful discipleship that no algorithm can replace.  No algorithm.

 

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

MLB Official Warns Christian Athletes Against Referencing Scripture on Pride Caps

Despite discouraging “Pride” ballcaps in a 2023 directive, Major League Baseball (MLB) is now siding with one team that retained them against a quiet player protest.  Soon after several players on the San Francisco Giants restored their team’s “Pride Night” rainbow hats to the rainbow’s original Genesis context, MLB chief communications officer Pat Courtney responded with a warning, “The writing on the cap violates our rules, and consistent with normal practice, we have warned the players about future violations.”

The warning followed activist criticism, with New York Times sports writer Grant Brisbee complaining that the Christian players made “Pride” night “about ‘us versus them’” in a “tone-deaf response.”

Technically speaking, the league may have a point.  The MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement for 2022-2026 stipulates that “No alterations, writing or illustrations, other than as authorized herein, are to be made to any part of the uniform.”  This line appears to apply the 2026 Official Baseball Rules, which require that “All players on a team shall wear uniforms identical in color, trim and style.”

The rules show zero tolerance for violations of this rule, declaring that “No player whose uniform does not conform to that of his teammates shall be permitted to participate in a game.”

In practice, however, the MLB has often given latitude — as even the past weekend demonstrates.  Landen Roupp, J.T. Brubaker, and Nick Ahmed were all permitted to participate in the game, despite writing Bible verses on their caps.  Sam Hentges wore the team’s usual cap instead of the rainbow version, and he was allowed to participate, too.

By permitting these players to compete, the league tacitly recognized their right to express themselves by writing on a part of the uniform that the league itself had turned into a public forum.

There are past examples of cap-writing as well.  During the 2025 World Series, players from both teams wrote “#51” to support a player with a recent family tragedy.  In 2025, Dodgers reliever Blake Treinen drew a tribute to Charlie Kirk on his cap, and Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershaw wrote the same Bible reference on his “Pride” night hat.  All the way back in 2021, two players wrote “SOS CUBA” on their caps for the All-Star Game.

Thus, the public reprimand of Giants players who dared to reference the Bible seems to contradict the MLB’s past practice, raising suspicions that they singled Bible verses out for special punishment, after pro-LGBT complaints.

This special animus reserved for Christians sings the same tune as Sean Hudson, a former communications director for the Washington Nationals, who was fired earlier this month for intentionally discriminating against a player for his Christian beliefs and then admitting as much on camera.  (In other words, he not only harbored animus against Christians, but he felt so secure in his animus that he didn’t mind broadcasting it to those around him — what a disturbing picture about the state of the league.)

“This does not appear to be an isolated incident,” wrote Senator Josh Hawley (MO-R) in a letter to MLB Commissioner Robert Manfred, in which he expressed “grave concern” over the warnings issued to the three Giants players.  “Your organization’s recent action follows an undercover investigation which revealed an admission from a Washington Nationals executive that a Catholic player on the team was not included in promotional materials for the team because of his faith.  That executive has since been fired, but not before the anti-Christian bigotry was exposed.”

Hawley’s concern was “sharpened by the singular legal position that MLB occupies,” a “sweeping, judicially manufactured exemption from the federal antitrust law,” he said.  “A league that benefits from such an extraordinary dispensation owes the public a corresponding measure of accountability, and it invites the closest scrutiny when it appears to wield its market power to punish Americans for their beliefs.”

The MLB did not have to respond this way.  Giants team manager Tony Vitello modeled a much more mature (and American) response when he brushed off the controversy by saying that “individuals have the freedom to do what they think is best.”  Comedian Rob Schneider announced that he would cover any fines the league issued against the three players.  Both responses serve as foils to the league’s cowardly placation of the activist class.

On a deeper level, the real reason why activists demanded punishment for the protest was that it was so apt and effective.  If the Scripture quotation had been Philippians 4:13 (taken out of context), or even John 3:16, they may not have minded.  But, since it directly countered and redefined the LGBT appropriation of the rainbow, it was too infuriating and effective to be left unanswered.

Readers may have noticed thematic parallels with the narrative Luke sets forth in Acts 4-5. There, the custodians of a false religion insist that the church stop teaching in Jesus’s name (Acts 4:18, 5:28).  Their motives are annoyance (Acts 4:2), jealousy (Acts 5:17), and a realization that the teaching they oppose directly implicates them as guilty (Acts 5:28).  There also, cooler heads advised that these censorious leaders would do best to just let the Christians alone to live their lives (Acts 5:38).

Admittedly, the situations are different in many ways.  The stakes in Acts are literally life and death, not to mention the very survival of the early church.  A controversy over baseball caps is piddling by comparison.  And the key figures in Acts are literally the men Jesus entrusted with spreading His Church; the Giants players are just ordinary Christians.

But “whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction” (Romans 15:4), and the apostles’ response models the way Christians should respond to similar demands today. When ordered to abandon their public witness and stop living like Christians for all the world to see, the apostles answered, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20).  Or, more succinctly, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

It takes a lot of courage to take such a stand when there are personal costs and consequences.  But Christians know how to find courage, because the source of our courage is God, and his ear is always receptive to the pleas of his children.  Here too, the apostles modeled a response that Christians should still follow.  Between their first and second interrogations they prayed, “Lord, look upon their threats and grant to Your servants to continue to speak Your Word with all boldness” (Acts 4:29).

What these Christian players bearing witness to God’s Word amid a hostile culture need right now is the prayers of other Christians, that they might find the courage to stand unwavering on the truth of God’s Word.  This is not ultimately to “win” a cultural skirmish, but to present a winsome witness to a skeptical culture, that many might be drawn to repent and believe, to the glory of God.

 

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

Red States Demand EPA Take Action to Protect Women from Abortion Drug Water Contamination

Republicans are calling on federal authorities to impose stringent regulations on the abortion drug mifepristone, citing the dangers posed by the drug’s largely unregulated use to Americans’ drinking water.  A coalition of 15 red state attorneys general is urging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to add mifepristone to the agency’s Contaminant Candidate List, which would likely trigger safety studies and potentially stricter regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act.  The latest state to join the effort was Indiana.

IN Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) said in a press release last week that the use of the abortion drug is “causing pain and suffering to women. … Obviously, this starts with the individuals persuaded by Planned Parenthood and Big Pharma to use mifepristone to abort their pregnancies, but increasingly it extends to other women who might ingest the drug from their local water supplies.”  Rokita noted that when a woman ingests mifepristone, whether via the drug in pill form or via mifepristone contaminating drinking water, the chemicals block the natural production of the hormone progesterone and erodes an unborn baby’s uterine environment.  “The baby, in effect, is starved to death in the womb,” Rokita said.

MO Attorney General Catherine Hanaway (R) initiated the effort petitioning the EPA to consider regulating the abortion drug.  “Without a physician’s oversight, we don’t know what’s happening to the medical waste from the abortions, and, frankly, we don’t know what’s happening to the medications,” Hanaway stressed in a “Washington Watch” interview.  Noting that mifepristone is increasingly being prescribed remotely and shipped via the mail, with almost no federal safeguards, she added, “Some of these women may, after receiving it in the mail, decide not to use it and end up flushing it into the systems, in which case it’s coming in in its full concentration” into the local water supply.  “The worst thing, in my mind, that could possibly happen is that a woman who is trying to have a baby drinks water in her community that’s contaminated and loses her baby as a result of the medical waste that has gone into that system.”

The drug is not only being used to commit abortions, Hanaway warned, but has also been linked to increased infertility issues, posing a risk to women who unknowingly consume the drug or traces of the drug via the local water supply.  “That’s really, really tragic.  I just can’t even imagine how sad you would be if you were somebody who’d been trying for a long time to have a child and got pregnant, and then an abortion was caused by your drinking water, which is a real threat here,” Hanaway asserted.  “The EPA has all kinds of standards for the quality of our drinking water.  To me, taking out a chemical that is literally lethal to human life should be a no-brainer,” she added.  “All we’re asking them to do is take a hard look at this chemical, what the effects are, and to make sure that we aren’t causing abortions, that we aren’t having an impact that makes women less fertile,” Hanaway continued.  “We really don’t know what the effects of this drug are on young girls who are just going through puberty and how they develop.  We want all those questions answered.”

In March, Rep. Mary Miller (IL-R) introduced the Clean Water for All Life Act last week, legislation which would require an in-person doctor’s office visit for the abortion drug to be prescribed, a physician to be present for the abortion, and the provision of a “catch kit” to prevent contaminated blood and aborted tissue from entering American waterways. Abortionists who fail to adhere to the bill’s provisions would face up to five years in prison and up to $50,000 in fines.  “It’s degrading human dignity and contaminating our environment,” Miller said of the abortion drug’s largely unregulated remote prescription and shipping via mail. “These do-it-yourself, at-home, chemical abortion pills are allowing women to expel the baby into the toilet, and it’s going into our wastewater.”

A report from Students for Life of America (SFLA) found that at least 50 tons of abortion-related waste is dumped into American waterways annually due to the abortion drug. SFLA described that metric as a “conservative estimate” and that the real number may be closer to 65 tons of abortion-related waste annually, including traces of mifepristone, water contaminated by mifepristone, and even aborted fetal tissue.

As early as 2025, congressional Republicans have been warning against the potentially harmful effects of mifepristone contaminating American waterways.  “[M]ifepristone is a potent progesterone blocker that disrupts hormonal balance in pregnant women to induce abortion. This raises questions about the drug’s potential endocrine-disrupting effects when present in drinking water supplies,” a coalition of more than two dozen Republican legislators said in a letter last year to the EPA.  “If residual amounts of the drug and its metabolites persist in wastewater, prolonged exposure could potentially interfere with a person’s fertility, regardless of sex.”

 

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

Is Mormonism Christian? The Pentagon’s List Pushed the Issue

Last week, the Pentagon announced that it would update again its updated list of recognized religious groups, which reduced the number from 180 to 31.

The purpose of revising the list was to “streamline the Department of War (DoW) collection of religious preferences for service members to enhance the delivery of targeted religious support from the Chaplaincy.”  On the new list, in addition to groups such as Agnostics, Baha’i, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, and two catch-all’s of “No Religion” and “Other Religion,” 22 groups were listed as “Christian.”

However, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), often known as the Mormon Church, was not labeled “Christian” like the Baptists, Roman Catholics, Methodists, and many others.  Oddly, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists were labeled “Christian,” but LDS were not.  And that sparked enough significant outrage that the DoW has now revised its new list again, removing the “Christian” designation from all groups.

This satisfied Senator Mike Lee of UT, the loudest critic of the original list, demanding in a post on X, “Can anyone tell me why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was left out of the list of Christian churches?”  The answer was, apparently, “yes.” Christians from across doctrinal traditions responded to the senator that the most important reason is that the Mormon religion is not Christian.

Of course, it did not make sense to deprive Mormonism of the label while including Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientists.  And, as the DoW admitted, “The Pentagon’s job is not to adjudicate theological debates, but instead to ensure sincerely-held faith is respected and encouraged in our ranks.”  Still, the debate about what it means to be Christian clearly needed to happen.

The most common claim from Mormons was that Christian is in the name, as in “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” and that the doctrinal differences are secondary. However, using the same vocabulary does not mean we are using the same dictionary.  When it comes to the contrast between Mormonism and Christianity, the differences make all the difference in the world. 

For example, as Allie Beth Stuckey and many others noted, the LDS rejection of the Trinity is enough to disqualify them from Christianity.  Acton Institute founder Fr. Robert Sirico acknowledged Lee’s gracious tone but pointed to the inadequate portrayal of Jesus in the Book of Mormon and other LDS sources.  Kyle Beshears, author of 40 Questions About Mormonism, pointed out that the LDS Church claims to be “the restored church distinct from a fallen Christendom... ”  And if that is the case, “why is being listed separately a grievance?”

The foundational claim of the LDS Church is that revelations by Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century uncovered what Christians had lost over the generations in a “Great Apostasy.”  So, Mormons rejected essential Christian doctrine such as the Trinity and Christ’s status as eternally divine.  To Jesus’ work, which the author of Hebrews claimed was complete in the crucifixion and resurrection, the Book of Mormon claims additional work in the Americas. As author E. Stephen Burnett put it, the Book of Mormon is “like putting self-insert fanfiction into The Lord of the Rings and insisting Tolkien also wrote this new ‘canon.’”  The two stories are too different for both to be true.

The LDS Church is free to make their case about God, Jesus, the Bible, faith, the afterlife, and any other detailed differences from orthodox Christian belief.  Despite struggling to do that, they still demand Christians embrace their claims.  But we cannot. Ed Stetzer, Dean of the Talbot School of Theology, offered a straight-forward account as to why: 

“Wanting to use the Christian label without believing biblical Christian theology simply will not work.  The fundamental beliefs of Mormonism about Jesus and Scripture are not the same as historic, orthodox Christianity.  Paul warned about preaching a different Jesus.  We affirm the Bible as the Word of God.  This means we reject the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, or The Pearl of Great Price.  Can you believe, for instance, that Muhammad is not the prophet and still call yourself a Muslim?  The vast majority of Muslims would say you cannot.  For Christians, calling yourself a Christian while not believing that God has always existed as the triune Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is just as inconceivable.  It may be unpopular to state your belief that a certain religious group is not actually Christian, but it is true.”

 

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

Republicans Are Rebranding June from Pride Month to Honor Biblical Values

Republican governors across the US are offering Biblically framed alternatives to June LGBTQ Pride Month celebrations, in turn celebrating God’s design for families.

Red states are using the opportunity to promote a variety of messages.  For example, some are seeking to protect unborn life as a necessary step to support the nuclear family.

OK Gov. Kevin Stitt posted on social media, “God authors every life.  As image bearers, there is inherent dignity and value in every human life.  That’s why Oklahoma is proud to declare June as Life Month.”

As Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) News recently reported, TN Gov. Bill Lee rebranded June as Nuclear Family Month, celebrating God’s family structure of “one husband, one wife and any biological, adopted or fostered children.”

IN Gov. Mike Braun echoed that effort with a Nuclear Family Month for his state too.  “As we approach America’s 250th anniversary, this proclamation recognizes the important role families play in shaping the future of our state and our country,” he wrote.

For AL Gov. Kay Ivey, the fathers of that structure are “the head of the household,” and “homes led by a father and mother provide children with the structure and discipline necessary to succeed throughout life.”  So, to coincide with Father’s Day, the AL governor is celebrating Strong Families Month.

While Family, Nuclear Family, and Strong Families Month define and celebrate God’s family structure, proposals for Fidelity Month call Americans to not just celebrate these values, but to “rededicate the United States to the values of faith, family, and patriotism.”

UT, AK, and at least four other GOP-controlled states support legislation to recognize June as Fidelity Month.

While the month of June is now becoming a platform for biblical family values, it began gaining momentum last year when the Education Department used June to acknowledge God’s male and female gender design.

The department declared June Title IX Month advocating for female students’ safety from harmful transgender policies that allowed biological men to use women’s bathrooms or locker rooms.

Also in 2025, U.S. Rep. Mary Miller (IL-R) denounced Pride Month and proposed a resolution to make June Family Month, saying, “Americans are inundated with perverse Pride Month displays and events throughout the month of June that denigrate the nuclear family.”

As conservative leaders reject Pride Month, and replace it with Biblical values, some conservatives say they’re “reclaiming the culture” as more and more view state measures as an opportunity for a cultural reset.

 

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

Canadian Bill Puts Bible in the Crosshairs

For generations, Canadians have enjoyed a reputation for being among the freest people in the world.  Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the ability to openly debate moral and social issues have long been considered foundational rights.  That is why the advancement of Bill C-9 through Canada’s Senate has generated such intense concern among Christian leaders, constitutional experts, and faith communities across the nation.

Supporters of the legislation argue that it is necessary to combat hatred and protect vulnerable groups from targeted abuse.  Few would dispute the importance of protecting citizens from violence, harassment, or genuine threats.  The concern, however, is not whether hatred should be opposed.  The concern is whether the government is redefining biblical beliefs themselves as hateful.

At the center of the controversy is Bill C-9’s removal of Section 319(3)(b) of Canada’s Criminal Code.  That provision has historically protected individuals who express religious beliefs in good faith based on sacred texts such as the Bible.  Critics warn that removing this safeguard creates a legal environment where long-held Christian teachings could become vulnerable to criminal complaints.

The legislation is now headed back to the House of Commons where it is expected to clear Parliament and become law before the summer recess.

Many Christians are asking a simple question: What happens next?

The answer is that nobody knows exactly how the law will be enforced.  Yet history shows that laws often begin with narrow promises before gradually expanding through court rulings, government interpretations, and activist pressure campaigns.  Christians therefore have reason to examine not only what the legislation says today but also what it could enable tomorrow.

Consider a pastor preaching through Romans 1, where the Apostle Paul describes same-sex relationships as sinful.  For two thousand years, this has been a standard Christian teaching shared by the Christian church.  Under previous protections, a pastor could confidently teach that passage knowing the law recognized the legitimacy of religious expression.

Under the new framework, critics fear that a complaint could be filed claiming such preaching promotes hatred against a protected group.

Perhaps the complaint would ultimately fail.  Perhaps charges would never be laid.  But even an investigation can become punishment.  Churches could face legal expenses, reputational attacks, media scrutiny, and pressure to self-censor.

This is how speech restrictions often evolve—not necessarily through dramatic arrests, but through intimidation.

Imagine a Christian school teaching students that marriage is between one man and one woman.  A teacher quotes Jesus’ words from the Gospel of Matthew.  A parent objects and files a complaint.  Suddenly administrators must consult lawyers, revise policies, and determine whether biblical instruction exposes them to liability.

Even if the school eventually prevails, the message to other institutions becomes clear: avoid controversy, soften doctrine, and stay silent.

The chilling effect becomes the real victory.

Another area of concern involves Christian counselors, pastors, and church leaders who provide spiritual guidance.  Imagine a young adult seeking advice from a pastor regarding questions about sexuality, gender identity, or biblical morality.  If the pastor responds by explaining traditional Christian teachings and encouraging the individual to align his or her life with those beliefs, critics worry that such conversations could eventually become the subject of complaints.

Perhaps no charges would ever be laid.  Perhaps a court would ultimately side with the pastor. But once legal uncertainty enters the picture, many ministries may begin avoiding these conversations altogether.  Some pastors could decide that discussing certain topics simply carries too much risk.  The result would be a chilling effect on one of the church’s most important functions: providing biblical counsel to people seeking spiritual guidance.

Many churches require pastors, elders, youth leaders, and ministry staff to affirm statements of faith and live according to the church’s understanding of biblical morality. Critics of Bill C-9 fear that maintaining such standards could become increasingly difficult if traditional Christian beliefs are portrayed as hateful or discriminatory.

Consider a church that requires youth leaders to affirm biblical teachings regarding marriage and sexuality.  A rejected volunteer or former employee could potentially file a complaint alleging that such standards promote hatred toward a protected group.  Even if the church eventually prevailed, it could face significant legal costs, public controversy, and pressure to abandon long-standing doctrinal requirements.

For many believers, the concern is not merely whether churches would win such cases. The concern is whether years of investigations, legal battles, and public scrutiny would gradually pressure Christian institutions to soften or abandon biblical convictions in order to avoid conflict altogether.

Another practical concern involves online ministry.  Many Canadian pastors now reach thousands of people through YouTube, Facebook, podcasts, and livestreams.  If authorities begin viewing certain biblical teachings as potentially hateful, online content could become a prime target.

Will pastors begin avoiding certain passages altogether?

Will ministries remove sermons from their archives?

Will Christian publishers stop printing books that address controversial moral issues?

These questions may sound alarmist to some, but similar patterns have already emerged in parts of Europe where speech laws have increasingly collided with religious expression.

Once government authorities gain greater power to determine which religious beliefs are acceptable, every unpopular biblical doctrine becomes vulnerable.  Christian teaching on gender, marriage, sexual morality, exclusivity of salvation through Christ, and even certain pro-life arguments could eventually come under scrutiny.

The problem is not merely what today’s government believes.  Governments change. Cultural standards change.  What one administration considers protected speech, another may classify as harmful expression.

Christians understand this principle because church history is filled with examples.

Throughout history, governments have often tolerated Christianity until biblical teaching collided with prevailing social values.  The conflict rarely begins with a direct ban on Christianity.  Instead, authorities typically insist that believers may continue worshiping privately so long as they refrain from publicly expressing certain convictions.

Freedom of worship is not the same as freedom of religion.

Freedom of worship means Christians can gather inside church buildings and conduct services.  Freedom of religion means believers can live out and proclaim their faith in public life without fear of government punishment.

Many critics argue that Bill C-9 pushes Canada closer toward the former model while weakening the latter.

Even Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has voiced concerns about authorities monitoring church services.  Such warnings would have seemed unthinkable in Canada only a few years ago. Yet they are now being discussed openly by elected officials.

For Canadian Christians, the response should not be panic, but preparation.

Churches should educate congregations about their constitutional rights.  Ministries should seek competent legal counsel.  Christian organizations should strengthen partnerships with religious liberty groups prepared to challenge unconstitutional applications of the law.

Most importantly, believers should resist the temptation to retreat into silence.

The New Testament was written largely by men who lived under governments hostile to Christian teaching.  The apostles repeatedly affirmed that believers must speak truth with both courage and love, even when doing so carries personal cost.

Christians should never use the Bible as a weapon to demean or mistreat others. Genuine hatred has no place in Christian witness.  At the same time, Christians cannot abandon biblical truth simply because society increasingly labels it offensive.

That is the tension Bill C-9 brings into sharp focus.

The coming years may determine whether Canada continues to protect robust religious freedom or moves toward a model where certain biblical convictions are tolerated only when kept private.  For many believers, this debate is no longer merely political or legal.

It is becoming a test of whether Christians will remain free to openly proclaim what they believe God has already spoken.

 

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