Biblical Truth

One year after the death of Charlie Kirk, there is much worth remembering about a life that ended far too soon. He was known across the country as a conservative activist, speaker, and founder of Turning Point USA. But the convictions that increasingly defined his public life went deeper than politics. Kirk spoke openly about his faith in Jesus Christ, his love for his wife and children, and his belief that strong families were essential to the future of America.

When asked how he wanted to be remembered, Kirk pointed to courage and his Christian faith. Those who worked closely with him likewise described his relationship with Christ as the most important part of his life. He used an enormous platform not simply to discuss elections and public policy, but to encourage people to follow Jesus and take their faith seriously.

That priority deserves to be remembered.

Kirk also understood something increasingly countercultural: the future of a nation is inseparable from the health of its families.

He married Erika in 2021, and they had two children. Fatherhood became an important part of the message he shared with young Americans. He encouraged young adults to pursue marriage, welcome children, leave behind empty pursuits, and build something that could endure beyond themselves. His wife later recalled that marriage and family were among the greatest joys of his life.

That message mattered because Kirk spent much of his career speaking directly to young people. He founded Turning Point USA at only 18 and built an organization centered on engaging the next generation in the future of the country.

Yet preserving America was about more than winning elections. A country ultimately depends upon the character of its people, the strength of its homes, and the convictions parents pass to their children.

If we want to honor Kirk's life, admiration is not enough. We should imitate what was worthy of imitation.

Go to Real Life Network to watch great moments from the life of Charlie Kirk.

‍

‍

That means having the courage to profess Christ when doing so carries a cost. It means building strong marriages and treating parenthood as a calling rather than an inconvenience. It means investing in young people instead of surrendering the next generation to whatever ideas happen to dominate the culture. And it means being willing to enter conversations with people who disagree rather than retreating from difficult questions.

Kirk became famous in part because he was willing to walk onto college campuses, take questions, defend his convictions, and invite disagreement. His example should encourage Christians to develop convictions strong enough to withstand opposition without becoming afraid of the people on the other side.

Most importantly, his legacy should point beyond politics.

Political victories pass. Organizations change. Elections are won and lost. But faithfulness to Christ, love within the home, children raised with conviction, and lives invested in others carry significance far beyond an election cycle.

Charlie Kirk cared deeply about America's future. His life offered a reminder that the work of building that future begins with faithfulness to God, courage in the public square, and commitment to the family at home.

Go to Real Life Network to watch great moments from the life of Charlie Kirk.

For decades, television newsrooms held enormous power over what Americans saw and what they never heard about. Producers chose the lead story, decided which events deserved follow-up coverage, and determined which stories would disappear after a few seconds or never make air at all.

That power has weakened, but it has not disappeared.

Today, independent media provides an opportunity to ask a question that traditional news organizations too often avoid: Why do some stories receive national attention while others with serious implications are barely acknowledged?

On Real Life Network, The Daniel Cohen Show goes where the news leads, especially when those stories intersect with faith, culture, politics, and a biblical worldview. Several recent stories provide an important reminder that media bias isn't limited to how a story is reported. Sometimes the more consequential decision is whether to report it at all.

When Attacks on Christians Barely Make the News

Pastor Martin Sedra and his wife, Millicent, recently experienced something no family should have to endure.

Sedra pastors Echo Church in Sydney, Australia, and has publicly spoken about Christianity, Islam, abortion, marriage, and other controversial cultural issues. According to video and the Sedras' account discussed on the show, masked protesters arrived outside their home shortly after the couple welcomed their first child. The group allegedly cut power to the house, threatened the family, and said they would return.

Whatever someone's political or religious disagreements with Sedra, threatening a family at its home crosses a line that should be obvious.

Yet the incident received little attention from major news organizations at the time it was discussed on the show.

That story comes alongside another troubling development: a series of fires involving churches.

The former St. Agnes Church in Toledo, Ohio, burned over the weekend. Another Toledo church, St. Anthony's, had suffered a fire only weeks earlier. Other recent church fires discussed on the program included Friendship Baptist Church in Cleveland, St. Simon Church in New Brunswick, Canada, and Buckingham Presbyterian Church in the United Kingdom. Importantly, the causes of these individual fires should not be assumed before investigators determine them.

But the broader problem of hostility toward churches is documented. The Family Research Council reported hundreds of hostile incidents against churches in 2024, including dozens categorized as arson or attempted arson.

That deserves attention.

Christians should resist the temptation to declare every church fire an act of religious persecution without evidence. At the same time, repeated attacks against Christian institutions should not become background noise simply because they do not fit the cultural narrative preferred by a newsroom.

Media bias isn't only found in misleading words. It can also be found in the stories that never receive enough attention for Americans to ask questions about them.

The same standard should apply regardless of the victims. An attack on a church should matter. An attack on a synagogue should matter. An attack on a mosque should matter. Threatening a Christian family should matter just as an attack against people because of their sexuality should matter.

Consistency is the test.

Who Decides What Counts as News?

A shooting outside a gay bar in Tucson raises precisely that question.

According to the account discussed on the program, two men were killed outside Venture-N by a gunman who later killed himself. Police reportedly found a note identifying additional LGBTQ businesses, raising concerns that the victims had been deliberately targeted. The show also highlighted reporting that the shooter was born in Gambia and was described by a relative as a practicing Muslim.

There is no justification for murdering innocent people because of their sexuality. None.

But there is also no justification for minimizing relevant facts about an attack because those facts complicate a preferred political narrative.

This is where consistency becomes essential. If the religious beliefs of a professing Christian attacker would become part of national coverage, the same journalistic curiosity should exist when an attacker comes from another religious background.

The point isn't to blame millions of peaceful Muslims for one man's actions. It is to report relevant facts without deciding beforehand which ones the audience is allowed to consider.

That principle also applies inside conservative media.

The departure of longtime Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo has generated questions after reports that she disagreed with a programming decision concerning coverage of a presidential address. According to the reports discussed on the show, Bartiromo wanted to cover President Trump's remarks and planned additional discussion afterward. Weeks later, she departed the network, which characterized the move as a business decision. The precise internal circumstances remain disputed and should be described accordingly.

But the episode illustrates a larger point.

A journalist's responsibility is not to protect viewers from stories executives consider inconvenient. It is to pursue information, establish facts, provide context, and allow audiences to evaluate what happened.

A news organization loses something fundamental when protecting a narrative becomes more important than pursuing a story.

That standard shouldn't change depending on whether the network is CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, or anyone else.

It is also why independent outlets matter. They cannot guarantee perfect journalism, and they should be held accountable like everyone else. But a decentralized media environment makes it considerably harder for a handful of executives to determine the boundaries of public discussion.

Parents Cannot Outsource Discernment

Media institutions aren't the only institutions Americans should scrutinize.

Parents should be asking similar questions about schools.

A video discussed on the program featured a kindergarten teacher describing an exercise in which young children were asked whether they wished they had been born another gender. Students who raised their hands were then invited to choose different names. The teacher subsequently posted that she had been fired and lost her teaching license.

Whatever debates adults want to have about gender, five-year-olds should not become instruments for an adult's ideological project.

Parents possess a responsibility that cannot simply be transferred to teachers, administrators, politicians, or government agencies.

That becomes particularly important as politicians increasingly speak about children collectively. Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, for example, has argued for policies based on imagining that “all of our kids were all of our kids,” connecting that idea to public education, health care, and child care. The program contrasted that philosophy with the conviction that parents retain the primary responsibility for raising and forming their children.

Schools certainly have an important role. Good teachers deserve gratitude and respect. But education never happens in a worldview vacuum. Someone is always teaching children what is true, what is good, what a human being is, and where authority ultimately resides.

For Christians, those questions cannot be surrendered to the state.

Parents can delegate instruction, but they cannot delegate their God-given responsibility to know what their children are being taught and who is shaping their worldview.

That principle connects these seemingly unrelated headlines.

News organizations shape what adults believe is important. Schools help shape what children believe is true. Politicians attempt to shape what citizens believe government should provide. Corporations increasingly communicate their own moral and cultural priorities.

In each case, Christians need discernment.

The answer is not paranoia, and it isn't assuming every institution is corrupt. It is paying attention. Ask what is being taught. Examine what is being omitted. Compare claims against the evidence. And above all, measure cultural messages against Scripture rather than allowing the culture to determine how Scripture should be understood.

That is increasingly necessary in an age when the most revealing part of a story may be the part someone decided wasn't worth telling.

Watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network for news and commentary connecting the headlines to the good news through a biblical worldview.

One morning, I was riding my bicycle along Washington, D.C.’s Anacostia River when an egret glided over the trail. The pure-white wading birds have always fascinated me with their elegant stillness and regal grace. They look even more impressive on the rare occasions when they spread their wings and take flight, making them look even larger. Yet this impromptu bird-watching experience came to an abrupt and discordant end. The moment before the egret swooped into the brush and out of sight, he made like a bomber and dropped a load of ordnance worthy of an animal twice his size.

A graceful bird, caught in its least graceful position.

The minor incident nearly passed out of my mind until I realized that this un-constipated egret provided an apt example for man’s complex condition. From beginning to end, mankind’s creation is the gift of God. We are created in God’s image and likeness, given dominion over every living thing, and blessed with the good command to fill the earth with God’s image-bearers through procreation (Genesis 1:26-28). Yet our first parents squandered these divine blessings through disobedience and rebellion, for which they were cast out of God’s presence (Genesis 3:22-23) and condemned to die (Genesis 2:17).

Man is a graceful bird, caught in his least graceful position.

Christianity’s nuanced view of human nature becomes incomprehensible without the first three chapters of Genesis. This is why so many human philosophies veer into error on either one side or the other. Most human philosophies boil down to the opinion that man is basically good, or that he is basically bad. Only the Bible (and those influenced by the Bible) can explain how man is created good, but corrupted.

Mankind’s complex condition affects every aspect of our lives, even the way we work. Before anything had tarnished God’s “very good” creation (Genesis 1:31), we read that “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it” (Genesis 2:15). Work is not a consequence of the fall, but a basic function of man, which God created for good. Adam’s task was merely to imitate God’s own example in creative effort (Genesis 2:9), and it carries religious undertones, as the same verbs are used to describe service at the tabernacle in Numbers 3.

However, mankind’s work did not escape the Fall unscathed. Not only was Adam cast out of the lush garden into uncultivated land, but God also declared, “cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:17-19).

The ground was Adam’s domain of work. By extension, this curse extends to all arenas of work. All work is toilsome, demanding, and sometimes fleeting, as the whole creation is “subjected to futility” (Romans 8:20).

Man is a graceful bird, caught in his least graceful position.

Again, the Bible’s complex theology of work has better power to explain the different attitudes people have towards their work than the fractured, individualistic worldviews dominant in America today. Some people love their jobs, while some people hate them. Why? Can individualism or critical theory offer a satisfying answer to this question? (Critical theory would blame group oppression, but that is not satisfying.)

The Bible has an answer. Some people love their jobs because work is a gift from God — a good gift that God created as part of his blessing on mankind. Even in a fallen world, the wise preacher concludes, “There is nothing better for a person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God” (Ecclesiastes 2:24, see also Ecclesiastes 5:18-19 and 9:9). Yet some people also hate their jobs because work is cursed after the Fall.

Man is a graceful bird, but he is still caught in his least graceful position.

The very unseemliness of the aforementioned egret’s evacuation is what makes it an appropriate metaphor for fallen man under sin. “We have all become like one who is unclean,” Isaiah confesses, “and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment” (Isaiah 64:6). We need one who can wash our filth away, to achieve for us what we could never achieve by our own works.

Even though work is good, it is not ultimate. The Lord God engaged in his creative work for six days, “and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done” (Genesis 2:2). Just as man was made to imitate God’s work, so man was also supposed to imitate God’s rest (Exodus 20:8-11). But, under the curse of sin, that rest became fleeting and far off.

From the earliest generations, Adam’s descendants sought one who would restore them to God’s rest. Thus, Noah’s father Lamech said in hope, “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands” (Genesis 5:29). Yet Noah did not bring an end to toil, hard labor, or the futility of human industry. Nor did Moses, Joshua, David, or any human leader called by God throughout history. All were sinners, after all.

Yet painful toil under the curse is not man’s final condition, for “there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God” (Hebrews 4:9). Those who are forgiven of their sins by the blood of Christ receive true grace. They are not only restored to right fellowship with God, but they also receive eternal life and enter into God’s rest.

For now, we recognize that all honest work is good. “In all toil there is profit, but mere talk tends only to poverty” (Proverbs 14:23). “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need” (Ephesians 4:28). “It is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops” (2 Timothy 2:6). But work is not ultimate, and one day our painful toil will come to an end.

Man is a graceful bird, and one day his graceless condition will be remedied in full. One day, those who are in Christ will enter into the glory and rest of their Redeemer.

This article was originally written by Joshua Arnold and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

Christianity makes specific claims about God, Jesus, Scripture, morality, and the meaning of life. Apologetics asks whether those claims can stand up to serious questions.

That makes Christian apologetics much more than learning clever responses to skeptics. It is the process of examining what Christianity teaches, why Christians believe it is true, and how those beliefs compare with competing explanations of reality.

First Peter 3:15 calls believers to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.” That defense is not meant to be combative. It is meant to be thoughtful, truthful, and grounded in a faith that is willing to be examined.

Here are seven important apologetics conversations that can help Christians better understand the foundations of their faith and become more prepared to talk about them with others.

1. Does God Really Exist?

Christianity begins with a foundational claim: God exists, and He is the Creator of everything.

Apologetics asks whether there are good reasons to believe that claim is true. Christian thinkers often point to the beginning of the universe, the remarkable order and fine-tuning found in creation, the existence of objective moral standards, and the question of why anything exists at all.

These arguments do not attempt to reduce God to a scientific formula. Instead, they challenge the idea that belief in God is irrational or unsupported.

This conversation can be especially important for Christians who have heard that faith and reason are opposites. Examining the evidence can reveal that belief in a Creator rests on substantial philosophical and scientific questions that atheism must also account for.

2. Can We Trust the Bible?

Christianity also makes a historical claim: God has revealed truth through Scripture.

That raises important questions. Has the Bible been accurately preserved? Are the Gospel accounts historically reliable? Do archaeology and ancient history support or undermine the people, places, and events described in Scripture?

Christian apologetics does not ask believers to simply assume the Bible is trustworthy. It looks at manuscript evidence, textual transmission, historical corroboration, archaeology, eyewitness testimony, and the remarkable preservation of the biblical text.

Because Christianity is rooted in events claimed to have happened in real history, those claims can be investigated.

For many believers, studying this evidence does more than help answer objections. It deepens confidence that the Bible they read today is connected reliably to the texts written in the ancient world.

3. Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?

No Christian truth claim is more important than the resurrection. The apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:14 that “if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.” Christianity therefore does not present the resurrection merely as a symbolic story about hope. It presents it as an event in history.

Apologetics examines the facts surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion, the empty tomb, the testimony of His followers, the reported appearances after His death, and the dramatic change in disciples who moved from fear and hiding to publicly proclaiming that they had seen the risen Christ.

The central question becomes: What explanation best accounts for the evidence? If Jesus truly rose from the dead, then His claims about Himself, God, salvation, and eternal life deserve to be taken seriously.

4. Has Science Disproved Christianity?

Another common claim is that modern science has made Christian belief unnecessary. But Christianity and science are not answering precisely the same questions. Science studies the natural world and how it functions. Christianity makes broader claims about why the universe exists, where its laws come from, why life exists, and whether creation ultimately points beyond itself.

Christian apologetics explores questions such as: Did the universe have a beginning? Why does nature operate according to consistent laws? How did life originate? What explains the extraordinary complexity found in living systems?

These are not questions Christians need to fear.

Apologetics gives individuals an opportunity to examine creation, science, and biblical claims together rather than accepting the assumption that faith and serious inquiry cannot coexist.

5. If God Is Good, Why Is There So Much Suffering?

Christianity claims that God is both good and powerful. The reality of suffering therefore creates one of the most difficult apologetics questions. If God is good, why does He allow pain, injustice, disease, natural disasters, and death?

This is not merely an abstract philosophical puzzle. For someone who has suffered deeply, the question may be intensely personal.

The Bible does not minimize suffering. Its pages are filled with grief, lament, injustice, persecution, and loss. Christianity teaches that the world is fallen, human beings possess genuine moral agency, evil has real consequences, and God is working toward a final restoration in which suffering and death will not have the last word.

Good apologetics should never treat another person’s pain as an intellectual exercise. But it can show that suffering does not make Christianity incoherent. In fact, Christianity offers a framework for understanding both why the world is broken and why there is reason for hope.

6. Can There Really Be Objective Right and Wrong?

Christianity also makes moral claims. It teaches that some things are truly right or wrong because morality is grounded in the character of God. That raises another important question: Are moral truths objective, or are they simply personal and cultural preferences?

If morality is entirely subjective, then statements such as “torturing innocent people is wrong” ultimately become expressions of opinion rather than statements about reality. Yet people routinely speak as though some actions are genuinely unjust, regardless of what an individual or society happens to approve.

Christian apologetics asks whether that universal moral intuition points beyond humanity to an objective moral lawgiver.

This conversation has significant implications for modern debates involving human dignity, justice, sexuality, family, freedom, and the value of human life. Before debating individual issues, it can be helpful to ask the deeper question: Where does moral authority come from in the first place?

7. Is Jesus Really the Only Way to God?

Perhaps one of Christianity’s most challenging claims in modern culture is Jesus’ statement in John 14:6: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

That claim sounds exclusive because it is exclusive. Christianity teaches that reconciliation with God comes through Christ. But apologetics asks an important follow-up question: Is Jesus justified in making that claim?

The answer depends on who Jesus is. If He is simply one religious teacher among many, His words may sound unreasonable. But if He is truly the Son of God who died and rose again, then His claim carries unique authority.

The conversation therefore circles back to the historical case for Jesus Himself.

Christianity does not claim that Christians are morally superior to everyone else. It claims the opposite: Every person needs salvation. The Gospel teaches that God has provided that salvation through Christ and offers it freely to anyone who believes.

Where Can I Find Christian Apologetics Resources?

These conversations can seem intimidating at first, but apologetics does not require a theology degree.

Real Life Network offers free programs that help people examine Christianity’s major truth claims and think more carefully about difficult questions.

Cross Examined with Frank Turek explores topics such as the existence of God, morality, the resurrection, Scripture, and common objections to Christianity. The Creation Today Show examines questions involving science, creation, and worldview. Other RLN teaching and interview programs address biblical reliability, cultural issues, and the reasons Christians can have confidence in what they believe.

These resources can be useful for personal study, parents and teens, small groups, or anyone who wants to become better prepared for conversations about faith.

Christian apologetics does not promise an instant answer to every question. What it does offer is an invitation to examine Christianity seriously.

If Christian claims about God, Jesus, Scripture, morality, and salvation are true, they should be able to withstand honest investigation. And the more carefully believers understand those claims, the better prepared they become to explain why their hope is grounded in more than sentiment or tradition.

Explore free Christian apologetics and biblical worldview programming anytime on Real Life Network.

When people discover a new streaming platform, one of the first questions they often ask is: Is there a free trial?

That makes sense. Most streaming services today require a monthly subscription, a limited trial period, or tiered upgrades before viewers can fully access content. But Real Life Network works differently.

The simple answer is this: RLN does not require a free trial because the entire platform is ALREADY FREE to watch.

There are no subscription tiers, hidden fees, or surprise upgrades needed to access the content.

Why Real Life Network Is Free

Real Life Network was created with a mission-first approach rather than a subscription-first model. The goal is to make biblical teaching, faith-based programming, documentaries, podcasts, and family-friendly content accessible to as many people as possible without financial barriers.

Instead of charging viewers, RLN is supported entirely through the generosity of donors who believe in the mission of Real Life with Jack Hibbs and the broader outreach of the network.

This allows viewers to:

• Stream content without monthly payments 
• Explore the full platform freely 
• Share programs with friends and family easily 
• Access biblical teaching regardless of financial situation 

For many families, this removes a major obstacle and makes faith-based streaming far more accessible.

No Subscription Required

Unlike many mainstream streaming platforms, RLN does not require:

• Paid memberships 
• Credit card trials 
• Premium unlocks 
• Hidden add-ons 
• Automatic billing after a trial period 

Viewers can simply create an account and begin watching.

This straightforward approach reflects the network’s focus on ministry and outreach rather than maximizing subscriptions.

What You Can Watch on RLN

Even though RLN is free, the platform includes a wide variety of content across multiple categories. Viewers can explore:

• Bible teaching and sermons 
• Podcasts and interviews 
• Faith-based films and documentaries 
• Apologetics and worldview programs 
• Family and kids’ programming 
• Cultural discussions and special events 

Programs such as Real Life with Jack Hibbs, A Daily Walk, Bridge Bible Talk, Way of the Master, and documentaries like Before the Wrath and C.S. Lewis: The Most Reluctant Convert are all available without requiring a paid subscription.

Why This Matters for Families

Streaming costs can add up quickly. Many households already juggle multiple subscriptions across entertainment, music, and live TV platforms. By offering free access, RLN gives families a way to add faith-based content into their homes without increasing monthly expenses. It also makes it easier to:

• Introduce children to biblical programming 
• Watch sermons and teaching regularly 
• Share content with small groups or friends 
• Explore faith-based media without commitment pressure 

This accessibility is especially meaningful for viewers who are exploring Christian content for the first time.

A Different Kind of Streaming Model

Most modern streaming services are built around subscriptions because content licensing and original production are expensive. Christian streaming platforms often operate differently, especially those tied closely to ministry outreach.

RLN’s donor-supported model allows the platform to focus on:

• Expanding biblical content 
• Supporting discipleship and evangelism 
• Reaching viewers globally 
• Providing family-safe programming without paywalls 

Rather than asking viewers to “upgrade” for better access, the platform is designed to make truth available as broadly as possible.

What If You Want to Delete Your Account?

Another common concern with streaming services is cancellation. Many viewers are frustrated by complicated account systems or unclear billing structures. RLN keeps the process simple.

If a user decides they no longer want an account, they can:

1. Go to their account settings 
2. Select delete account 
3. Confirm deletion 

There are no cancellation fees, hidden commitments, or subscription complications because there is no paid membership attached to the account.

Why Donors Support Free Christian Streaming

The reason RLN can remain free is because many people believe biblical teaching and Christ-centered content should remain widely accessible. Supporters of Real Life with Jack Hibbs help fund:

• Ongoing platform development 
• New programming and documentaries 
• Streaming infrastructure 
• Outreach and discipleship efforts 

Their generosity allows viewers around the world to access content without worrying about cost barriers.

Real Life Network does not offer a free trial because it doesn’t need one. The platform is already free to access, with no subscriptions, hidden fees, or premium tiers required.

That approach reflects the heart behind the network: making biblically grounded content available to anyone seeking truth, encouragement, and faith-based programming.

Explore free Christian streaming anytime on Real Life Network.

Throughout history, people have looked to their leaders for strength, wisdom, and direction. But here's a question worth asking: who do our leaders look to?

Our Founders understood something that seems almost forgotten today. They believed rights came from God, not government. That's why the Declaration of Independence speaks of our Creator. The idea was simple but profound: if our rights come from God, then government cannot legitimately take them away.

For most of American history, if your job title was President of the United States, then securing the free exercise of religion wasn't a side issue — it was part of the job description.

From the very beginning, George Washington understood that. Washington spoke of Divine Providence and believed the success of the nation depended on something higher than human ambition. In 1790, he assured a Hebrew congregation in Newport that the government "gives bigotry no sanction" and "persecution no assistance." He set a tone that religious liberty would not belong to one group but would be protected for all.

John Adams carried that same conviction forward. He warned that nothing was more dangerous than the government meddling with religion. For Adams, liberty and morality were inseparable, and freedom without virtue could not survive.

Thomas Jefferson, who was often misunderstood, insisted that rights come from our Creator, not government. And when he spoke of a "wall of separation between church and state," he was arguing for protection of faith from government interference — not the removal of faith from public life.

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, went even deeper. He believed conscience itself could not be governed — that no authority on earth had the right to control what a person believes before God.

‍

So, when we talk about religious liberty in America, we're not talking about a modern idea or a political talking point. We're talking about something woven into the foundation of this country. And that thread continues through American history.

Abraham Lincoln, in the midst of national crisis, turned repeatedly to prayer and spoke openly of God's sovereignty over the nation. His Second Inaugural Address reads less like a political speech and more like a sermon on accountability before God.

Even later presidents carried this understanding forward. Benjamin Harrison, a devout Presbyterian elder, lived his faith openly and led prayer meetings long before and during his time in leadership. His convictions were part of how he governed and how he lived.

William McKinley, a lifelong Methodist who once considered entering the ministry, leaned heavily on his faith during moments of national decision, including times of war and uncertainty. He understood leadership as stewardship under God.

And Ronald Reagan, in the modern era, put it plainly when he said, "Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant, and the rule of law under God is acknowledged." He believed, simply, that without God, democracy cannot endure.

Now, none of these men were perfect. That's not the point. The point is that across centuries, from Washington to Reagan, there has been a consistent recognition: leadership is strongest when it is humbled by something greater than itself.

One worldview says authority begins and ends with man. The other says authority ultimately comes from God. And that difference shapes everything — from how a nation defines freedom, to how it protects conscience, to how it understands human dignity.

That's why the conversation about faith in the public square still matters today. Not because government should replace the church, but because leaders, like the rest of us, are shaped by what they believe about truth, authority, and God. It isn't really about politics. It's about whether faith still has a place in the public square. It's about whether moral truth exists beyond political power. And it's about whether leaders should seek wisdom from sources greater than themselves.

A Pastor Who Stood at the Crossroads of Faith and Power

There is one man who quietly stood at the intersection of faith and power for more than half a century. Not a president. Not a politician. But a pastor. And that was Billy Graham.

Graham once said that whether the story of Christ is told in a huge stadium, across the desk of a powerful leader, or shared with a golfing companion, it satisfies a common hunger. He understood something most people in power eventually discover -- fame, authority, and success don't silence spiritual need. They reveal it.

Over the course of American history, that truth played out in remarkable ways. Every U.S. president from Harry Truman to Barack Obama met with Billy Graham while he was alive. Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, when presidents faced crisis, war, scandal, or personal decisions, many of them asked for one thing: prayer and counsel.

It began simply with Harry Truman. In 1950, a congressman called Billy Graham and asked if he'd like to meet the president. Without any briefing on protocol, he agreed and went in with three colleagues to speak with President Truman, who told Graham that he lived by the Sermon on the Mount. Before he left, the two prayed together. Years later, Truman warmly received Graham at his home in Independence, Missouri.

Dwight Eisenhower invited Graham's counsel during moments of military and national tension, once calling him "an ambassador of heaven." Graham later said Eisenhower was the first president who really asked his counsel in depth, when he was sending troops into Little Rock. Just before Eisenhower died, Graham was invited to see him at Walter Reed Hospital. After talking again about assurance of salvation, the two men prayed.

John F. Kennedy spent time with him just before taking office, reflecting on the moral condition of the nation.

And Lyndon Johnson — perhaps one of the presidents closest to him — invited Billy Graham into the White House repeatedly. Graham later recalled that whenever he said, "Let's have a prayer," Johnson would kneel beside him.

Richard Nixon and Billy Graham had known each other since 1950, and over the years they developed a real personal friendship. While Nixon was often seen as private and complicated in public life, Graham experienced something different behind the scenes — he found him warmer and more compassionate than the public image suggested.

Nixon was also shaped by his Quaker background, and in private moments he would often ask Graham to pray with him and read Scripture when they met. But during the final year of his presidency, as Watergate intensified, those meetings stopped. It was later reported that Nixon didn't want Graham drawn into the scandal, or "tarred with Watergate."

Gerald Ford defended their friendship publicly, saying Graham's visits were "get-togethers of old friends" with no political agenda. Jimmy Carter called his reputation "above reproach."

Ronald Reagan credited Billy Graham with deepening his own prayer life, especially after the assassination attempt in 1981, when Graham immediately came to pray with the Reagan family. Reagan said it was through Billy Graham that he found himself praying even more than daily, and that in the position he held, his prayers increasingly were for the wisdom to make decisions that would serve God and be pleasing to Him.

George H.W. Bush said no one could be president without understanding prayer, and credited Graham with helping him understand that truth. Bill Clinton remembered hearing him preach as a boy in Arkansas and later described his ministry as always completely private, always completely genuine. George W. Bush said a private conversation with Billy Graham in Maine planted the spiritual seed that led to his own faith renewal. Barack Obama visited him in North Carolina and prayed with him privately. And even Donald Trump met him during a celebration honoring his ministry legacy.

Different eras. Different politics. Different personalities. But a consistent pattern: when the most powerful leaders in the world needed grounding, many of them turned to a pastor.

Billy Graham never accepted political appointments, even when presidents like Johnson and Nixon offered them. He refused every time — because he understood his role was not to govern, but to point people back to God. And maybe that's why presidents trusted him. He wasn't there to manage policy. He was there to remind them of something higher than policy. Something higher than power. Something higher than themselves.

In a culture where leadership is often measured by influence, Billy Graham quietly reminded us that true leadership is measured by humility. And that raises a question worth sitting with: if some of the most powerful men in the world needed spiritual counsel, what does that say about the rest of us?

Because whether you're in the Oval Office or living an ordinary life, the truth remains the same. We all need wisdom beyond ourselves. We all need grounding beyond politics. And ultimately, we all need a foundation that doesn't shift with the times.

That preserves the author's wording from the uploaded article exactly while adding links only to direct quotations for which the supplied sources provide support.

In August 2026, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey signed the Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act, removing the state's remaining gestational limits on abortion and giving health care providers broader discretion to perform the procedure later in pregnancy without legal consequence. The room applauded. Hard
to believe, I know. Massachusetts now stands alongside nine other states and the District of Columbia in permitting abortion up to the moment of birth.

Healey framed the law as protection for families facing devastating medical news late in pregnancy, and as a shield against a more restrictive national climate. But protection is not the word for it. What this law actually does is strip away the last legal limit on when a child's life can be ended — clearing the way for abortion up to the very moment of birth. Pro-life advocates have rightly called this what it is: the United States is now one of only a handful of countries on earth with no gestational limit on abortion whatsoever, and laws like this one expose late-term children, who can feel pain, who can survive outside the womb, to the most violent procedures medicine performs.

An entire room stood and applauded that.

There's something our culture rarely talks about, something this signing makes impossible to ignore: the faces we can see. The lives that are here.

I'm talking about the people who survived abortion attempts.

For decades, abortion in America has largely been discussed through politics, court decisions, and ideology. But behind all of that — there are human beings. And some of those human beings survived.

They are alive today. They have names, stories, families, and voices. You can look into their eyes and hear them tell you what happened. And that changes the conversation. Because suddenly abortion isn’t theoretical or abstract. It’s personal.

There are documented cases of babies surviving abortion procedures in the United States. Survivor organizations have worked to bring visibility to those stories. Survivors have spoken publicly about living with physical injuries, emotional trauma, and the lifelong reality of knowing someone once tried to end their life before they were even born.

‍

One of the most well-known survivors is Melissa Ohden, who survived a saline infusion abortion and has spent years speaking publicly about her experience and advocating for the born alive.

And even actor Sylvester Stallone spoke recently about being told by his mother that an attempted abortion failed before he was born. He has stated that his mother told him, "The only reason you're here is because the hanger didn't work.

Think about that for a moment. These are not "hypotheticals." These are people. People who laugh. Who love. Who contribute to the world. People made in the image of God.

And Scripture could not be clearer about the value of life.

Psalm 139 says: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in mymother's womb."

And Jeremiah 1:5 says: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you."

That means human worth is not determined by circumstance. Not by convenience. And not by whether a life was planned, expected, or even wanted by others.

Value comes from God. Because God is the author of life.

And when we hear the stories of abortion survivors, we are forced to confront a reality our culture often tries to avoid: What happens when the child survives? What happens when the life everyone was told would never matter... is standing right in front of us? With a face, a voice, and a testimony?

And maybe that is why these stories are so powerful. Because they remind us that every life carries purpose. Every life — not some, not only the easy or convenient lives. Every life.

Now I also know this conversation touches a deep pain for many people. There are women — and men — who carry grief, regret, and wounds connected to abortion. And the Christian message is not that forgiveness is impossible. It’s the opposite. There is grace through Christ. There is healing through God. And there is most assuredly
redemption at the cross.

But truth still matters. And the truth is that these survivors exist. They are living proof that what is in the womb is not potential life. It is life.

Make Your Life Count

There are moments when we are reminded just how fragile life really is. Hearing the voices of people who survived abortion attempts, looking into the faces of people who were never expected to live — it changes something. It forces us to remember that every single life carries value.

Not because society assigns it value, or because government recognizes it. And not because culture approves of it. But because God created it.

Every life.

And maybe that's the deeper message in all of this. Not just that life should be protected — although it absolutely should. But that life should mean something. That our lives should count for something greater than ourselves.

Ephesians 2:10 tells us: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

Think about that. Prepared beforehand. That means your life is not random. It is not accidental. And it is never without purpose. Not the child in the womb, the struggling mother, or the survivor whose story seemed impossible. Not you.

We are told that we were created for good works — that we have nothing to do with — God already prepared those good works for us before we were even born. All we need do is to walk in them.

God wastes nothing.

And the truth is, none of us knows how long we've been given here. But we do get to decide what we do with the time we have.

Will we use our lives to protect what is vulnerable? To stand for truth when it's unpopular? To bring light into places that have grown dark? Will we make our lives count and walk in good works?

Because one day, titles won't matter. Politics won't matter. Fame won't matter. What will matter is whether we lived with courage, loved well, stood firmly in truth, and whether we pointed people toward God.

That is a life that counts.

And maybe the people who survived what should have taken their lives understand that better than most. Because when someone survives what should have taken their life, they tend to understand something very deeply: life is a gift. A sacred gift. And gifts from God are never meant to be wasted.

So wherever you are today — whatever your story may be — remember this: you were created on purpose. By God. For a purpose. Because of that we should commit to live courageously, stand faithfully, and love boldly. And dedicated in love to the One who created you to make your life count.

‍
This subject was explored in depth on an episode of Rose Unplugged on Real Life Network; “Choice is a Person”.

Streaming was supposed to make entertainment easier. Instead, many Christian families now find themselves spending more time filtering, previewing, skipping, and explaining what appears on their screens.

Popular mainstream platforms still offer plenty of enjoyable programming, but the overall viewing environment has changed. Libraries are larger, mature content is easier to encounter, and shows often reflect values that do not align with a biblical worldview.

As a result, some Christian families are reconsidering where they spend their viewing time and turning toward faith-based streaming platforms instead.

The shift is not simply about avoiding bad content. For many families, it is about choosing something better.

1. Parents Are Tired of Constantly Filtering Content

One of the biggest frustrations with mainstream streaming is the amount of supervision it can require.

Parents may need to research a movie before watching it, check content ratings, monitor recommendations, or keep the remote nearby in case something unexpected appears. Even children’s profiles and parental controls cannot always eliminate questionable themes, previews, or suggestions.

Christian streaming platforms reduce much of that friction by curating the library before content reaches the viewer.

At Real Life Network, programs are intentionally selected by a team of Christians committed to biblical truth. Content is evaluated not simply for whether it is technically “clean,” but for whether its overall message aligns with Scripture.

For parents, that means less time policing and more confidence in what the family chooses to watch.

2. Families Want Content That Does More Than Avoid Objectionable Material

There is an important difference between content that is merely harmless and content that is genuinely helpful.

A movie can contain no profanity or explicit sexuality and still offer very little that strengthens faith, character, or family life. Many Christian families are beginning to ask a different question:

Instead of simply avoiding what is harmful, what if the family watched more content that actively reinforces what matters?

Faith-based streaming gives families access to Bible teaching, Christian documentaries, testimonies, apologetics, devotionals, and programs built around truth, courage, forgiveness, evangelism, and spiritual growth.

That turns screen time into an opportunity rather than simply a neutral activity.

3. Parents Are Becoming More Concerned About Worldview

Every story says something about what is true, valuable, admirable, or worth pursuing.

Sometimes those messages are obvious. Often they are subtle.

A show may communicate assumptions about relationships, human identity, authority, morality, success, or the purpose of life without ever stating them directly. When those assumptions appear repeatedly, they can gradually influence how viewers understand the world.

Christian parents increasingly recognize that media is one of the many forces shaping their children’s worldview.

Faith-based platforms offer a more consistent foundation. Whether viewers are watching a documentary, listening to a podcast, or enjoying a family program, the content is selected with biblical truth in mind.

That consistency can help reinforce what children are already learning through Scripture, church, and discipleship at home.

4. Families Want More Shared Viewing

Mainstream streaming can easily separate a household into individual screens. One child watches one series, another watches something completely different, and parents have their own shows.

Christian streaming can create more opportunities to watch together.

A documentary can lead to a conversation about faith. A Bible program can prompt questions from children. A testimony can introduce discussions about courage, suffering, or God’s faithfulness.

Real Life Network includes programming across a wide range of interests and ages, from films and documentaries to Bible teaching, cultural discussions, podcasts, and family content. Programs such as The Listening Road, The Call, and So True with Philip De Courcy give families different ways to engage with faith-centered stories and teaching without relying on the same type of programming every night.

The value is not simply what happens on the screen. It is what can happen after the screen goes dark.

5. Families Want Their Media Habits to Support Discipleship

Most Christian parents would never expect television to disciple their children. But media inevitably participates in formation.

What a family repeatedly watches affects conversations, attitudes, interests, and expectations.

That is why some households are intentionally redirecting a portion of their entertainment time toward content that supports spiritual growth.

A Christian streaming platform can make it easier to build small discipleship rhythms into ordinary life. A short devotional can become part of breakfast. A podcast can play during a road trip. A documentary can become the focus of a family evening. A teaching program can help an older teen wrestle with a difficult biblical question.

Streaming does not replace prayer, Scripture, church, or parental leadership. But it can either compete with those things or help reinforce them. Families increasingly want the latter.

6. They Want a Streaming Environment They Can Trust

Perhaps the biggest difference is not one individual program. It is the environment surrounding it.

On a mainstream platform, family-friendly programming sits alongside mature entertainment, conflicting worldviews, and content designed for entirely different audiences. Algorithms, thumbnails, and recommendations can move viewers quickly from one category to another.

A Christian platform begins with a different assumption: The entire environment should serve the viewer well.

Real Life Network is built around that idea. Its library is curated for biblical integrity, and programs that stray from that standard are not included simply because most of their content is good.

That creates something increasingly valuable in modern media: trust.

Parents still have an important role in deciding what is appropriate for each child and age level, but they are starting from a much stronger foundation.

Choosing Better Rather Than Simply Watching Less

Leaving or reducing time on mainstream platforms does not necessarily mean rejecting every secular movie or television show. Christian families will make different decisions about what they watch.

The larger shift is toward intentionality.

Instead of allowing algorithms to determine what fills the home, families can decide what deserves their attention. Instead of constantly asking, “Is this okay to watch?” they can also ask, “Is there something better we could be watching?”

That is where Christian streaming offers a compelling alternative.

Families can enjoy entertainment while also discovering content that encourages faith, strengthens biblical understanding, and creates opportunities for meaningful conversation.

For Christian households trying to lead their homes with greater purpose, changing streaming habits can be a small decision with a lasting influence.

Explore biblically curated movies, programs, documentaries, and teaching anytime on Real Life Network.

For many believers, live worship is a meaningful part of their Christian experience. Whether it’s a concert, a special worship night, or a large conference gathering, music has a unique way of drawing people together and pointing hearts toward God.

But not everyone can attend these events in person. That’s why many people are now asking: Can I watch Christian music concerts online?

The answer is yes. Christian streaming platforms increasingly offer access to worship events, concerts, and music-centered programming, bringing these experiences into homes around the world.

How Christian Concert Streaming Works

Christian music events are now regularly recorded and streamed through dedicated platforms. Some are broadcast live, while others are made available on demand after the event. Viewers can typically access:

• Full-length worship concerts 
• Conference worship sessions 
• Special music events and seasonal programs 
• Behind-the-scenes or artist-focused features 

This allows people to experience worship beyond a single moment, revisiting it throughout the week or sharing it with others.

Live vs. On-Demand Worship Events

There are two primary ways Christian concerts are streamed.

Live events create a sense of shared experience. Viewers know they are watching alongside others, often at the same time as the in-person audience. This can feel especially meaningful during large gatherings, conferences, or special worship nights.

On-demand content offers flexibility. Viewers can watch at their convenience, pause or revisit songs, and incorporate worship into personal or family rhythms.

Most platforms now offer a combination of both.

What You Can Expect from Online Christian Concerts

Streaming a worship concert is not exactly the same as being in the room, but it offers its own advantages. High-quality video and audio allow viewers to focus on lyrics, musicianship, and the message behind the music.

Online concerts often provide:

• Clear, distraction-free viewing 
• The ability to revisit meaningful moments 
• Access to events you might not otherwise attend 
• A way to include the whole family 

For many households, this becomes a regular part of their week rather than a one-time experience.

Christian Music and Worship on Real Life Network

Real Life Network includes a variety of music-centered programming and worship experiences that help bring this kind of content into everyday life.

In addition to teaching and documentaries, viewers will find:

• Worship segments from conferences and special events 
• Music integrated into larger teaching gatherings 
• Seasonal programming that includes worship and reflection 
• Faith-centered productions where music plays a central role 

Because RLN’s content is curated, these worship moments are part of a broader experience—one that includes teaching, Scripture, and encouragement rather than existing in isolation.

Why Families Are Streaming Worship at Home

Streaming Christian concerts isn’t just about convenience. For many families, it has become part of their spiritual routines. Parents may:

• Play worship music during evenings at home 
• Watch a concert together as part of a family night 
• Introduce children to worship in an accessible way 
• Use music as a starting point for conversation or prayer 

While it doesn’t replace gathering with a local church, it can support a home environment where worship is present throughout the week.

A Different Kind of Viewing Experience

Mainstream platforms may feature concerts as entertainment. Christian streaming approaches them differently: as worship.

That distinction matters. The focus shifts from performance to purpose. Songs are not just heard; they are engaged with. Lyrics are not just catchy; they are meaningful.

This changes how viewers interact with what they watch. Instead of passive consumption, it becomes participation.

How to Make the Most of Streaming Worship

Watching a Christian concert online can be more than background content. A few simple steps can make it more meaningful:

• Set aside time rather than multitasking 
• Follow along with lyrics when possible 
• Watch with others when you can 
• Take a moment to reflect or pray afterward 

These small shifts turn a viewing experience into something more intentional.

Christian music concerts are no longer limited by location. Through streaming platforms, worship experiences can now reach homes, families, and individuals wherever they are.

For those who want to incorporate more worship into their daily lives, online Christian concerts offer a simple and accessible way to do so.

Explore worship-centered programming and more anytime on Real Life Network.

American politics has never been gentle, but something deeper is happening when outrage becomes a strategy, accountability depends on political affiliation, and institutions entrusted with protecting the truth appear unwilling to challenge their own side. From attacks on political opponents to questions surrounding election integrity and media credibility, Americans are being forced to ask whether the same standards still apply to everyone. Real Life Network brings these conversations together through a biblical worldview, examining the stories and cultural battles shaping the country.

The problem is bigger than any one politician or political party. It is what happens when winning becomes more important than truth.

When Political Ambition Rewards the Outrageous

Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff recently drew criticism after invoking Trump administration staffer Natalie Harp during remarks attacking President Donald Trump. Ossoff accused the president of retreating from his responsibilities while traveling with Harp, prompting criticism that his wording insinuated something inappropriate about their relationship. When later asked why he specifically mentioned Harp, Ossoff described Trump as retreating into a “bubble of West Wing aides” who serve as a “security blanket.”

Harp’s story makes the attack particularly striking.

A bone cancer survivor, Harp underwent two unsuccessful rounds of chemotherapy and was rejected from clinical trials. In 2018, Trump signed the federal Right to Try Act, which expanded access for eligible terminally ill patients seeking investigational treatments outside traditional clinical trials. Harp later credited the policy with giving her another option in her fight against cancer and eventually went to work for Trump.

The controversy raises a broader question about political discourse: When does legitimate criticism of an administration become a personal attack against the people who work inside it?

Political disagreement is unavoidable. Personal destruction should not be.

The same principle applies when evaluating candidates within one's own political coalition. The program highlighted former Biden aide Michael LaRosa’s refusal to automatically support Michigan Democrat Abdul El-Sayed, despite pressure from a Democratic caller who questioned why a party strategist would publicly criticize a potential nominee.

LaRosa’s response contained a principle increasingly absent from American politics: “Vote blue no matter who” still leaves one important question unanswered. Who?

Character and conviction should matter more than the letter beside a candidate's name.

Holding political opponents accountable is easy. Holding allies accountable is much harder. Yet that is precisely where integrity is tested.

Election Integrity Requires Questions, Not Silence

That need for accountability extends directly to America's elections.

The program returned to Minnesota's voter-registration system after undercover journalist James O'Keefe recorded interactions with election workers concerning the state's vouching rules. Minnesota allows a registered voter from a precinct to vouch for the residence of other individuals registering to vote there, a procedure that has generated renewed controversy over whether adequate safeguards exist.

The videos included deliberately provocative hypothetical scenarios involving people described as recent arrivals from Gaza and even Hamas members. Those scenarios should not be confused with evidence that Hamas members actually voted in Minnesota. But the underlying question raised by the demonstrations remains worth examining: What verification should be required before someone receives a ballot?

Election integrity should never become a partisan issue. Eligible citizens should be able to vote, and Americans should be able to trust that only eligible citizens are voting.

Confidence disappears when legitimate questions are treated as forbidden.

The conversation then widened into immigration and assimilation. America has historically welcomed people from around the world. But immigration works best when newcomers become participants in the nation rather than creating isolated societies within it.

Legal immigration and assimilation are not contradictory ideas. A country can welcome immigrants while expecting respect for its Constitution, laws, customs, and institutions.

The biblical reflection offered in the program came from Psalm 11:3: “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

But the Psalm does not end there. The next verse declares that the Lord remains in His holy temple and His throne remains in heaven. That changes the Christian response to cultural decline.

When earthly foundations crack, believers are not called to retreat in despair. They are called to remain faithful and rebuild.

Institutions Lose Trust When Standards Change

The final issue is institutional credibility.

Journalists wield tremendous power because they determine which questions are asked, which stories receive attention, and what information reaches millions of Americans. That responsibility becomes especially important when covering the health and capacity of a sitting president.

The program highlighted recent comments from CNN's Jake Tapper describing the influence exercised by President Joe Biden's family and close aides during his administration. According to the comments discussed, cabinet officials described Biden as operating more like the senior member of a board while significant authority rested with people surrounding him.

The criticism was not simply that questions existed about Biden's condition. It was that some journalists who now acknowledge those questions had previously pushed back aggressively against people raising them.

If journalists knew there were legitimate concerns, the public deserved to know when those concerns mattered most, not after an election when books could be written about them.

The program extended that concern to law enforcement through newly discussed FBI material involving former Congressman Eric Swalwell and Christine Fang, a woman previously identified in reporting as a suspected Chinese intelligence operative. The transcript argues that the government's handling of the matter illustrates a potential double standard in how politically sensitive investigations are treated.

Some of the transcript's specific claims about Swalwell go beyond what the supplied material independently establishes, so they should be treated as allegations rather than settled facts. But the broader principle does not depend on one case.

Justice cannot have one standard for political friends and another for political enemies. Journalism cannot demand transparency from one administration while protecting another.

A functioning republic requires something more difficult than partisan victory. It requires citizens willing to demand truth even when the truth damages their preferred side.

For Christians, the standard goes deeper still. Political parties, politicians, journalists, and government institutions will inevitably disappoint. God's truth does not change with an election cycle. The task is therefore not merely to win political arguments, but to become people capable of recognizing truth, defending what is right, and refusing to surrender conviction for political convenience.

Watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network for more coverage connecting today's political and cultural headlines to biblical truth.

Rounding the corner, I was surprised to see nearly a dozen Fulanis, mainly boys, sitting in a small hallway waiting to speak to us on a warm afternoon in Plateau State, Nigeria. Some smiled, and some just stared at my travel partner and me from Christian Freedom International as we entered the modest office space where we would be interviewing them.

The mainly Muslim Fulani tribe has risen in international awareness in recent years as antagonists in conflicts between Christians and Muslims in Nigeria, committing brutal acts of terrorism, violence, and kidnappings of Christians living in villages in Northern Nigeria. I witnessed the widespread scale of these attacks and their effects on Christian communities while visiting Nigeria earlier this year. However, the Fulanis lined up in the hallway were there to tell us a different story of what is happening among some Nigerian Muslims — they are turning to Christ.

Twenty-seven-year-old Mohamed was all smiles as he shared his story. Growing up in a Fulani Muslim family, he attended Islamic school where he was instructed to memorize the Qur’an in Arabic, a language he didn’t know. He asked his father why that was. Then he started to ask more and more questions about Islam, which made his parents suspicious.

So, Mohamed did his own research and continued to ask questions. It was at this time that he happened to become friends with a couple of Christians, who were able to tell him about Christianity. When Mohamed’s parents heard he was interested in Christianity, they gathered people in the community to persuade him to deny his growing conviction that the Christian faith was true. Yet, a woman in the community encouraged Mohamed to meet with her pastor — he did, and immediately gave his life to Christ.

After this, Mohamed’s mother acted very kindly to him and brought him a glass of milk. This was unusual given their strained relationship. Mohamed smelled what he thought to be rat poison in the milk and turned to his mother, asking “Mom, are you trying to kill me?” She denied it. He said, “Okay, well, it will be on your head.” After drinking one sip, Mohamed immediately doubled over and started vomiting. His mother said, “Let your God save you” and left him there.

Yet, Mohamed lived. When his mother came back to find him alive, she was furious and threatened to shoot him. He rose and started to run away just as his brother picked up a gun and tried to shoot him. In our interview, Mohamed lifted his pant leg to show the scar where a bullet had entered his leg as he escaped. Now, he is class president at his Bible school.

We also met 26-year-old Amadu. One night a few years ago, he had a dream of a man in white, but he couldn’t see the man’s face. Amadu prayed as a Muslim that God would show him what this dream meant. The dreams continued, and he couldn’t shake his need to understand them.

A small group of Christians at his work would gather on break to pray together. Searching for peace from his dreams, Amadu began to sit in on these gatherings. His Muslim boss told him to stop. But he needed someone to interpret his dreams, and his new Christian friends suggested he meet with their pastor.

This pastor told him that the man in white in his dreams was Jesus. The pastor said, “He wants to bring you from darkness to light and for you to know him.” Amadu asked, “What do I need to do?” The pastor told him he needed to accept Christ and become a Christian, but he told Amadu to go home and really think about it before making the decision because he knew it would be difficult with Amadu’s family.

A few weeks later, Amadu came back and announced he was ready to become a Christian. So, the pastor led him through the sinner’s prayer. Amadu started attending church, but something inside him told him not to tell his parents. Two months later, his parents began to ask why he wasn’t going to mosque or saying his daily Muslim prayers. Feeling their increasing scrutiny, Amadu made the hard decision to leave his parents’ house and flee to a different town. Amadu told us if his parents learned he became a Christian, “I will be killed.”

Another young man, Jalo, told us that he first became interested in Christianity when he was herding his father’s cattle. He would take the cattle to graze and sometimes go on to Christian farms, where his cattle could eat all the farmer’s crops in a single day. This is devastating to an impoverished farmer.

Yet, time and again, the Christian farmers would call Jalo’s father and say, “It’s okay, we forgive you, but please don’t do this again.” This was weird to Jalo. He thought, what kind of God do they serve that they forgive like this?

One day he asked the father of his Christian friend, “Why do you people always forgive when we do harm to you?” His friend’s father replied simply that Christians forgive. It was at that moment Jalo was sure he wanted to be a Christian. His friend told him to go home and that God would send someone to lead Jalo to Christ.

Jalo continued herding, and while he was sleeping overnight in a field, he began to have dreams. In one dream, a voice asked him, “You can have money, you can have everything. But what do you have if you have no salvation?”

With more determination than ever, Jalo pursued his Christian friend and asked to become a Christian. The friend took him to a pastor who gave Jalo a sober warning about the cost of following Jesus: “You will lose everything. They will persecute you. Christianity won’t give you anything… no money, not a wife. The only help we could maybe give you is send you to a Bible school.”

Jalo knew what it was to suffer; he had seen much suffering in the bush. And he was sure he wanted to follow Jesus.

Today, Mohamed, Amadu, and Jalo are all enrolled in the Bible college at Christian Faith Institute. There they are being discipled in the Bible and equipped to be missionaries and pastors themselves to be a witness for Christ in some very dark places.

I’m deeply grateful to have been able to travel to Nigeria with Christian Freedom International, a humanitarian aid group serving the persecuted church. Not only did I see first-hand the devastating impact of persecution, but I also saw the reasons to hope — that despite the darkness there, God is moving in the lives and hearts of those in the most difficult-to-reach and dangerous places.

Note: Names of those featured in this piece have been changed for their protection.

This article was originally written by Arielle Del Turco and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

America is having more than a political debate. It is having a debate about what kind of country it will hand to the next generation. From abortion and delayed family formation to declining academic standards, distrust in public health, and the growing influence of democratic socialism, seemingly unrelated headlines point toward a common question: What values are shaping America's future? At Real Life Network, these cultural questions are examined through a biblical worldview, while The Daniel Cohen Show challenges viewers to look beyond the headline and consider what today's decisions could mean tomorrow.

When Life Becomes a Matter of Convenience

Few issues reveal America's competing views of human life more clearly than abortion.

Recent changes to Massachusetts abortion law became a focal point of the discussion. Supporters have characterized the changes as strengthening reproductive protections, particularly for families facing devastating circumstances late in pregnancy. The argument presented on the show, however, is that removing specific statutory criteria and relying more heavily on a physician's professional judgment raises serious questions about protections for unborn children later in pregnancy.

That debate becomes especially striking when considered alongside modern neonatal medicine. Hospitals routinely devote extraordinary resources to saving premature babies. Physicians, nurses, and parents fight for children born months before their due dates, carefully monitoring every ounce of growth and every sign of progress.

For Christians, the value of those children does not depend on whether they are wanted, healthy, convenient, or capable of surviving without assistance. Human worth begins with the reality that every person is made in the image of God.

A culture cannot consistently defend human dignity if the value of a human life changes according to circumstances, location, or whether that life is wanted.

The conversation about children extends beyond abortion. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's public discussion of freezing her eggs prompted another debate about marriage, motherhood, career, and the cultural message surrounding delayed childbearing. The personal circumstances of any individual remain their own, but the broader cultural question is worth examining.

Modern society often tells young adults that family can be postponed while education, career, financial security, and personal achievement take priority. Technology may provide additional options, but it cannot eliminate every biological reality or guarantee future outcomes.

The Christian vision offers something different. Children are not obstacles to self-fulfillment. Marriage and family are not consolation prizes after professional goals have been accomplished. Scripture consistently presents children as a blessing and family as one of God's fundamental institutions.

That does not minimize the genuine heartbreak of infertility or prescribe an identical timeline for every person. It does challenge a culture that increasingly treats fertility as another part of life to be engineered around personal ambition.

What Happened to Truth and Excellence?

The same question of what America is handing the next generation reaches into education.

Thousands of University of California faculty members have reportedly called for reconsideration of the system's test-free admissions policy amid concerns about incoming students' mathematical preparation. The episode highlighted reports of substantial growth in the number of students arriving at UC campuses without high-school-level math proficiency.

Whatever role standardized testing ultimately plays in admissions, the larger lesson is difficult to ignore: lowering or removing a measurement does not automatically solve the underlying inequality.

Students deserve compassion and opportunity. They also deserve honesty.

Real education prepares young people to confront difficult standards, not simply removes the standards that reveal where preparation has failed.

The concern goes beyond mathematics. The program also examined course offerings at Arizona State University involving witchcraft, magic, and the occult, contrasting those offerings with the university's limited coursework specifically devoted to Christianity. The point was not that universities should prohibit the academic study of other beliefs. Universities should be places where competing ideas can be seriously examined.

The question is whether Christianity receives the same serious intellectual consideration in institutions that often pride themselves on diversity of thought.

Ideas never exist in a vacuum. When biblical Christianity disappears from education and public life, the resulting space does not remain philosophically neutral. Another understanding of humanity, morality, identity, and truth eventually takes its place.

Parents should therefore pay attention not only to whether their children earn degrees, but to what they are actually learning. A beautifully decorated dorm room means very little if students leave college academically unprepared and spiritually confused.

A Crisis of Trust and a Battle of Worldviews

Few institutions illustrate America's crisis of trust more clearly than public health.

The program revisited Anthony Fauci's pandemic-era statements and discussed recently publicized communications concerning COVID-19 vaccination and pregnancy. The episode argued that private discussions about possible risks deserve scrutiny when compared with the confident public assurances Americans heard during the pandemic. Claims about miscarriage rates and the meaning of those communications remain matters that require careful evaluation of the underlying evidence rather than conclusions drawn from isolated messages.

That distinction matters because public trust is difficult to rebuild once it is lost.

Scientific institutions should be able to acknowledge uncertainty. Officials should be willing to correct themselves when evidence changes. Americans should be able to ask difficult questions without immediately being treated as enemies of science.

The goal should not be replacing blind trust in government with blind distrust of government. It should be restoring a culture in which evidence can be examined openly and authorities are held accountable for what they tell the public.

That need for discernment extends into politics.

The program concluded by examining statements from leaders associated with the Democratic Socialists of America, including comments about the October 7 Hamas attack and the organization's position on policing and incarceration. Those comments were presented as evidence of a broader ideological movement that deserves far more scrutiny from American voters.

Elections matter because ideas have consequences. Political philosophies eventually become policies, and policies eventually affect families, neighborhoods, schools, churches, and communities.

Christians cannot afford to evaluate those ideas merely by party labels or campaign personalities. Every worldview makes assumptions about human nature, justice, authority, freedom, family, and morality. Those assumptions must be examined against Scripture.

The most important question is not whether an idea sounds compassionate or progressive, but whether it is true and whether its consequences honor the God-given dignity of human beings.

That requires Christians to remain engaged rather than retreat from difficult cultural conversations. It requires knowing Scripture, examining evidence, voting thoughtfully, raising children with conviction, and refusing to surrender truth for cultural acceptance.

The stories will change. The political candidates will change. Today's controversy will eventually be replaced by tomorrow's headline. But the underlying battle over truth, human dignity, family, freedom, and the next generation will remain.

Christians therefore need more than outrage at what is happening around them. They need discernment about why it is happening and courage to respond faithfully. Real Life Network provides free, biblically grounded programming designed to help families navigate those questions, including The Daniel Cohen Show, where today's cultural and political headlines are examined through the enduring truth of a biblical worldview.

America's political battles are increasingly inseparable from deeper questions about truth, Scripture, and the role of the Church. From pastors entering political races to the growing influence of democratic socialism and debates over Israel, religious liberty, and cultural values, Christians cannot afford to outsource discernment. Real Life Network exists to help believers examine today's headlines through a biblical worldview, and The Daniel Cohen Show continues that mission by connecting the news to the good news of the gospel. The challenge for Christians is straightforward: know what the Bible says, test what is being taught, and refuse to compromise simply because biblical truth has become politically inconvenient.

When Scripture Becomes Negotiable

One of the most consequential developments in American Christianity is not happening in Washington. It is happening behind pulpits.

Adam Hamilton, senior pastor of Church of the Resurrection in Kansas, became a central focus of the discussion after advancing through a Democratic U.S. Senate primary. But the larger concern raised was not simply that a pastor entered politics. It was the way Scripture itself is handled.

The discussion highlighted a sermon in which Hamilton argued that the Bible contains errors, using the accounts surrounding Jesus' ascension as an example. The claim centered on Matthew and Luke supposedly placing the ascension in different locations.

There is an important problem with that example: Matthew does not record the ascension.

Matthew 28 describes Jesus meeting His disciples in Galilee and delivering the Great Commission. Luke 24 and Acts 1 describe the ascension near Jerusalem. Matthew's account ending in Galilee does not require the ascension to have occurred there.

That distinction matters far beyond one passage.

When Christians stop treating Scripture as the authority by which every other claim is measured, biblical conviction quickly becomes whatever the culture will tolerate.

This is why believers have a responsibility to know Scripture themselves. A title, a large congregation, or decades of ministry cannot replace careful biblical study. Acts 17 praises the Bereans for examining the Scriptures to determine whether what they were being taught was true. That responsibility remains.

Fact-check the preacher. Fact-check the politician. Fact-check the commentator. The standard is not personality, popularity, or political affiliation. It is truth.

The same principle applies when pastors address controversial moral and political questions. Christians should expect biblical teachers to begin with Scripture, even when Scripture's conclusions collide with the priorities of a political party.

The Church loses something essential when it merely repeats what the surrounding culture already believes. Younger generations searching for answers do not need Christianity stripped of its authority and distinctiveness. They need the truth.

The Church Cannot Surrender the Cultural Ground

The growing influence of democratic socialism provided another major theme. Political candidates and activists associated with the movement are gaining influence in races across the country, raising questions about the direction of the Democratic Party and the ideas attracting younger Americans.

But blaming politicians alone misses something deeper.

Political movements often grow because they offer people a comprehensive explanation of what is wrong with the world and what should be done about it. Socialism promises answers about inequality, wealth, justice, government, and human flourishing. Christianity speaks to those questions too, but from an entirely different foundation.

If churches become hesitant to teach what Scripture says about human nature, justice, government, family, work, wealth, life, and morality, other ideologies will gladly fill the vacuum.

A weakened Church does not create a neutral culture. It creates empty space for another worldview to occupy.

That should concern Christians regardless of party affiliation.

The answer is not turning Sunday worship into a campaign rally. The Church's mission is greater than winning elections. But neither should pastors pretend that biblical truth has nothing to say about public life simply because those conclusions might be labeled "political."

When politics enters questions of life, sexuality, family, religious liberty, justice, and the nature of human beings, Christians cannot abandon biblical convictions at the church door.

Pastor Jack Hibbs emphasized this concern in discussing the growing appeal of socialist and communist ideas. His warning centered on the gradual nature of ideological change. Nations rarely abandon foundational principles all at once. Cultural transformation happens over time as one generation's convictions become another generation's questions and eventually another generation's rejected traditions.

Christians therefore need more than political awareness. They need biblical literacy.

Discernment in an Age of Political Confusion

The need for discernment extends beyond American elections.

Questions surrounding Israel, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, international diplomacy, and the future of Gaza continue to generate intense disagreement. The discussion examined congressional testimony concerning alleged connections among political and activist organizations, while also raising concerns about proposals for an international security presence in Gaza.

Those are precisely the kinds of complicated stories where Christians should resist reacting to a headline alone.

Not every allegation is established simply because someone says it in a congressional hearing. Not every political narrative is trustworthy because it comes from a preferred party. And not every person associated with a controversial organization necessarily shares every belief attributed to that organization.

Discernment demands more work than that.

Christians should examine evidence, distinguish allegations from established facts, understand competing arguments, and compare the moral assumptions beneath them with Scripture.

The same principle applies to America's cultural debates, including the continuing controversy surrounding biological sex and women's sports. The discussion pointed to new eligibility standards in women's athletics as evidence that institutions are still wrestling with questions that ultimately involve biological reality, fairness, and the meaning of male and female.

These controversies may look disconnected. A pastor's view of biblical authority, a Senate campaign, socialism, Israel, and women's sports seem like entirely different stories.

But underneath them is the same question: Who or what gets to define reality?

For the Christian, that answer cannot change with an election, cultural movement, or opinion poll.

Scripture warns believers to test what they hear. It calls Christians to discernment, courage, and faithfulness. That means refusing to blindly follow a political party, pastor, media personality, or cultural movement. Every claim must ultimately be measured against truth.

America does not simply need Christians who vote. It needs Christians who know what they believe and why they believe it.

The cultural pressures will change. Candidates will come and go. Political movements will rise and fall. God's Word remains.

That is why biblical literacy matters so much in this moment. Christians who know Scripture are better equipped to recognize error, evaluate political promises, engage difficult cultural questions, and remain faithful when biblical convictions become unpopular.

At Real Life Network, that biblical worldview remains central to conversations about faith, politics, and culture. Watch The Daniel Cohen Show for more conversations connecting the headlines shaping America and the world with the unchanging truth of God's Word.

A Christian education program previously canceled in Georgia has gotten the green light to restart after its director was punished for exercising his free speech rights on social media.

Vidalia City Schools made the decision to cut the program after director of Sweet Onion Christian Learning, Rev. Gady Youmans, criticized a possible spike in taxes on Facebook. His attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom defended the pastor, arguing, “Every American has the right to publicly criticize the government — that’s what makes the First Amendment guarantee of free speech so special and the envy of the world. Vidalia City Schools can’t punish Rev. Youmans — or his ministry providing high school students with free religious education — for simply sharing his opinion of a proposed tax hike,” Legal Counsel Mercer Martin insisted. “We’re pleased the court has reinstated Sweet Onion’s released-time program and restored Rev. Youmans’ constitutionally protected freedoms while his lawsuit proceeds.”

Like a growing number of school districts, Vidalia had allowed the program, which, with parental approval, releases students “for a part of the school day to attend off-site religious instruction offered by a private sponsoring group. It recognizes and reinforces the constitutionally protected right of parents to direct the religious education of their children.”

Sitting down with Family Research Council’s Jody Hice on “Washington Watch” Tuesday, ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler reiterated, “The school had no business canceling the Sweet Onion Christian Learning Center and the release time program simply because of the Facebook posts that the executive director had made.”

“Basically,” Sechler continued, “he was criticizing proposed tax increases that he thought were unnecessary and unwise. And the school board didn’t like what he said. And soon he learned that the program would be canceled. And that’s just not consistent with the Constitution.”

According to its website, Sweet Onion’s mission is to make disciples through education centered around God’s word.

“We accomplish our mission to eradicate Biblical illiteracy by walking students through the Scriptures so that they can know God’s ways, in order to better know Him. When students know Him better they will know how to find favor in His sight,” the site reads.

ADF reported that the superintendent of Vidalia City Schools “secretly investigated Sweet Onion and learned that, six years ago, a parent from another school had removed her child from a Sweet Onion course after learning the ministry did not exclusively use the parent’s preferred version of the Bible. Based on this incident, the superintendent reported to the board that, in addition to disagreement with the content of Youmans’ Facebook posts, his instruction ‘reflected a particular interpretation of the Bible’ that wasn’t presented in a ‘neutral or well-balanced manner.’ By targeting his religious instruction, the district violated Youmans’ right to the free exercise of religion.”

When ADF filed the lawsuit in May, Sechler was optimistic about the case’s chances. Sechler stressed that it’s important to stand up for values, and to stand by them, such as in the case of Sweet Onion. “Don’t worry about the government coming after you. The First Amendment is there for a reason to protect your right to say things, and especially on social media.”

Sechler added that ADF hopes the case will inspire others to not let their voices be drowned out when it matters.

“The First Amendment protects Youmans’ right both to criticize the proposed tax increase and to teach the Bible from his religious perspective,” ADF noted. “By punishing him and his ministry for his criticism of the government and his religious instruction, school officials violated that fundamental right.”

This article was originally written by Quinn Delamater and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

Americans have been so busy fighting against radical gender ideology and critical race theory in schools that one of the Left’s favorite ways to undermine parents has fallen under the radar. But the Trump administration hasn’t lost sight of graphic sex education, and parents everywhere should be grateful for it. In a very underreported move, the president’s team went on the offensive this summer, zeroing out millions of taxpayer dollars for controversial “Teen Pregnancy Prevention” programs in favor of solid curriculum that emphasizes abstinence and marriage.

The New York Times picked up on the cuts weeks after the fact in a sob story lamenting how caught off guard local nonprofits had been by HHS’s announcement. But frankly, no one should be surprised. The Trump administration slashed dozens of grants like this in its first term, arguing — rightly — that they only existed to sexualize children, not equip them to make positive and healthy choices. A whopping 53 programs ended up on the chopping block, saving Americans $67 million in what the president’s budget called “radical leftist ideology.” If anything, the administration argued, the Biden- and Obama-era sex ed models have only “normalize[ed] sexual activity for minors.”

Thanks to liberal ideologues masquerading as health experts, activists like Planned Parenthood have had unlimited access to America’s classrooms, knowing if they hook kids on sex, they’re grooming the next generation of abortion customers. It’s been a great down payment on future business — until now. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH) made it clear that the department is under new management where all of this is concerned, posting a list of priorities that should relieve every sane parent in America.

First of all, the agency vows to ensure that adolescent program materials are “age-appropriate” and “do not promote harmful ideologies, such as gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology. OASH will focus on programs that do not promote material that depicts, describes, exposes or presents obscene, indecent, or sexually explicit content,” the document notes, “including content that encourages, normalizes or promotes sexual activity for minors. OASH will prioritize OASH programs and funding that are in compliance with these priorities and applicable law.”

Second, OASH promises to defend parental rights “to the fullest extent of its authority under the law … including parents’ right to protect their children from exposure to content that burdens the exercise of their religious beliefs.”

Under this new criteria, NYT complains, anyone applying for taxpayer dollars “must teach abstinence,” also known as sexual risk avoidance, “as the only means to prevent teen pregnancy. Courses must stress the importance of marriage and procreation and instruct young people how to safeguard their fertility. They make scant reference to preventing sexually transmitted infections and virtually none to lesbian, gay and transgender sexuality.”

As FRC’s Quena González pointed out to The Washington Stand, “The fact that some professional sex ed providers who receive millions of dollars in federal funds are complaining that these priorities are now required to continue receiving taxpayer dollars should alarm parents and enrage taxpayers. We shouldn’t be allowing, much less paying for, schools to tell students, ‘We know you’re going to experiment, wink wink, so here’s how to derive the most sexual pleasure from underage sex.’”

González applauded the overhaul as an overdue change to the dangerous status quo. “Insisting that taxpayers pay adults to teach middle schoolers — typically 11-14 years old — about ‘sexual consent,’ pleasurable condom use, or how adolescent girls can use intrauterine devices and implants to avoid pregnancy, is just plain creepy,” he said. “Kids need to be taught that sex is a wonderful gift and a powerful expression of adult love when it is exercised within the safety of a loving marriage covenant. Sex isn’t a toy, and the harms of offering it to minors are well documented and not really debated; studies show that delaying sexual contact until marriage increases the chances of a stable marriage and decreases the chance of living in poverty.”

Valerie Huber, who’s spent decades fighting for this kind of principled approach to sex ed, had one reaction to the administration’s pivot: relief. “Mostly for the young people,” the president of The Institute for Women’s Health told TWS. “For years, sexual risk avoidance had to justify itself while the alternative was funded as though its results were settled. That was never a research question. It was a worldview question dressed up as one.” Now, thanks to Trump, “risk avoidance is being treated as a legitimate public health goal for adolescents, the way it already is for every other youth risk behavior. We do not teach teenagers to smoke carefully. We tell them the truth about risk, and we help them stay at no risk or move from high risk to low risk to no risk,” she emphasized. “Sexual health is the one place we abandoned that model, but now HHS is being consistent across all youth risk behaviors. Bravo!”

Huber looked back over the last several years, lamenting the damage that the Left’s “if-it-feels-good-do-it” message has done. “When adults in authority signal that sexual activity is expected of a 14-year-old, that is not neutral information,” she insisted. “It is permission, and for many students it is pressure.” Under Obama and Biden, she noted, “These programs routinely positioned outside providers, including organizations whose business model depends on abortion, as the trusted adult in a young person’s life — and treated parents as an obstacle to be managed. A curriculum that teaches a 15-year-old how to obtain services without telling her mother is not a health program,” Valerie argued.

With the exception of Trump’s first term, “Students have been offered risk reduction at best and rarely offered risk avoidance,” Huber stressed, “which is the only approach that eliminates risk rather than managing it.”

Although teen pregnancies have dropped over time, she acknowledges, it was a hollow victory. “We counted births. We counted birth control. We did not count infections, we did not count coercion, and we did not measure what happens when pregnancy prevention becomes a substitute for holistic health and thriving for young people,” Valerie said. “We called it a win. In those same years, the emotional, social, intellectual, and spiritual health of American adolescents all declined. If your scorecard shows success while the young people on it are falling apart, you are measuring the wrong thing.”

Of course, the nonprofits who’ve been suddenly cut off from this federal gravy train are complaining that this creates an “existential dilemma” for sex ed. Some, the Times reports, are even suing HHS over the new requirements. But the reality is, there’s no “right” to taxpayer dollars — especially not for an indoctrination scheme that’s only exacerbating the problems they claim to solve.

What’s more, America needs to stop believing that young people can only meet the low bars we set. “Hand a young person a high standard and tell them you believe they can meet it, and most of them rise to it,” Huber underscored. “What they resent instantly is the adult who tells them they cannot be expected to control themselves. They hear that for exactly what it is, which is a low opinion of them.” The Left’s model assumes “every teenager is sexually active,” she shook her head. “Most high school students are not. … No one argues that because some teenagers will use drugs, prevention is unrealistic and we should teach safer use instead. We hold the optimal health standard, and we surround it with skills, support, and honesty about risk.”

To those who say the approach isn’t proven, Dr. Michelle Cretella strongly disagrees. “A rigorous review by the Institute for Research demonstrates that sexual risk avoidance education (SRAE) holds great promise. It aligns with the primary public health principle acknowledged by the CDC: abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent STDs and pregnancy, as condoms cannot guarantee absolute protection.” Unlike the Planned Parenthood-style programs, “effective SRAE is medically accurate,” she told TWS, citing an article she just authored for an online medical journal. It “discusses condoms and contraceptives and helps students commit to abstinence without decreasing contraceptive use among those who are already sexually active.”

At the end of the day, our schools were never meant to be a substitute for moms and dads, who have the ultimate responsibility to raise their children in a way that reflects their values. It’s not the job of teachers or outside “experts” to contradict those beliefs or commandeer a parent’s authority on topics that, in all honesty, don’t belong in classrooms in the first place. Now, instead of shipping off tens of millions of dollars to graphic programs that double as LGBT recruiting programs and abortion infomercials, the president is letting research, parents, and common sense dictate how America approaches sex ed. And we should all be thankful for it!

This article was originally written by Suzanne Bowdey and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

Christians often treat God’s sovereignty and human responsibility like two truths that can’t occupy the same room. One feels safe and comforting. The other feels heavy and demanding. But Scripture refuses to let us choose between them.

In one sense, we love the comfort of knowing He is in control. In another sense, we love knowing that we have free will to make choices. If we aren’t careful, especially in regards to thinking through God’s sovereignty in all things, a risky question may arise, gripping the conscience: If God is truly sovereign, does what I do actually matter? That tension is real, and avoiding it doesn’t make it go away.

If you’re a believer, chances are you already understand that the God of the universe is, in fact, sovereign. That truth is tremendously beautiful and a deep comfort. Yet it can also feel nerve wracking when we begin asking honest questions about human responsibility — about the real roles we play in living out our faith. Rather than avoiding the tension, let’s tackle it head-on. Together, let’s pursue the clarity Scripture actually gives us, instead of letting confusion and uncertainty divide us or keep us from bearing fruit where we otherwise could.

Throughout the whole Bible we see God’s ultimate sovereignty over the affairs of His creation. Throughout the whole Bible we also see that what we do really does matter — for better or for worse. Rather than surveying every example, I want to focus on one analogy the Apostle Paul himself used:

“Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified” (1 Corinthians 9:24-27).

The race is a theme that surfaces again and again in Scripture. And here is what I find striking: if we are called to run a race and to endure to the end, does that not indicate that we bear great and real responsibility for whether or not we cross the finish line? I don’t think the answer is as simple as either extreme could make it — or perhaps it’s even more simple than anyone is willing to admit.

When we understand this analogy rightly, we have to hold two truths at once. On the one hand, running is hard, and it is something we must choose to do. Even after we choose it, we know how exhausting it is. If we’re honest, many of us stop to walk, take extended breaks, or even find ourselves wandering off the course — not always eagerly sticking to the straight and narrow.

Yet in terms of human responsibility and our call to run with endurance, I firmly believe running is far more mental than it is physical. When I ran cross country, I was fit enough to keep going, but I would consistently want to stop and walk, genuinely thinking it wouldn’t cost me much. Little did I know, however, that an act as small as walking to catch my breath was stopping me from ever learning how to — and believing that I could — run for long periods of time without stopping to walk.

As I was instructed, the very nature of walking is not the same as running. They are two different forms with two different effects on the body. When I first started, I didn’t need to learn how to move my arms or legs. Before anything else, I needed to train my mind not to quit. Even if I had to run as slow as a snail, simply by keeping the form I eventually discovered I could run much longer than I thought possible, and that I could even enjoy it! With time, the more I refused to stop and walk, the more quickly I progressed in speed as I ran.

One thing bled into another, but it all began with where my mind was — removing the mental block that insisted I had no other choice than to walk.

For the Christian, the mental blocks we must remove are many: anxieties, grievances, financial hardship, loneliness. The list is essentially endless. Thankfully, the Bible doesn’t leave us staring at the obstacles but gives us better things to set our minds on. I encourage you to find your verse — the one that steadies your heart and keeps you running. Mine is Acts 20:24: “But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.”

So yes, there is real responsibility we bear in running this race and running it well. But here is the truth I most want to drive home: none of us would be able to run this race at all without the God of the universe by our side. It is He who paved the way through the death and resurrection of His Son. He is the One who brought us out of spiritual death and into spiritual life. He is the One who supplies the strength. He gives purpose to trials and hope amid suffering. He is the One who made the finish line exist and who made crossing it possible. Better yet, the race He calls us to run is not one He is asking us to win by our own effort. Why? Because it has already been won. Christ Himself declared, “It is finished.” He stands in victory across the finish line, seated at the right hand of God the Father.

In this race, God is the one who sustains and guides us. Even when we wander, He leaves the 99 to bring us home. When we cheat and break the rules, He is ready with mercy, grace, and forgiveness. When we grow weary, He spurs us on and gives us rest. Even when the race takes us through high waters, He has promised we will not drown. Not even the fires of adversity will consume us. When we stumble, He doesn’t leave us in the dust but He picks us back up onto our feet. Unlike any other race, this God — and the people with whom we co-labor — run with us, hand in hand, step by step.

And so, together, with each step we “press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:14). And the end goal, according to 2 Timothy 4:7, is simple. All of us who believe long to be able to say, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.”

Christ is waiting for us with open arms. May we be able to say that we have finished the race — yet it will be He who says, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” Until that day, may we never lose hope and never allow our faith to wither. May we run well, with endurance and with joy, knowing that “they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint” (Isaiah 40:31).

This article was originally written by Sarah Holliday and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

In a culture hungry for truth and hope, Real Life Network exists to connect today's biggest conversations with the timeless truth of God's Word. One life that continues to spark those conversations is Charlie Kirk. While many remember him as a gifted communicator and fearless defender of constitutional principles, those who knew him best point to something deeper. His greatest legacy was not simply changing minds. It was pointing people toward truth with courage, conviction, and genuine compassion.

In an age when disagreement too often gives way to hostility, Charlie demonstrated that convictions and kindness are not enemies. He challenged ideas without abandoning respect for the people holding them. Whether speaking to skeptical college students, political opponents, or fellow Christians, he consistently modeled the belief that every person possesses inherent dignity because every person is created in the image of God.

Truth Requires Courage

History has always rewarded those willing to speak when silence would have been easier. Every generation faces moments when standing for truth carries a cost. For Charlie Kirk, that meant entering environments where his beliefs would be challenged rather than applauded.

Yet courage is not measured by the size of an audience or the intensity of opposition. It is measured by faithfulness.

Christians are called to "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15), refusing to compromise either truth or love. One without the other ultimately fails. Truth without love becomes harshness. Love without truth becomes compromise. Charlie's public ministry reminded many believers that biblical conviction and genuine compassion belong together.

His example also raises an important question for every Christian: Are we willing to speak faithfully where God has placed us? Most believers will never stand before thousands of people with a microphone. But every believer has opportunities to represent Christ in conversations with family members, coworkers, neighbors, and friends.

Faithfulness begins long before public influence.

Hope That Outlives Death

The Christian response to tragedy has never been denial. Scripture never asks believers to pretend suffering doesn't hurt. Jesus Himself wept at the tomb of Lazarus.

Instead, Christianity offers something the world cannot manufacture: hope.

The apostle Paul writes that believers grieve, "but not as others do who have no hope" (1 Thessalonians 4:13). That hope rests entirely upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Because Christ conquered death, those who belong to Him know that death is not the end of the story.

This confidence changes the way Christians endure suffering. Grief remains real, but despair does not have the final word. The gospel reminds believers that eternity has already begun for those who trust Christ.

That hope is needed now more than ever. In a culture searching for meaning amid uncertainty, the resurrection offers more than comfort. It offers certainty.

The Church's Greatest Opportunity

It is tempting to believe that America's future will ultimately be determined by elections, legislation, or political movements. Those matters are important, but lasting cultural renewal has always begun somewhere deeper.

Throughout history, genuine transformation has occurred when ordinary Christians have faithfully lived out the gospel in their homes, churches, workplaces, and communities.

The Church's mission has never changed. Jesus commissioned His followers to make disciples, proclaim the gospel, and be salt and light in a world desperate for hope. Political influence rises and falls. Public figures come and go. But the mission Christ gave His Church remains unchanged.

Perhaps that is the greatest lesson Charlie Kirk leaves behind.

His influence was significant, but his greatest contribution was reminding Christians that truth matters because eternity matters. His life encourages believers not simply to admire courage from a distance, but to cultivate it in their own lives.

The world does not merely need louder voices. It needs faithful witnesses.

And while Charlie's voice has been silenced on this side of eternity, the message he sought to defend remains as powerful as ever. God's truth has not changed, the gospel still transforms lives, and Christ continues to call His people to stand with conviction, humility, and hope. At Real Life Network, we're committed to sharing stories and conversations that encourage believers to live out their faith boldly while pointing people to the lasting hope found in Jesus Christ.

The blood of Christians is irrigating Africa’s soil, with Nigeria as an epicenter. As a senior research analyst at the Observatory of Religious Freedom in that continent (ORFA), Steven Kefas has been following closely horrific stories of martyrdom.

He is now one of the principal contributors to the explosive ORFA six-year study on violence and religious freedom in Nigeria. Because of Kefas’s investigative journalism, documenting human rights abuses and insecurity in Kaduna State, he faced growing pressure from authorities until he was arrested and imprisoned for 162 days in May 2019.

Kefas witnessed deaths among inmates and suffered health challenges. “An experience that only strengthened my resolve to continue exposing injustice,” he said for this interview.

For more than a decade, he has meticulously documented religious persecution, terrorism, mass killings, kidnappings, and forced displacement across Nigeria’s Middle Belt and other affected regions, combining field investigations, survivor interviews, and data analysis to better understand the drivers of violence and to ensure that the voices of victims are not ignored.

What were the key findings of the recent ORFA report on violence and faith in Nigeria?

The scale of violence documented by ORFA is staggering.

Between 2020 and 2025, our research documented 79,323 people killed and 34,773 civilians abducted across Nigeria. On average, that translates to about seven attacks and 36 deaths every single day over the six-year reporting period.

Of those killed, 42,033 were civilians, while 37,290 were security personnel or members of armed groups. One of the report’s most significant findings is that Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), despite receiving the most international attention, accounted for only about 12% of civilian deaths during the reporting period.

By contrast, the groups ORFA classifies as Fulani terror groups were responsible for 18,577 civilian deaths — about 44% of all civilian killings documented.

The religious dimension of the violence is equally concerning. ORFA documented the killing of 28,551 Christians and 13,224 Muslims. After adjusting for the population of affected states, Christians were killed at approximately 4.4 times the rate of Muslims.

While abductions appeared relatively similar in raw numbers — 15,932 Christians and 15,272 Muslims — our companion study, Captivity by Creed, found significant differences in how victims were treated. Christian captives consistently faced higher ransom demands, longer periods in captivity, harsher treatment, greater pressure to renounce their faith, and a higher likelihood of being executed even after ransom payments had been made.

These findings challenge many prevailing assumptions about the conflict and underscore the need for a more evidence-based understanding of the violence affecting Nigeria.

What challenges did ORFA face in conducting field research?

The greatest challenges were security and funding.

Many of the communities we studied are active conflict zones where attacks remain frequent. Conducting field investigations often meant travelling into areas where there was a genuine risk of terrorist attacks, kidnappings, or ambushes. In many cases, our researchers had to work under extremely difficult conditions while ensuring the safety of survivors who agreed to speak with us.

Funding has also been a major limitation. ORFA has carried out this extensive research with relatively modest resources. Despite those constraints, we have built one of the most comprehensive datasets on religious freedom-related violence in Nigeria.

With greater financial support, we could expand our geographic coverage, increase the frequency of field investigations, verify even more incidents, and provide a more complete picture of the crisis.

Could you share some of the stories that had the greatest impact on you or your team while collecting the data?

The testimonies of survivors who spent months, and in some cases hundreds of days, in terrorist captivity had the greatest impact on me personally. Their accounts gave us rare insight into the internal operations of terrorist groups, their methods and, importantly, the motivations behind many of their atrocities.

One story that continues to haunt me involves Christian women abducted from communities in Southern Kaduna. Many were repeatedly sexually assaulted by their captors, forcibly impregnated, and pressured or compelled to convert to Islam while in captivity. After enduring months of unimaginable suffering and finally regaining their freedom, some returned home only to face rejection by their own families. In several cases, their husbands refused to accept them back because they returned with children conceived through rape.

These women survived terrorism only to encounter another form of trauma upon returning home. Their stories remind us that the consequences of terrorism extend far beyond the attack itself and often continue long after victims escape captivity.

What is the typical reaction of Nigerian authorities to reports of this kind?

The reaction has too often been one of denial or dismissal rather than serious engagement with the evidence.

Instead of acknowledging the scale of the crisis and responding to the concerns raised by independent researchers, authorities have frequently sought to downplay reports documenting religiously targeted violence. We saw this clearly when the U.S. government under President Donald Trump raised concerns about the persecution of Christians in Nigeria.

Rather than addressing the underlying issues, the Nigerian government strongly rejected those characterizations and publicly disputed the findings. It also retained the U.S.-based lobbying firm DCI Group under a contract reportedly worth approximately $9 million to improve Nigeria’s international image.

My hope is that future reports will be met not with denial but with constructive engagement, transparent investigation, and meaningful action to protect vulnerable communities.

Could it be said that the efforts of terrorist groups in Nigeria are aimed at eliminating or diminishing the Christian presence in the country, especially in the geographical and socio-political transition zone in central Nigeria known as The Middle Belt?

Based on ORFA’s findings, I believe there is compelling evidence that, particularly in Nigeria’s Middle Belt, many attacks by Fulani terror groups disproportionately target Christian communities.

The pattern we documented extends beyond isolated attacks.

The Middle Belt separates the predominantly Muslim far North from the mostly Christian South and is characterized by its high ethno-linguistic diversity and crucial agricultural output. Is that a factor for the violence?

Entire Christian farming villages have repeatedly been attacked, churches destroyed, clergy killed or abducted, and thousands of predominantly Christian communities forcibly displaced. In numerous cases, displaced communities have remained unable to return to their ancestral lands for years, with reports that some abandoned villages have subsequently been occupied by the attackers or others.

While motivations can vary across different armed groups and regions of Nigeria, the evidence from many parts of the Middle Belt indicates that Christian communities have been disproportionately targeted in ways that have significantly reduced their presence in affected areas.

In 2016, the BBC and other major media outlets framed the violence in Nigeria as disputes between herders. Have you seen any shift in the mainstream media narrative regarding the violence in Nigeria?

Yes, I believe there has been a gradual shift.

A decade ago, much of the international media described the violence primarily as “farmer-herder clashes,” implying that both sides were engaged in roughly equivalent communal disputes over land and grazing resources.

That framing overlooked the organized, sustained, and often highly lethal attacks against civilian communities that many local researchers and affected communities had been documenting for years.

Increasingly, however, journalists, researchers, policymakers, and international organizations are recognizing that many of these incidents cannot be adequately explained as resource conflicts alone. The scale, organization, and recurring targeting of civilian populations point to a much more serious security challenge involving terrorist violence carried out by armed Fulani militant groups in many parts of Nigeria.

While some media outlets continue to use the farmer-herder narrative, there is now a broader appreciation that the violence is more complex. Also, that terrorism, ideological extremism, criminality, and religious targeting all play significant roles in different parts of the country. I believe this more nuanced understanding is an important step toward developing effective responses.

This article was originally written by Yoe Suarez and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

This piece grew out of a recent episode of Rose Unplugged, where I  sat down with decluttering expert Joshua Becker to talk about the surprising overlap between our need for control and the clutter we hold onto. Here's some of what I shared with viewers that day. 

This is about relinquishing control to God — and about organizing and uncluttering our homes, our lives, and our faith. It's a subject I explored recently. 

Let's start with control: 

Last year someone very close to me experienced serious complications after surgery. What should have been a recovery turned into a two-month hospital stay, and ultimately, his passing. 

I was carrying the deep sadness of watching someone I loved slowly  fade away. There's no way to prepare yourself for that — for sitting  next to a hospital bed, hoping for improvement while quietly realizing the outcome may already have been decided. 

And naturally, during seasons like that, lessons surface. Growth happens — even when we resist it. Because if I'm being honest with  myself — and it took me some time to get there — I realized this  wasn't just about grief. It was about control. 

As my friend was dying, I was forced to come face-to-face with something I've struggled with my entire life: and that is-- I can't control everything. 

But I am a fixer. That's what they called me at home for years. You've got a problem? I can fix it. And most of the time — I did. I was good at it. Not only did I believe I could fix things — my family and friends  believed it too.  

If friends or family found themselves tangled in circumstances they couldn't sort through — I was there. Not just with a solution, but with a really good solution. I took pride in that.

I think when someone grows up surrounded by a lot of chaos — a lot  of distressing moments — that child learns early how to create order wherever they can. As they are growing into an adult that person will find ways to create their own order. Or essentially, control situations because growing up they felt things were so very out of control. 

That was me. 

‍

‍

But the problem with being a fixer is that it doesn't always leave room for God to do what only He can do. 

During my friend's time in the hospital, I learned — painfully — that  there were things I simply couldn’t do. I didn't understand what was happening to his body. I couldn't make it better. I couldn't fix it. I had  to let go. And I had to let God finish a work He had already begun. 

Not everything is up to me. Not everything can be fixed by me. And  learning that — really learning it — changed me. And once that truth settled in, I began to look honestly at my own  life — and I realized just how many ways I exerted control. 

Now understand, my control came from a desire to help. But  underneath that help was often an inner turmoil — a constant hum of responsibility. Constantly asking myself, how do I make this better? What else can I do? What am I missing? 

But even in the midst of turmoil, God calls us to rest in Him. 

There were many times I did. But if I'm honest, there were just as  many times I did not. Or I would give a situation to Him — only to  take it back. We do that, don't we? Hand it over in prayer, then quietly reclaim it the moment things don't move fast enough or look the way we want them to. 

When you really think about it, it's arrogant. How in the world do we convince ourselves that we can control outcomes? Especially as Christians. We should know better. 

Proverbs 19:21 reminds us, "Many are the plans in a person's heart, but it is the Lord's purpose that prevails."

And here's the part that stopped me cold: God was calling His child — my friend — home. To eternal life with Him. And if I'm being completely honest, I was almost working against that. Think about it. I felt like I needed to be part of the process that saved his earthly body, and yet all the while God was preparing to receive it. 

When you sit with that for a moment — you realize that's awfully presumptuous. 

During that time of awakening, I was reminded of something Oswald Chambers wrote in “My Utmost for His Highest”. In a July devotion, he talks about what he calls "calculating without God." He references Psalm 37:5: "Commit thy way unto the Lord; trust also in Him; and He shall bring it to pass." 

Chambers wrote, "Don't calculate without God. God seems to have a delightful way of upsetting the things we have calculated on without taking Him into account… Haul yourself up a hundred and one times a day in order to keep your heart from being troubled, until you get into the habit of putting God first and calculating with Him in view." 

That hit me. I decided I needed to stop managing God and start truly trusting Him. Trusting Him entirely. And I couldn’t do that with conditions and backup plans. But with open hands. And an open heart. And that surrender, real surrender, was the hardest lesson of all. 

It was a lesson that carried me through the rest of 2025. And it's one I hope to continue deepening as I move forward. 

I spent years believing peace came from holding everything together – from tightening my grip. But I've learned that peace isn't found in managing more – It's found in letting go, making room for God and trusting Him with the outcome. 

And all of that was on my mind when I interviewed Joshua Becker about a few of his books; “Becoming Minimalist”, “Uncluttered Faith”,  and “Clutter Free with Kids”. 

Long before "minimalism" became a trend, Christian leaders were preaching the power of decluttering our lives. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, emphasized extreme simplicity and faithful stewardship. In his sermon “The Use of Money”, he urged believers to "gain all you can, save all you can, and give all you can," warning  that accumulating luxuries was a burden that "chokes" the spiritual  life.  

Wesley himself lived with very few possessions; he considered it a crucial part of living a holy life and therefore freeing his heart for God's work and for helping others. 

And here is a story that really struck home for me about Wesley:

Wesley had just finished hanging and admiring some artwork he had purchased for his room when one of the chambermaids came to his door. It was a very cold winter day, and he noticed that she had only a thin linen gown to wear for protection against that cold.  

He immediately reached into his pocket to give her some money for a coat and realized he had very little left after his purchases. It struck him then that the Lord was not pleased with how he had spent his money. He asked himself: "Will Thy Master say, 'Well done, good and  faithful steward?' Thou has adorned thy walls with the money that might have screened this poor creature from the cold! O justice! O mercy! Are not these pictures the blood of this poor maid?" 

I can’t stop thinking about that. When we engage in excess, there is little left for those in need. 

And that raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: are we conducting our lives, our choices, and our spending, in a way that reflects stewardship, or self-indulgence? 

This isn't about luxury for luxury's sake. It's about whether our appetites have quietly replaced our accountability. Because every dollar, every resource, every moment we consume beyond what we  need is something that can no longer be offered to someone else. 

In a culture that celebrates more, faster, bigger; restraint has  become radical. But restraint is also where compassion lives. And maybe the measure of a life well lived isn't what we accumulate, but being mindful of making room to give. 

I shared initially in that program with Joshua Becker about control and then segued into reducing clutter which, when accumulated, is really a type of control.  

And here's the thing — we don't usually call it control. We call it  being responsible. Prepared. On top of things. But let's be honest, sometimes it's not organization we're after but reassurance. 

Most of us aren't trying to control life because we're bossy or rigid. We're doing it because life feels loud and unpredictable. And when the world feels uncertain, control feels comforting. That's where clutter sneaks in. Because clutter isn't always about having too much stuff. Sometimes it's about holding onto options, just in case. Just so we don't feel caught off guard. 

So, we keep the extra bins and the backup supplies. The things we might need someday. Even when what we're really doing is trying to manage our anxiety with labels and shelves. 

I do want to point out that order is not the enemy. God is a God of order. But order without trust can leave us exhausted. Because while control promises peace… it never actually delivers it. 

Scripture reminds us that peace doesn't come from managing every outcome. Jesus told us not to worry about tomorrow, not because tomorrow doesn't matter, but because we aren't meant to carry it. 

Sometimes the most freeing thing we can do isn't organize more, it's loosening our hold. And maybe the goal isn't a perfectly controlled life, but one where we trust God enough to release what we don't need to carry. One where we make space — not just in our  homes, but in our hearts.

For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

WNBA player Sophie Cunningham grabbed a lot of headlines this week after saying she believes “truth” requires protecting women from biological men invading their sports.

The basketball star told ESPN on Tuesday, “I think that I am here to extend love. But I also think with that love is truth, being honest. And I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men.”

One user slammed her position on X, “Sophie Cunningham is unafraid. Unafraid to be blatantly transphobic.”

Another account posted, “Sophie Cunningham has to be suspended today. You @WNBA can’’t claim to have ‘No Space for Hate’ and then suspend Sandy Brondelo for her comments but allow Sophie to be wildly transphobic in a ESPN article and skate away without consequences. The punishment must be equal.”

After generating chatter on social media, the 29-year-old guard for the Indiana Fever doubled down on Wednesday when speaking with reporters before her team’s game against the Connecticut Sun. “I said what I said. I think it’s kind of common sense,” Cunningham asserted. “And I think I’ll always believe in that. I think it’s really important to protect children, and that’s little girls who are also involved in that category. I stand on what I said.”

Cunningham and Caitlin Clark, another guard for the Indiana Fever, are considered to be the two most popular WNBA stars.

“Sophie has proven she is a defender, she is bold, and she is completely in tune with the spirit of sport. She isn’t letting brand deals or politics control or distract her — she’s simply unafraid to say what everyone is thinking,” Macy Charles, a legislative strategist for Concerned Women of America told The Washington Stand.

Cunningham cited Title IX as a reason for fairness in women’s sports. “That’s why you have some of the greats in women’s sports,” Cunningham said. “If Title IX and women’s sports weren’t protected, then you wouldn’t hear about any type of women in sport. And so, I think in the future, it’s just really important to protect.”

“And, like I said, I’m gonna stand true to that,” she continued. I’ll never falter in my beliefs in that.”

Despite speaking out, Cunningham is tight-lipped about her political beliefs.

Charles pointed out that Cunningham recognizes the commonsense purpose of the WNBA. “She also knows her opportunities were made possible because she wasn’t expected to participate in the NBA — equality and fairness were exactly why the WNBA was created. She is preserving that for those coming after her. Sophie said she spoke ‘in love,’ and that’s important. Scripture tells us that love rejoices in the truth. Speaking truth in love isn’t a contradiction. It’s exactly what we’re called to do.”

Cunningham’s views are also incredibly mainstream, New York Times/Ipsos polling shows. A whopping 80% of Americans believe biological men should not compete in women’s sports — including 67% of Democrats. Among Republicans, support for the star guard’s position is almost unanimous: 94%.

At a press conference at the White House on Thursday, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed the situation.

“The backlash she [Sophie Cunningham] is receiving from Democrats and left-wing figures across the country is astonishing. They are clearly very out of touch with the American public on this issue, which again, is an 80/20 issue. It’s common sense. It’s rooted in basic biological fact that men should not be competing against women on playing fields across the country,” Leavitt said.

Other politicians outside of the White House rallied behind Cunningham on X, including Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), and Rep. Eli Crane (Ariz.). Fellow athletes Riley Gaines and Martina Navratilova also showed support.

Jennifer Sey, the founder and CEO of XX-XY Athletics, posted on X, “Let this be a lesson to other high level female athletes ... if you are a draw, speak up. They won’t can you.”

Ella Frei, a 17-year-old high school volleyball player from Wisconsin who has said she faced online harassment after criticizing her school’s transgender bathroom policy, also posted, “Thank you @sophaller for being the first female superstar athlete to have my back. It means the world to me.”

Briley Lechner, a high school volleyball player in Michigan who was forced to share a locker room with a biological male identifying as a female from an opposing team, commented that she is inspired by Cunningham as well: “Watching @sophaller say it out loud — that girls shouldn’t have to give up fair competition or our privacy — meant more than she’ll ever know. When a WNBA star says it, maybe people finally listen. I know what it’s like to have your voice on this treated like it’s hateful. It isn’t. Wanting a fair game and a private locker room was never hate. It’s just the truth, and I’m done being afraid to say it. Thank you, Sophie, for going first. You made it easier for the rest of us.”

This article was originally written by Quinn Delamater and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

Every culture is shaped by something deeper than laws, elections, or headlines. Long before policies change, people begin to sense which ideas are celebrated, which beliefs are tolerated, and which convictions carry a cost. That quiet shift is what the Israeli military calls ruach hamefaked, or "the spirit of the commander." As discussed on The Daniel Cohen Show, it describes a culture where no explicit order is necessary because everyone already understands the direction they are expected to follow. That same principle helps explain many of today's most troubling headlines, from attacks on biblical truth to growing hostility toward religious freedom. Watch more biblical news and cultural analysis anytime on Real Life Network.

The Orders No One Has to Give

Healthy organizations often function without constant instruction.

A trusted leader establishes a culture so clearly that those under his authority instinctively know how to act. They understand not only the rules, but also the values behind them. Cultures operate the same way. People learn what is acceptable long before anyone puts it in writing.

That reality is evident in one of the episode's most disturbing stories. An Ontario surrogate mother was asked to abort an otherwise healthy baby because an ultrasound revealed a cleft lip, a condition that is routinely corrected through surgery after birth. When she refused, the intended parents sued her.

No government ordered that lawsuit. No public official instructed anyone to treat a child as a product that could be rejected because of a cosmetic condition. Yet the cultural expectation already existed.

The child was no longer viewed primarily as a gift bearing the image of God. Instead, the pregnancy became a contract, and the baby became something that could be evaluated against personal expectations.

The same pattern appeared in testimony before Congress, where a medical school leader struggled to affirm the simple biological reality that women become pregnant. Future physicians are increasingly taught language designed to accommodate ideology rather than objective truth.

Again, no one had to issue a formal command. Everyone already understood which answers would be rewarded and which ones would invite criticism.

The most powerful cultural changes often happen without anyone ever giving an explicit order.

When Truth Becomes the Enemy

As the episode unfolded, stories that initially seemed unrelated revealed a common thread.

In New York City, historic churches have suffered repeated fires while public silence has raised questions about whether attacks on Christian institutions receive the same urgency as attacks on other communities.

Across the Atlantic, Finnish parliament member Päivi Räsänen continues facing consequences for publicly expressing a biblical view of marriage and sexuality. Her conviction for "hate speech" stemmed from quoting Scripture and defending long-held Christian doctrine. She was later barred from traveling through the United Kingdom because of that conviction.

The details differ. The underlying pattern does not. Increasingly, biblical convictions are treated not simply as beliefs that others reject, but as beliefs that society considers dangerous. That shift matters. Freedom of religion has never meant merely holding private opinions. It has always included the freedom to live consistently with those convictions in public life.

A society begins to lose its freedom when speaking the truth becomes more controversial than abandoning it.

Readers looking for more biblical analysis of today's cultural issues can explore additional programming on Real Life Network.

Every Culture Reflects the Spirit It Serves

Headlines come and go. Political leaders rise and fall. Court decisions are appealed.

But beneath every cultural controversy lies a deeper spiritual question. What spirit is shaping the culture?

Jesus consistently taught that outward actions flow from inward realities. Nations are no different. The values a society celebrates eventually become the values it protects, while the truths it rejects gradually disappear from public life. That process rarely happens all at once. It happens one compromise at a time.

One redefined word. One ignored act of violence. One silenced conviction. One generation that learns certain truths are simply too costly to say aloud. That is why discernment matters so much.

Christians are not called to panic every time a troubling headline appears. Neither are they called to ignore the direction of the culture around them. They are called to recognize the spiritual currents beneath the headlines and remain faithful regardless of where those currents may lead.

Every culture eventually reflects the spirit it chooses to follow.

The greatest question facing Christians today is not simply what the next headline will be.

It is whether God's people will continue to follow the truth even when the culture quietly begins moving in another direction.

Watch the full discussion on The Daniel Cohen Show and discover more biblical news and cultural commentary on Real Life Network.

Optimism is insufficient to hold you up against the harsh reality of telling your daughters you won’t be alive long enough to walk them down the aisle or letting your parents know they’ll have to bury their son, Ben Sasse shared in The Wall Street Journal late last year.

Sasse is a 44-year-old former senator from Nebraska who was diagnosed with metastasized, stage 4 pancreatic cancer in December 2025 and given mere months to live. He is also a husband and father of three children.

“I already had a death sentence before last week too — we all do,” Sasse said. “As a Christian, the weeks running up to Christmas are a time to orient our hearts toward the hope of what’s to come,” he continued. “Death and dying aren’t the same — the process of dying is still something to be lived.”

Sasse’s response to his diagnosis created shockwaves. While optimism is insufficient for Sasse, there’s one thing that isn’t: the hope, security, and comfort found in Jesus Christ.

“We [Christians] hope in a real Deliverer — a rescuing God, born at a real time, in a real place,” he wrote.

For the believer, Sasse’s response is not confusing — it makes sense. A Christian’s inheritance is the perfect peace of Christ.

“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid,” Jesus reassures us in John 14:27.

“The way in which the former senator and his family are clinging to Christ in the midst of profound suffering is a vivid reminder for so many of us that a Christian’s hope is not rooted ultimately in favorable circumstances, but really in the character of God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” David Closson, the director of the Center for Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand.

In a recent survey, the American Bible Society asked respondents if they turn to the Bible when they encounter difficulties in life or if they blame God for their troubles and reject any religious expression.

The organization found an increase in Bible reading, which directly results in an increase in hope for those who have put their trust in the Lord.

“From a biblical perspective, this makes sense. Scripture never promises that Christians will be spared suffering. In John 16:33 Jesus tells his followers that in this world you will have tribulation,” Closson said. “But Scripture consistently teaches that suffering has a way of stripping away false securities, and reminding us of our dependence on God, and then we could also say trials often expose the inadequacy of the other things we are tempted to trust in, such as our health, careers, finances, relationships, or sense of control.”

The report shows that those who experience difficult life circumstances and trauma are even more likely to read the Bible and rely on their faith for peace and healing than those who haven’t dealt with hardships.

Steadfast faith does not deny the reality of pain, Closson said. “It rather demonstrates that suffering does not have the final word.”

Bible reading was recorded to be 48% for those who faced a life-threatening illness or injury, like Sasse, compared to 37% for those who have not.

The report also found that 38% of those dealing with a life-threatening illness or injury said that their faith was “a great source of comfort to them” as they navigated “life issues,” compared to 31% of those not experiencing a tragedy.

“The mind regulates more effectively when attention is gently anchored to something safe, meaningful and true,” Joanna Hargreaves, a Christian psychotherapist, posted. “Regular Biblical Meditation soothes your amygdala. The amygdala is your brain’s alarm system triggering fear, stress, and anger.”

It is the natural tendency of the heart of the believer to turn to God in the midst of trials and tribulations. It is a mark of spiritual health to lean on the promises of eternity found in God’s word rather than looking to the world for comfort during times of impossible pain.

Closson also observed that unique opportunities for gospel ministry are presented when people are confronted with their own mortality. “As believers, we should be prepared to meet those moments with compassion and care and share the hope that’s ultimately found in the gospel,” he argued. “This report confirms something that Christians have believed for centuries, which is that while God does not waste suffering, he often does use it to draw people closer to himself.”

Because of sin, we live in a world where dads lose their lives to cancer too early, where divorce is common, and confusion about gender and sexuality runs rampant.

But God.

“The testimony of many believers is the suffering that has become the very context in which the promises of God become most precious. Bible passages that maybe seemed abstract in times of ease suddenly become more personal when read from a hospital room or while caring for a sick loved one,” Closson mused.

Take heart, for I have overcome the world, Jesus tells his followers. He calls us not to be discouraged. Sasse is a living example of what it means to embrace this. Amid the trial, he understands what we could all benefit from as a reminder: though we live in a fleeting world, there is an unfailing hope.

This article was originally written by Quinn Delamater and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

In a sign of the continuing breakdown of religious freedom in Europe, Finnish parliament member Päivi Räsänen was banned by the U.K. from traveling to Heathrow Airport for a planned layover due to her Finnish Supreme Court conviction in March for authoring a pamphlet containing supposed “hate speech” toward those who identify as LGBT.

Räsänen’s legal saga began in 2019, when she wrote a post on social media questioning why her Finnish Lutheran Church was choosing to participate in an LGBT Pride event, citing the scriptural prohibition against same-sex conduct from Romans 1:24-27. Finnish authorities eventually charged her and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola with “hate speech” for authoring a pamphlet advocating for a biblical view of sexuality and for the social media post.

Even after Räsänen and Pohjola’s eventual unanimous acquittal of the charges by two lower courts in 2023, prosecutors continued to press the case by appealing it. In March of this year, a narrow 3-2 Finland Supreme Court decision found Räsänen and Pohjola guilty of “hate speech” for authoring the pamphlet and sentenced them to pay a €1,800 fine. The decision also ordered that the pamphlet be removed from public access and that all physical copies be destroyed. She was not found guilty for two other charges based on the social media post and a radio debate.

Notably, the court admitted in its ruling that Räsänen and Pohjola’s conduct was not “serious.” “[I]t must be taken into account that the text forming the basis for the conviction did not contain incitement to violence or comparable threat-like fomenting of hatred,” the court wrote. “The conduct is therefore not particularly serious in terms of the nature of the offense.”

Nevertheless, Räsänen recently revealed that because of this single “not particularly serious” charge, the U.K. has rejected her Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA) merely to pass through the country via Heathrow Airport (after initially approving it) while traveling from the U.S. to Helsinki, Finland’s capital. Räsänen further revealed that the U.K.’s revocation of her ETA could imperil her plans to attend an upcoming conference and speaking engagement in Northern Ireland next month about — ironically — freedom of speech.

Experts like author and columnist Rod Dreher say that the decision of a Western nation like the U.K. to bar Räsänen from stepping foot in the country because of perceived “hate speech” is a sign that Europe is rapidly sliding toward totalitarianism.

“Now that I hear someone as innocent and gentle as this Finnish granny has been forbidden by the British government even for setting foot in their international airport … well, it confirms my suspicions,” he posted last week on his Substack page. Dreher went on to note how the European Parliament is currently considering a measure that would “enable monitoring of people’s private, encrypted chats” to find any hint of perceived “hate speech” and further erode the ability of Europeans to freely express their religious beliefs.

“I think Päivi is a canary in the civilizational coal mine,” Dreher added. “The progressive bureaucratic order in European countries would rather attack faithful Christians as Enemies Of Society than deal with the actual problems they have. We can expect more of this. It’s a Finnish Lutheran lawmaker and grandmother today; it could easily be you tomorrow.”

European free speech advocates like Peter McIlvenna agree, noting that the U.K. barring Räsänen from entering is just the latest in a recent string of travel bans.

“We had a similar situation a couple of months ago whenever we had a United Kingdom rally organized by Tommy Robinson, and the U.K. government blocked 11 individuals who were traveling from Europe, I think, including Ezra Levant [who] was from Canada,” he pointed out during “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Tuesday. “They were given this statement, ‘Your presence is not conducive to the common good and therefore you are being blocked for entering.’ Of course, any government can have that ability to stop people coming in. I wish they used it to stop illegal immigrants coming in, but hey, they’re using it for members of Parliament. … [Räsänen] has been a member of [Finland’s] Parliament there for decades and decades.”

McIlvenna, the co-founder of Hearts of Oak, a U.K.-based free speech alliance, went on to describe the extent of the free speech violations that are occurring in his country.

“[T]o think that [Räsänen] is a danger in the U.K. is utter, utter madness,” he lamented. “But that’s where we’re going. … [The government] arrests people for statements online. We have 30 arrests a day for people saying things online that the government does not like … and that fits into our hate crimes. Anything you say that may be perceived as offensive to someone else, then you’ve committed an offense. So it’s where we are.”

“[Europe is] very dark place now,” McIlvenna added. “Finland is a very secular country. Scandinavia and Britain have always prided themselves on our Christian heritage or tradition — 1,700 years of that Christian thread that is very quickly disappearing with an apostate church and very few Christians involved in public office. So that is where we are going, far away from our traditional Christian faith.”

Still, Räsänen sees a thread of hope within the persecution that she has faced, recently describing how it has opened up opportunities for her to share her faith. She recalled that after her “hate speech” case became public in 2019, a young man who identified as an atheist sent her an angry message. After she replied in kindness and shared the gospel with him, she described that he later reached out to her again.

“He said that after his conversation with me, he has found Christ, and he has found a way to eternal life,” Räsänen remembered. “I understood that this is not in vain. It is not in vain to defend these freedoms. It is not in vain to share the message of the Bible.”

This article was originally written by Dan Hart and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

In a setback for religious freedom, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled last Thursday that Christian schools in Maine must comply with pro-LGBT regulations that conflict with their religious beliefs, if they want to participate in a public tuition assistance program. “Essentially what the court has said is that you can believe what you want to believe, you can talk about what you believe, but once you exercise what you believe, that’s conduct that the state of Maine can regulate,” said Jeremy Dys, senior counsel for First Liberty Institute, which brought the lawsuit.

In Crosspoint Church v. Makin, a two-judge panel (one judge died before the opinion was issued) partially upheld a lower court order denying a preliminary injunction against Maine’s pro-LGBT regulations. Crosspoint Church runs Bangor Christian School (BCS). The court decided a second lawsuit featuring a Catholic school (St. Dominic Academy v. Makin) on the same day, on almost identical grounds.

BCS holds employees and students to basic biblical standards for gender and sexuality, and requires teachers to ascribe to a statement of faith. But those standards run afoul of provisions in the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), which Maine now applies to schools seeking to participate in its tuition assistance program. “A private school that participates in the tuition-assistance program and then violates the MHRA exposes itself to civil suits from both the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) and private alleged victims, with remedies including injunctive relief and monetary damages,” the court described.

Specifically, the MHRA “‘Religious Nondiscrimination Rule’ bars covered schools from discriminating in admissions, financial aid, academics, and the like on the basis of religion,” as the court described, and its “‘Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Rule’ bars discrimination in all the same activities on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity but exempts religious schools that do not receive public funding.”

In practice, this rule would have the effect of preventing BCS’s attempts to enforce its biblical norms of sexuality and gender, Dys told The Washington Stand. For instance, if a male student identified as transgender and wished to use the female restrooms and locker rooms, BCS could not enforce its policies against him without violating the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Rule. “When the state of Maine presents this sort of regulation on conduct, it creates a real problem,” he said.

Yet the court concluded the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Rule “works no constitutional violation.” It also held that “certain of BCS’s policies” violated the Religious Nondiscrimination Rule, including “church member discounts” and “consideration of ‘prospective students’ spiritual fit.’”

Besides these rules, the MHRA also establishes an “Employment Rule” that “bars employment discrimination based on ‘race or color, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, physical or mental disability, religion, age, ancestry, national origin or familial status,’” as the court described. With regard to this rule, the court partially reversed the district court, finding that Crosspoint Church fell into a carveout in the rule, thereby eliminating the “case or controversy.”

Finally, the MHRA’s “Religious Expression Rule” stipulates that, “to the extent that an educational institution permits religious expression, it cannot discriminate between religions in so doing.” The court rightly held that “the Religious Expression Rule unconstitutionally violates Crosspoint’s free-exercise rights” and remanded it to the district court for an injunction.

In the lawsuit, Crosspoint argued that “a set of recent amendments to the MHRA specifically targets BCS, in violation of the Free Exercise Clause,” as the court characterized it, based on a years-long history of litigation.

Maine has offered state tuition assistance to enable parents to send their children to the school of their choice since 1980. However, the program excluded Christian schools until 2022, when a 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court found the policy unconstitutional in Carson v. Makin. Parents at BCS were at the center of that case.

Based on its recent decisions in Trinity Lutheran (2016) and Espinoza v. Montana (2019), where government entities tried to block Christian schools from generally available public benefits, the Supreme Court in Carson held that “Maine’s ‘nonsectarian’ requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.”

In anticipation of a defeat in front of the Supreme Court, the Maine legislature amended the law in 2021, allowing Christian schools to receive state tuition assistance, but only if they complied with the state’s rules for nondiscrimination towards sexual orientation and gender identity.

In 2023, Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey (D) professed to be scandalized at the very nature of a Christian school. “The education provided by the schools at issue here is inimical to a public education,” he complained. “They promote a single religion to the exclusion of all others, refuse to admit gay and transgender children, and openly discriminate in hiring teachers and staff.”

Frey’s comments came in response to another federal lawsuit filed by Crosspoint Church, alleging that attaching general state funding to LGBT strings amounted to a “poison pill” for accepting the money. “Putting Plaintiff to the choice of participating in a generally available benefit program or surrendering its constitutionally protected religious exercise penalizes its religious exercise and constitutes a substantial burden,” the lawsuit argued.

However, the district court refused to view the circumstances in that light, or to apply the recent string of Supreme Court precedents. Instead, U.S. District Judge John Woodcock, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled in February 2024 that “the educational antidiscrimination provisions do not violate the Free Exercise Clause because they are neutral, generally applicable, and rationally related to a legitimate government interest.”

This language reached further back to the “neutrality” test established in the Supreme Court’s 1990 ruling in Employment Division v. Smith, the controversial decision that prompted a furious Congress to overwhelmingly pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1991.

Dys contended that both the district court and the appellate court were wrong to rely on the neutrality test in this context, “because you can’t simply exclude religious exercise because it’s religious,” he told TWS. “You have to give full faith and credit to that part of the Constitution,” referring to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

“I suspect there’s going to be further action on this case,” he concluded. First Liberty is still reviewing whether to appeal the case to the full First Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court. In either case, Dys said, “We’re going to seek further review.”

“We are disappointed that though the First Circuit acknowledges that religious institutions can teach what they believe, it would then refuse to allow conduct consistent with those beliefs,” Dys declared. “Religious education plays a critical role in our diverse society, but Maine’s leadership will not tolerate conduct consistent with those religious beliefs. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, punishing religious institutions for being religious is odious to our Constitution.”

This article was originally written by Joshua Arnold and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.