Following the 2026 midterm elections, declining evangelical voter participation raises questions about the Church's influence on American culture. Discover why the Great Commission calls Christians to make disciples, share the Gospel, and engage society with biblical truth.
I think the most fitting response to this week’s election results is found in Jesus’s words in Matthew 28: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
What’s the connection to the election? First, let’s look at the election numbers.
In the 2018 midterms, white evangelicals made up 26% of the vote. On Tuesday, according to NBC, it was 17%. That’s a decline of nine percentage points.
I’m not a big fan of the elastic term “evangelical,” and tracking only white evangelicals leaves about 40% of my church out of the equation. White evangelicals are one slice of a racially diverse community of people who believe the Bible and allow it to inform their views on moral and spiritual issues that have been deemed political.
However, a decline in the share of voters could reflect lower turnout, a decline in the number of evangelicals relative to the population, or both. As for turnout, we won’t have a reliable number on what percentage of evangelicals actually voted. But some suggest it declined, and that’s a problem. When evangelicals sit out an election, they give up an opportunity to shape its outcome.
So how does all this connect to the words of Jesus?
First, Jesus tells us to make disciples. That should prompt us to ask how faithfully we’ve carried out the Great Commission. We need a renewed emphasis on sharing the good news of Jesus Christ, making disciples, and baptizing them. Start with someone you know. Share what Christ has done in your life and invite that person to read Scripture with you.
I’m sure some critics of the church would say, “Focus on evangelism and stay out of politics.” Well, consider the second part of what Jesus said, the Cultural Commission: “Teach them to observe all things that I have commanded you.” The truth of God and obedience to it is not just a private matter.
Followers of Jesus, equipped and encouraged by pastors, need to share their faith and live it out in a way that impacts the world around them, including government.
My response to the election? Go make disciples for Jesus and teach them to impact the country and the culture with biblical truth.
If you’re looking for a way to put that into practice in your community, visit frc.org/chapters to learn about our Pray Vote Stand chapters.
If you’re discouraged, remember how Jesus began and ended those words. He began by saying that all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to Him. And He ended with a promise for us as we go. “I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
This article was originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
The 2026 midterm elections have changed America's political landscape, but they haven't changed God's promises. Read why Christians can move forward in hope, remain grounded in Scripture, pray for leaders, and stay faithful to their calling regardless of election results.
The midterm elections are behind us. Some Americans are encouraged by the results, while others are disappointed, frustrated, or uncertain about what the next few years may bring.
For Christians, however, the most important truth has not changed. Our hope does not come from a politician, a political party, a candidate, or the outcome of an election. Our hope is in Jesus Christ.
Elections can change who holds power. They can affect laws, policies, and the direction of the country. Christians have good reason to pay attention and remain engaged. But no election has the authority to change God’s Word, alter His promises, or remove the assignment He has given His people.
Political movements come and go. Public opinion shifts. Cultural values can change dramatically within a generation. God’s Word remains the same.
That is why Christians need biblical truth deeply rooted within them. When our beliefs depend on the cultural environment around us, an election result can leave us feeling as though everything has changed. When our foundation is Scripture, we can recognize that the most important things have not.
Jesus is still Lord. The Gospel is still true. God is still sovereign. Christians are still called to speak truth, love their neighbors, make disciples, serve others, and live faithfully.
Whatever happened at the ballot box, none of that has changed.
Political disappointment can be real. People invest time, energy, prayer, and concern in issues they believe will affect their families, churches, communities, and country. When the outcome is not what they hoped for, discouragement can follow. But Christians are not called to stay discouraged.
Isaiah 6:8 records the prophet’s response when God asks whom He will send: “Here am I! Send me” (NKJV). That is a useful posture after an election too. Instead of asking only what the government will do next, Christians can ask what God has given us to do next.
That assignment may be large or small. It may involve serving in a church, raising children who know biblical truth, helping a neighbor, speaking up when something is wrong, sharing the Gospel, strengthening a marriage, serving a community, or simply being faithful where God has already placed you.
There is still work to do.
Christians can care about politics without expecting politics to save the country, the culture, or the human heart.
Political leaders can make wise decisions or foolish ones. Governments can protect freedom or restrict it. Policies can have enormous consequences. Those realities are reasons to stay informed and engaged, but they are not reasons to place our ultimate confidence in government.
Psalm 146:3 says, “Do not put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help” (NKJV). That warning applies whether your preferred candidates win or lose. A political victory should not produce misplaced confidence, and a political defeat should not produce despair. Our hope was never supposed to rest there.
One of the best responses to an uncertain political future is also one of the simplest: nurture your own walk with Christ.
Spend time in Scripture. Pray. Listen to the Lord. Know what you believe and why you believe it. The more confusing the culture becomes, the more important it is for Christians to be grounded in truth rather than carried along by every new headline or political argument.
That personal relationship with Christ also shapes the way believers engage the world around them. Christians should be known not simply for what they oppose but for the way they represent Jesus through truth, courage, compassion, integrity, and faithfulness.
Philippians 3:20 reminds believers that “our citizenship is in heaven” (NKJV). That does not remove our responsibilities here. It puts them in perspective.
Once an election ends, Christians have another responsibility: pray for the people who have been elected. First Timothy 2:1–2 calls believers to pray for those in authority. Scripture does not limit that command to leaders we supported, leaders from our preferred political party, or leaders who share our faith.
Pray that they will govern wisely. Pray that they will pursue what is right and resist what is wrong. Pray for their decisions, their advisers, their families, and the people affected by their leadership.
And pray for something even greater: that leaders who do not know Christ would come to know Him. A political opponent is not beyond the reach of the Gospel. A leader whose beliefs are far from biblical truth is not beyond God’s ability to change a heart. Christians believe in a God who does what human beings cannot. That should change the way we pray after an election.
No election can give the Church its mission, and no election can take that mission away. Pastors still need to teach the Bible faithfully. Parents still need to disciple their children. Christians still need to share the Gospel, defend truth, care for people in need, support their churches, strengthen their communities, and represent Christ wherever God has placed them.
There is no permission to quit because the political environment becomes difficult. If anything, challenging times make faithful biblical leadership and strong churches even more important.
Real Life Network exists to help believers stay grounded through Bible teaching, trusted news, Christian worldview programming, apologetics, documentaries, and other resources that point people back to truth. The goal is not simply to understand what is happening in the world, but to be equipped to live faithfully within it.
The midterms may have changed the political landscape, but they did not change who sits on the throne.
God was not surprised by the results. Christians therefore do not need to live as though the future has suddenly slipped beyond His control. We can pray for our leaders, stay engaged, stand for truth, and continue doing the work He has placed before us.
Most importantly, we can keep our eyes on Jesus. Political leaders will come and go. Parties will gain and lose power. Another election will arrive before long. But Jesus Christ remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8, NKJV).
Whatever the political future holds, Christians still have reason to move forward with hope. Our confidence was never supposed to rest in an election result. It rests in the risen Christ, our King and our ultimate hope.
Stay grounded in biblical truth with free Bible teaching, trusted news, current events, and Christian programming on Real Life Network.
As the November elections approach, James Talarico and Abdul El-Sayed face scrutiny over their positions on immigration, socialism, Christian values, and Israel. Explore how these political debates could shape America's economy, religious freedom, and national security.
With the November 3 elections approaching, debates over immigration enforcement, economic policy, religious convictions, and America's relationship with Israel are taking center stage in several high-profile races. In Texas and Michigan, Democratic Senate candidates James Talarico and Abdul El-Sayed have become focal points of these disagreements, offering competing visions of government that raise broader questions about the country's political direction.
On The Daniel Cohen Show, Cohen used an unusual approach to examine those questions. Drawing inspiration from the classic film It's a Wonderful Life, he imagined a future in November 2027 in which Democrats controlled Congress and pursued their policy priorities.
The imagined future was not a prediction or an account of actual events. It was a rhetorical device designed to explore the possible consequences of proposals already being debated.
At the center of the discussion was a question extending beyond individual candidates: How might today's political decisions reshape the institutions, freedoms, and international commitments Americans have long taken for granted?
In Texas, Talarico has attracted attention for combining progressive economic proposals with religious language. His approach emphasizes economic opportunity, government accountability, and a political vision that he presents as compatible with his Christian convictions.
During remarks featured on Cohen's program, Talarico called for an economy that produces fewer trillionaires and more millionaires. He also expressed support for higher taxes on wealthy Americans and restrictions on their political influence.
Those positions reflect a longstanding disagreement over the relationship between government intervention and economic prosperity.
Supporters of progressive taxation argue that it can help finance public services and address economic inequality. Critics contend that increasing the tax burden on successful businesses and investors can discourage entrepreneurship, reduce private investment, and ultimately limit job creation.
Cohen emphasized the role of business owners in generating employment, arguing that successful entrepreneurs create opportunities extending far beyond their personal wealth.
The disagreement also extends to the judiciary.
Talarico has expressed support for Supreme Court reforms, including binding ethics requirements and term limits for justices. He has also indicated openness to discussing an expansion of the Court.
Such proposals have prompted a national debate about judicial independence. Advocates maintain that reforms could improve accountability and public confidence. Opponents warn that changing the Court's composition for political reasons could undermine its role as an independent branch of government.
But perhaps the most distinctive element of Talarico's public profile is his use of religious language.
In remarks discussed on the program, he described God as love and suggested that Jesus would express particular concern for transgender children experiencing bullying.
For Christians who hold traditional interpretations of Scripture, those statements raise theological questions about the nature of God, biblical authority, and the relationship between compassion and moral teaching.
Cohen challenged Talarico's interpretation, arguing that Christian teaching cannot be separated from Scripture's broader claims about creation, human identity, and morality.
The dispute illustrates a growing divide over who gets to define Christian values in American public life and how those values should inform public policy.
Michigan's Senate race presents another set of policy disagreements.
Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed and Republican Mike Rogers have offered contrasting approaches to immigration enforcement, health care, and American foreign policy.
El-Sayed has criticized Immigration and Customs Enforcement, suggesting that the country could return to an immigration system resembling the former Immigration and Naturalization Service. He has also advocated clearer legal pathways for immigrants seeking to live and work in the United States.
Supporters of immigration reform argue that enforcement agencies need stronger oversight and that legal immigration channels should be more accessible. Critics worry that weakening federal enforcement could create additional challenges for border security and immigration law.
Cohen portrayed El-Sayed's proposals as part of a broader shift away from traditional immigration enforcement. His program also questioned whether the candidate had adequately addressed concerns about the Iranian regime.
One exchange featured an Iranian American Christian student whose family, according to his account, had suffered persecution under Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The student asked El-Sayed to condemn the Iranian government and its treatment of protesters.
Rather than delivering the direct condemnation the student requested in the excerpt presented, El-Sayed responded by discussing America's role in international affairs.
Cohen argued that the response deserved greater scrutiny, particularly given the United States' ongoing security concerns involving Iran.
However, disagreements over foreign policy or the adequacy of a candidate's response do not, by themselves, establish sympathy for terrorism or ties to extremist organizations.
Health care is another major issue in the Michigan contest.
El-Sayed supports Medicare for All, a proposal intended to establish a comprehensive government-financed health insurance system. Supporters argue that universal coverage could reduce household medical expenses and simplify administration. Opponents question the cost, tax implications, and potential restrictions on private insurance.
Cohen focused particularly on whether voters were receiving a clear explanation of the financial trade-offs.
The distinction between lower personal medical bills and higher taxes is central to the debate. A government-financed system could change how Americans pay for health care without necessarily eliminating the underlying cost of providing it.
For voters evaluating competing proposals, understanding those trade-offs is essential.
Beyond domestic policy, Cohen devoted substantial attention to the growing disagreements over Israel within American politics.
His program highlighted a Colorado congressional contest involving progressive candidate Melat Kiros, whose criticism of Israel's military operations and American financial support reflects a broader debate among Democrats.
Kiros described Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide and argued that American taxpayers should not finance the conflict.
The genocide allegation is highly contested, and determining whether military conduct meets the legal definition requires examination of evidence and the applicable international legal standards. Israel disputes the allegation and maintains that its military operations have been directed against Hamas following the October 7, 2023, attacks.
The disagreement extends beyond terminology.
Some progressive politicians have called for restrictions on American military assistance to Israel, arguing that U.S. support should be conditioned on humanitarian protections and compliance with international law.
Others maintain that continued military cooperation is essential to Israel's security, particularly amid threats from Iran and Iranian-backed armed groups.
Cohen approached the issue from a biblical perspective, emphasizing the importance of America's relationship with Israel and citing Genesis 12:3 and Numbers 24:9.
His argument reflected a conviction shared by many Christians that God's promises concerning Israel remain relevant and that the Jewish state's security deserves particular attention.
Not all Christians interpret those passages identically, and there is considerable disagreement over how biblical promises should inform contemporary foreign policy.
Nevertheless, the theological dimension remains significant in American political discussions, especially among evangelical Christians.
The debate over Israel now encompasses more than foreign aid, touching fundamental disagreements about national security, biblical interpretation, and America's responsibilities abroad.
Cohen concluded his imagined journey into 2027 by returning to the choices confronting voters today. His fictional scenarios included expanded government programs, changes to immigration enforcement, judicial restructuring, and reduced American support for Israel.
Those outcomes are not inevitable consequences of any election. They represent one commentator's concerns about the direction of competing policy agendas.
Still, the underlying questions are real. Americans must evaluate what candidates propose, what those proposals would cost, how they would affect constitutional institutions, and whether their foreign policy commitments align with the country's long-term interests.
For Christians, the discussion also invites reflection on the proper relationship between biblical conviction and civic responsibility. Political engagement requires more than reacting to campaign rhetoric. It calls for examining competing claims, understanding the consequences of legislation, and distinguishing theological principles from partisan assumptions.
As election day approaches, voters have an opportunity to consider those questions carefully rather than relying on slogans or imagined futures.
For more reporting and commentary examining politics, faith, and America's relationship with Israel, watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.
.jpg)
A Virginia pastor is challenging a proposed constitutional amendment protecting same-sex marriage, alleging violations of state procedures. More than 400 pastors have joined efforts to defend biblical teachings on marriage, religious freedom, and the role of faith in public life.
A Virginia pastor is challenging the lawfulness of a proposed state constitutional amendment to codify same-sex marriage and spread gender ideology. The Founding Freedoms Law Center (FFLC) filed a lawsuit last week in Prince William County Circuit Court on behalf of Pastor Ben Purves of Occoquan Bible Church in Woodbridge, Va.
The Amendment 2 initiative on the ballot in the Cavalier State this November would “(i) remove the ban on same-sex marriage; (ii) affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race; and (iii) require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law” should the Supreme Court ever overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, according to the Virginia Department of Elections.
The amendment would repeal the provision of Article I, Section 15-A of the Virginia constitution defining marriage as a “union between one man and one woman,” and would instead say marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness,” explains the FFLC press release.
The legal group explained its reasoning for the lawsuit, stating, “This Complaint does not concern the wisdom or policy merits of the Proposed Amendment. It concerns whether the Proposed Amendment was brought forward to the November 2026 ballot through the process that the Constitution of Virginia requires. It was not. The Proposed Amendment reached the ballot through a process that departed from the mandatory requirements of Article XII, § 1 of the Constitution of Virginia through Virginia Code § 30-13.”
It continues, “Virginia Code § 30-13 requires the Clerk of the House of Delegates to have published and distributed copies of a proposed amendment to the clerks of Virginia’s circuit courts, and requires each circuit court clerk to post a copy ‘at the front door of the courthouse’ and make a second copy ‘available for public inspection,’ no later than three months before the intervening general election of members of the House of Delegates. These steps exist to inform the voters before the pivotal House of Delegates election. They were not performed before the November 4, 2025 general election by the Clerk of the House of Delegates or the Circuit Court Clerk or any other Virginia circuit court.”
The complaint asserts that even if the amendment is favored by most voters, it should be considered invalid.
Purves, the plaintiff on the Complaint, told The Washington Stand that it is the responsibility of a pastor to proclaim biblical truth when it comes to every issue, even the polarizing ones.
“It’s my hope that pastors will become more bold in proclaiming the gospel and the truth of God’s word, and not letting it be restricted to the church building or to church members’ homes. We really need to amplify truth in the public square, and if we do not, we will find it increasingly anti-Christian,” Purves asserted.
“Pastors — the shepherds — are called to care for their sheep,” he added. “That means giving their sheep the food of God’s word, and not just some of it, but all of it. And so, when churches are setting aside parts of Scripture and not teaching those parts, and not willing to proclaim those parts of Scripture to the world, they are failing in their duty as shepherds. And when pastors do not stand to protect their flock from wolves that will prey on their church and on the vulnerable in their community, they are failing in their pastoral duty.”
Over 400 pastors have signed a letter Purves helped orchestrate asking Virginians to vote no on Amendment 2, as well as an additional amendment to codify abortion in the Constitution of Virginia. The Pastors of Virginia group is also asking Virginia voters to participate in a day or prayer and fasting for the state on November 3.
“We call upon every voter to oppose these amendments to protect pre-born children, to defend the institution of marriage, and to stand against the destruction of transgender ideology. God created mankind as male and female as a part of God’s good and perfect creation (Gen 1:27). God creates life in the womb, and every child is a blessing (Ps 127, 139). God created the institution of marriage as a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman which is to be a portrait of Christ’s love for the church (Eph 5:32). Instead of defacing marriage, we must honor it (Heb 13:4),” the group stated.
Any pastor in the state who affirms the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation is eligible to sign the Open Letter from Virginia Pastors to the Commonwealth until voting closes after Election Day.
“To voters who are discouraged and maybe thinking of not voting — you should not lose heart,” Purves implored. “We’re called to be faithful, and we need to stand for truth, even when and if we are a minority. If we only stand for truth and we’re a majority, what does this say about us? So, it’s important for us to do the right thing and vote for the sake of truth.”
This article was written by Quinn Delamater and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
Former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann discusses Minnesota's Senate race, government fraud scandals, the rise of socialism, and America's relationship with Israel. Discover why she believes Christian voter turnout could shape the nation's future.
With the November 3 midterm elections approaching, Minnesota is drawing attention as a potentially consequential battleground in the fight for control of the United States Senate. Questions about government accountability, immigration, national security, and voter turnout are shaping the political debate as candidates make their final appeals.
Former Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann believes the state could deliver one of the election's biggest surprises. During a conversation on The Daniel Cohen Show, available on Real Life Network, Bachmann discussed Minnesota's political future, the growing appeal of socialism, America's relationship with Israel, and the responsibility of Christians to participate in elections.
The conversation highlighted a broader question facing American voters: How should concerns about government leadership, national security, and biblical convictions influence civic engagement?
Minnesota has traditionally favored Democrats in statewide elections, but Bachmann believes growing dissatisfaction with state leadership could create an opportunity for Republicans in 2026.
The Senate contest between Republican Michele Tafoya and Democrat Peggy Flanagan has become a focal point of that discussion.
Bachmann pointed to allegations of widespread fraud involving publicly funded programs in Minnesota as a major source of voter frustration. High-profile investigations have raised serious questions about financial oversight, the administration of public assistance programs, and whether government officials responded adequately to warning signs.
These investigations have also become politically contentious, with Republicans questioning Democratic leadership and Democrats defending their records while addressing failures in oversight.
The existence of fraud cases does not establish wrongdoing by an entire immigrant community or prove that particular candidates participated in criminal activity. Determining responsibility requires evidence, investigations, and appropriate legal proceedings.
Nevertheless, the political consequences of government oversight failures can extend well beyond the individuals directly involved.
Voters want to know whether public resources are being used responsibly, whether elected officials are accountable, and whether state agencies can identify misconduct before it becomes widespread.
Government accountability depends on protecting taxpayer resources, investigating wrongdoing fairly, and holding responsible individuals accountable regardless of political affiliation.
Bachmann also expressed concern about election administration and mail-in voting. Although she raised questions about the possibility of improper ballot handling, the interview did not provide evidence establishing that such misconduct would occur.
Election integrity is a legitimate public concern, but allegations of fraud should be supported by verifiable facts rather than speculation.
For Minnesota voters, the Senate election ultimately presents competing visions of government leadership, public spending, economic policy, and national priorities.
Bachmann believes turnout will be decisive.
Even a competitive race can produce an unexpected outcome when participation differs from polling expectations. But polling uncertainty alone cannot establish which candidate will win.
The same principle applies nationwide as Americans prepare to elect representatives who will shape federal policy over the next two years.
Beyond Minnesota's political landscape, the discussion turned to national security and the United States' relationship with Israel.
From immigration enforcement to international terrorism, security concerns have become prominent issues in the closing weeks of the midterm campaign.
Bachmann criticized Representative Ilhan Omar and raised allegations concerning her family history and immigration background. These are serious accusations that require independent verification and should not be presented as established facts without substantiating evidence.
The discussion also addressed the broader question of how immigration policy intersects with national security.
Effective immigration enforcement requires appropriate screening, lawful procedures, and the ability to identify genuine security threats. At the same time, individual wrongdoing should not be attributed to entire national, ethnic, or religious communities.
The conversation then shifted to the Middle East, where Bachmann emphasized the importance of the relationship between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
She described their political partnership as a significant opportunity to confront the Iranian regime and its support for militant organizations throughout the region.
Iran's relationship with groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas has long complicated regional security and contributed to tensions involving Israel and its neighbors.
For the United States, decisions concerning Iran involve military readiness, diplomatic strategy, economic sanctions, intelligence cooperation, and the protection of American allies.
But Bachmann sees the relationship between America and Israel as more than a matter of international politics.
She believes Scripture establishes an enduring covenant between God and the Jewish people, one that remains relevant to how Christians understand Israel today.
This conviction shaped the interview's discussion of replacement theology, the belief, in some theological formulations, that the church has superseded Israel in God's covenantal purposes.
Bachmann rejected that interpretation, arguing that God's promises to Israel have not been revoked.
She pointed to biblical passages concerning God's covenant with Abraham and the prophetic significance of Israel, including Joel 3.
Within the Christian church, interpretations of these passages differ. Some traditions emphasize a continuing national role for Israel in biblical prophecy, while others understand the covenant promises through their fulfillment in Jesus Christ and His church.
These differences have significant implications for Christian eschatology and the interpretation of biblical prophecy.
The question of Israel's future is not merely political for many Christians; it is closely connected to how they understand God's covenant promises and the fulfillment of Scripture.
At the same time, biblical convictions and contemporary foreign policy require careful consideration. Supporting Israel's security does not mean every action of its government is beyond scrutiny.
Christians can affirm the importance of Israel, oppose antisemitism, and seek the protection of innocent people while thoughtfully evaluating the decisions of political leaders.
The conversation concluded with an appeal for Christians to recognize the significance of their participation in American civic life.
Bachmann expressed concern that many believers have become disengaged from politics, even as debates over education, religious freedom, economic systems, and national identity continue to shape the country.
She specifically criticized the growing appeal of socialism among younger Americans, arguing that public education has contributed to changing attitudes toward free-market economics.
The relationship between education and political ideology is complex, however, and broad claims about what schools teach require supporting evidence.
Nevertheless, the growing debate over socialism reflects genuine disagreements about the role of government, economic opportunity, taxation, and individual responsibility.
These disagreements deserve careful examination rather than automatic dismissal.
For Christians, political engagement also raises questions about how biblical principles should inform decisions at the ballot box.
Bachmann argued that voting is an opportunity Americans should not take for granted. She encouraged churches to help believers recognize the importance of participating in elections and evaluating candidates according to their convictions.
Scripture provides principles that can inform those decisions.
Micah 6:8 emphasizes justice, mercy, and humility. Proverbs 12:22 underscores the importance of truthfulness. First Timothy 2:1-2 instructs believers to pray for those in authority.
These passages do not supply a party platform, but they establish moral responsibilities that extend beyond election season.
Christians should consider whether candidates demonstrate integrity, how proposed policies affect their neighbors, and whether political leaders exercise authority responsibly.
Biblical faithfulness in public life requires more than casting a ballot; it calls for truthfulness, discernment, prayer, and a commitment to justice.
That responsibility also includes recognizing that Christians may disagree about the best policies for achieving legitimate moral goals.
A shared commitment to protecting human life, supporting families, and promoting religious freedom does not necessarily produce identical conclusions about every candidate or legislative proposal.
Political participation should therefore be informed by conviction without allowing partisan identity to replace allegiance to Christ.
With Election Day approaching, voter turnout remains one of the most important factors in determining the makeup of Congress.
Minnesota's Senate contest may attract national attention, but the larger election will influence decisions affecting the economy, national security, foreign policy, and the direction of federal government.
For Christians, the challenge is to participate thoughtfully while remembering that political outcomes are not the ultimate measure of God's faithfulness.
Elections matter. Leadership matters. The responsibility to pursue truth, seek justice, and love one's neighbor remains unchanged regardless of which party controls Washington.
For more election coverage, discussions about Israel, and biblical perspectives on the issues shaping America's future, watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.
As Islam grows worldwide, Christians face important questions about religious differences, biblical prophecy, and Israel's future. Explore the theological divide between Islam and Christianity and why believers are called to defend their faith and share the Gospel.
Over the last two decades, we’ve seen increasing rhetoric from the Left, media sources, and the up-and-coming generation claiming that Islam is a religion of peace. My challenge to that assumption is how and where do you find grounds to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion? Is it the history of the Ottoman conquest? The vicious attacks against Israel over the last 50 years? The 9/11 attacks?
When I look at all these examples, I see a religion that has paved the streets with blood, tears, sexual violence, and pain. I’ve heard too many stories that show the brutality of a religion that is being described as peaceful. Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:10). He told His disciples to go low and to be servant-hearted. Yes, He came with a sword in His mouth, and He flipped tables and offended the Pharisees. But everything He did, He did for the love of His people, to establish the Kingdom of God, to free the captive, and to fulfill Isaiah 61.
Islam, however, does not espouse this love of God, but rather a thirst for conquest. And the religion is spreading. The Pew Research Center states that Islam is the fastest-growing religion worldwide. This should cause great concern among Christians. This change is primarily because Christians are simply not getting married and having enough children to repopulate. But perhaps the biggest problem is that many Christians don’t understand why this is concerning.
Since its inception, Islam has not been as welcomed or embraced as it is now. Why should Islam’s quick ascent to popularity concern Christians? Islam’s tenets are in direct opposition to Christianity, and its eschatological doctrine (their beliefs on the end times) seeks the destruction of Israel and its people.
Islam prides itself on being a religion that provides you the biggest upgrade to heaven if you commit suicide and bring others with you, also known as mujahid. Granted, not all Muslims practice to this extent, but this is concerning at best and is in complete opposition to Christianity at worst. Were people killed during the Christian Crusades? Yes, but did Christians go around killing people hoping to gain a better afterlife with more virgins and more spoils of the flesh? Absolutely not.
A few passages in the Quran that demonstrate this lust for martyrdom are listed below:
Perhaps one of the biggest concerns Christians should have with Islam is its eschatological view on Israel and Jesus. First, Muslims don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God, or that He died on the cross. They say he will come back as Isa and descend to liberate the Islamic people from their oppression.[i] The Bible refutes that, warning against these false religions:
“Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. ... Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist — denying the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also” (1 John 18-19, 22-23).
What this scripture tells us is that any religion that challenges the deity of Christ is of the anti-Christ spirit. This anti-Christ spirit continues to fill and deceive this generation. Wrapped up in this doctrine is also the belief that a false messiah will arise out of Israel while their messiah arrives. This false messiah will be the sign that they are to wipe out the entire Jewish population. Their literature states:
“Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah said, “The Last Hour will not come until the Muslims fight against the Jews, until a Jew will hide himself behind a stone or a tree, and the stone or the tree will say: ‘O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him,’ but Al-Gharqad tree will not say so, for it is the tree of the Jews” Riyad as-Salihin 1820 (Book 18, Hadith 13).
Israel’s existence is preeminent in the Christian perspective of the end times and in Scripture. It’s not just a minor detail — it’s a necessary part of the fulfillment of thousands of years of prophecy. Our very own messiah arose out of Israel, so for Islamic literature to say that their anti-Christ will arise out of Israel is a direct contradiction of two very different religions. In fact, many pastors, writers, and scholars even argue that our anti-Christ is their messiah, and our messiah is their anti-Christ.
The great battle for earth started when Adam and Eve were in the garden, but it continues today and until Jesus returns. As we look at the cultural moment, we are in, we must pause and ask the Lord what His will would be for the church as we watch a false doctrine that seeks to destroy our homeland, our history, and our faith rise across the world. Islam is a religion that directly contradicts Christian values and seeks the destruction of Israel, a historically, politically, and spiritually vital nation. As Christians, we must take a stand, refusing to compromise or sit quietly while a religion that does not please the heart of God seeks to overrun our nation and the nations of the earth.
What can you do? First, educate yourself and share the gospel! Remember, they do not have a savior or helper to get them to the finish line. So, remind them that Jesus came to help and save them through His sacrifice! Second, go to your local city halls and meetings. Push back when legislation to build communities ruled by Sharia law is presented, as what recently occurred in Texas. Stand against the influence they have in our nation. This is a Western country — don’t be ashamed of that. Lastly, pray that the Holy Spirit would open their eyes to see the deception of Islam and that they would come to know the true Messiah.
“Therefore, do not grow weary in doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up” (Galatians 6:9).
This article was written by Rebekah Harper and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
I think the most fitting response to this week’s election results is found in Jesus’s words in Matthew 28: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
What’s the connection to the election? First, let’s look at the election numbers.
In the 2018 midterms, white evangelicals made up 26% of the vote. On Tuesday, according to NBC, it was 17%. That’s a decline of nine percentage points.
I’m not a big fan of the elastic term “evangelical,” and tracking only white evangelicals leaves about 40% of my church out of the equation. White evangelicals are one slice of a racially diverse community of people who believe the Bible and allow it to inform their views on moral and spiritual issues that have been deemed political.
However, a decline in the share of voters could reflect lower turnout, a decline in the number of evangelicals relative to the population, or both. As for turnout, we won’t have a reliable number on what percentage of evangelicals actually voted. But some suggest it declined, and that’s a problem. When evangelicals sit out an election, they give up an opportunity to shape its outcome.
So how does all this connect to the words of Jesus?
First, Jesus tells us to make disciples. That should prompt us to ask how faithfully we’ve carried out the Great Commission. We need a renewed emphasis on sharing the good news of Jesus Christ, making disciples, and baptizing them. Start with someone you know. Share what Christ has done in your life and invite that person to read Scripture with you.
I’m sure some critics of the church would say, “Focus on evangelism and stay out of politics.” Well, consider the second part of what Jesus said, the Cultural Commission: “Teach them to observe all things that I have commanded you.” The truth of God and obedience to it is not just a private matter.
Followers of Jesus, equipped and encouraged by pastors, need to share their faith and live it out in a way that impacts the world around them, including government.
My response to the election? Go make disciples for Jesus and teach them to impact the country and the culture with biblical truth.
If you’re looking for a way to put that into practice in your community, visit frc.org/chapters to learn about our Pray Vote Stand chapters.
If you’re discouraged, remember how Jesus began and ended those words. He began by saying that all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to Him. And He ended with a promise for us as we go. “I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
This article was originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
The midterm elections are behind us. Some Americans are encouraged by the results, while others are disappointed, frustrated, or uncertain about what the next few years may bring.
For Christians, however, the most important truth has not changed. Our hope does not come from a politician, a political party, a candidate, or the outcome of an election. Our hope is in Jesus Christ.
Elections can change who holds power. They can affect laws, policies, and the direction of the country. Christians have good reason to pay attention and remain engaged. But no election has the authority to change God’s Word, alter His promises, or remove the assignment He has given His people.
Political movements come and go. Public opinion shifts. Cultural values can change dramatically within a generation. God’s Word remains the same.
That is why Christians need biblical truth deeply rooted within them. When our beliefs depend on the cultural environment around us, an election result can leave us feeling as though everything has changed. When our foundation is Scripture, we can recognize that the most important things have not.
Jesus is still Lord. The Gospel is still true. God is still sovereign. Christians are still called to speak truth, love their neighbors, make disciples, serve others, and live faithfully.
Whatever happened at the ballot box, none of that has changed.
Political disappointment can be real. People invest time, energy, prayer, and concern in issues they believe will affect their families, churches, communities, and country. When the outcome is not what they hoped for, discouragement can follow. But Christians are not called to stay discouraged.
Isaiah 6:8 records the prophet’s response when God asks whom He will send: “Here am I! Send me” (NKJV). That is a useful posture after an election too. Instead of asking only what the government will do next, Christians can ask what God has given us to do next.
That assignment may be large or small. It may involve serving in a church, raising children who know biblical truth, helping a neighbor, speaking up when something is wrong, sharing the Gospel, strengthening a marriage, serving a community, or simply being faithful where God has already placed you.
There is still work to do.
Christians can care about politics without expecting politics to save the country, the culture, or the human heart.
Political leaders can make wise decisions or foolish ones. Governments can protect freedom or restrict it. Policies can have enormous consequences. Those realities are reasons to stay informed and engaged, but they are not reasons to place our ultimate confidence in government.
Psalm 146:3 says, “Do not put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help” (NKJV). That warning applies whether your preferred candidates win or lose. A political victory should not produce misplaced confidence, and a political defeat should not produce despair. Our hope was never supposed to rest there.
One of the best responses to an uncertain political future is also one of the simplest: nurture your own walk with Christ.
Spend time in Scripture. Pray. Listen to the Lord. Know what you believe and why you believe it. The more confusing the culture becomes, the more important it is for Christians to be grounded in truth rather than carried along by every new headline or political argument.
That personal relationship with Christ also shapes the way believers engage the world around them. Christians should be known not simply for what they oppose but for the way they represent Jesus through truth, courage, compassion, integrity, and faithfulness.
Philippians 3:20 reminds believers that “our citizenship is in heaven” (NKJV). That does not remove our responsibilities here. It puts them in perspective.
Once an election ends, Christians have another responsibility: pray for the people who have been elected. First Timothy 2:1–2 calls believers to pray for those in authority. Scripture does not limit that command to leaders we supported, leaders from our preferred political party, or leaders who share our faith.
Pray that they will govern wisely. Pray that they will pursue what is right and resist what is wrong. Pray for their decisions, their advisers, their families, and the people affected by their leadership.
And pray for something even greater: that leaders who do not know Christ would come to know Him. A political opponent is not beyond the reach of the Gospel. A leader whose beliefs are far from biblical truth is not beyond God’s ability to change a heart. Christians believe in a God who does what human beings cannot. That should change the way we pray after an election.
No election can give the Church its mission, and no election can take that mission away. Pastors still need to teach the Bible faithfully. Parents still need to disciple their children. Christians still need to share the Gospel, defend truth, care for people in need, support their churches, strengthen their communities, and represent Christ wherever God has placed them.
There is no permission to quit because the political environment becomes difficult. If anything, challenging times make faithful biblical leadership and strong churches even more important.
Real Life Network exists to help believers stay grounded through Bible teaching, trusted news, Christian worldview programming, apologetics, documentaries, and other resources that point people back to truth. The goal is not simply to understand what is happening in the world, but to be equipped to live faithfully within it.
The midterms may have changed the political landscape, but they did not change who sits on the throne.
God was not surprised by the results. Christians therefore do not need to live as though the future has suddenly slipped beyond His control. We can pray for our leaders, stay engaged, stand for truth, and continue doing the work He has placed before us.
Most importantly, we can keep our eyes on Jesus. Political leaders will come and go. Parties will gain and lose power. Another election will arrive before long. But Jesus Christ remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8, NKJV).
Whatever the political future holds, Christians still have reason to move forward with hope. Our confidence was never supposed to rest in an election result. It rests in the risen Christ, our King and our ultimate hope.
Stay grounded in biblical truth with free Bible teaching, trusted news, current events, and Christian programming on Real Life Network.
The religious decline in America is over for now. After years of decreasing church attendance, a recent report shows steady turnout rates since 2020.
Thirty-four percent of adults in the U.S. said they attended religious services in person over the last month, according to a June 2026 Pew Research Center survey. Forty-five percent said they either attended religious services in person or watched them online or on TV during the last month. The data shows both statistics at their highest levels since 2020.
“The latest Pew Research Center findings are encouraging in so far as they suggest that the decades-long decline in religious identification and practice may be leveling off,” David Closson, director of the Center for Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand.
“For years, Americans have been told that secularization is inevitable and the Christian influence in public life will continue to diminish. These findings complicate that narrative. However, we should still be careful not to confuse religious identification with genuine Christian discipleship. From a biblical perspective, the most important question is not simply how many Americans identify with a religion, but whether people are repenting of sin, trusting in Christ, and ordering their lives according to God’s word.”
The study also points to a resurgence of faith among young people. Pew reports that 41% of young adults between the ages of 18-22 say they go to services at a church, synagogue, mosque, or other house of worship at least once or twice a month. Data also shows reasonable levels of stability in the religiosity of the age group since 2014.
“The relatively high rates of religious attendance among the youngest adults are encouraging, even as the broader data reveals a more complicated picture. My hope is that we are witnessing the beginnings of a renewed openness to Christianity among Gen Z, which has grown up amid significant moral and cultural confusion,” Closson continued.
“But increased church attendance must be accompanied by sound biblical teaching and a willingness to embrace the authority of Scripture, especially when the Bible’s teachings conflict with prevailing cultural assumptions. A renewed commitment to biblical Christianity would have implications far beyond Sunday morning worship, including how Americans approach the moral questions confronting our nation.”
For the cohort of young adults born between 2000-2003, Pew reports a slightly higher religious attendance rate than in 2022. “The 2022 reading may reflect a pandemic-era low point in religious attendance among members of this group. All the other indicators show no notable change in either direction. Estimates vary from year to year, but the percentages of people who say they pray daily, that religion is very important to them and that they identify with a religion are all about the same today as in 2022,” the report explains.
Those born in the 1990s show similar statistics. People aged 27-36 are somewhat more likely to say religion is very important in their lives in 2026 than in 2020.
Closson underscored that these numbers don’t necessarily point toward growth or regression in faith, which should serve as a reminder to pastors who have accepted the role of shepherding God’s flock.
“Pastors and ministry leaders should be heartened that the decline of church attendance has evidently leveled off, but we cannot mistake a higher church attendance among young adults as an overall leveling off of the decline in church attendance as necessarily evidence that the church’s mission is being accomplished,” he shared. “Ultimately, fidelity to God’s word and theological conviction is what’s most important. Pastors should take renewed confidence in aspects of this report and recommit to ensuring that their teaching points people to God’s inerrant, infallible, and unchanging word.”
This article was written by Quinn Delamater and origianlly published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
Teenagers today are growing up in a world filled with competing messages about truth, identity, morality, and purpose. Social media, entertainment, online influencers, and cultural trends all shape the way young people think—often long before they have the tools to evaluate those ideas carefully.
That reality has led many parents and church leaders to ask an important question: Are there biblical worldview shows specifically designed to help teens navigate today’s culture?
The answer is yes. Christian streaming platforms increasingly offer programs that help younger audiences think biblically about the world around them without sounding overly academic or disconnected from real life.
A biblical worldview is simply a way of understanding life through the lens of Scripture. It shapes how a person thinks about:
For teenagers, developing a biblical worldview means learning how to process difficult questions and cultural pressures through God’s Word rather than through constantly changing trends.
This kind of foundation becomes increasingly important during the teen years, when questions become deeper and outside influences become stronger.
Today’s teens are exposed to serious questions earlier than previous generations. They are hearing conversations about:
Because of this, many young people are looking for honest, thoughtful answers—not simplistic responses or shallow clichés.
Christian streaming platforms are responding by creating content that respects teens’ intelligence while still remaining grounded in Scripture.
Real Life Network offers several programs that help teens engage faith, culture, and truth thoughtfully.
Hosted by Eric Hovind, The Creation Today Show explores science, creation, worldview, and biblical truth in a way that is accessible for students and families. The program encourages teens to think critically about what they hear in culture and education while remaining rooted in Scripture.
Why teens connect with it:
It addresses real questions about science and faith without talking down to viewers.
This discussion-based program answers real-life questions about theology, Scripture, culture, and Christian living. Because the format is conversational, teens often find it easier to engage than traditional lectures or sermons.
Topics range from practical everyday struggles to deeper theological issues.
Why it works for teens:
It models thoughtful, biblical conversations rather than one-sided preaching.
Based on the apologetics ministry of Frank Turek, this program tackles difficult questions about Christianity, truth, morality, and evidence for faith.
For teens navigating skepticism or cultural pressure, apologetics-based content can help strengthen confidence and understanding.
Why teens appreciate it:
It helps answer the “why” behind Christian belief, not just the “what.”
Designed specifically for junior high and high school students, the Lamps Lit Youth Prophecy Conference explores Bible prophecy and end-times topics in a way that is engaging and understandable for younger audiences.
Featuring speakers like Jeff Kinley, Todd Hampson, and Pastor Jack Hibbs, the conference connects biblical prophecy with hope, discernment, and Christian living.
Why teens respond to it:
It treats young people seriously while helping them see how Scripture relates to the future and the world around them.
Teenagers are not just learning facts; they are forming foundations. What they believe during these years often shapes how they approach adulthood, relationships, faith, and decision-making later in life. Biblical worldview content helps teens:
This kind of content becomes even more valuable when paired with conversations at home or church.
One reason Christian streaming is effective for younger generations is because it meets them in the environments they already use.
Today’s teens naturally consume media through:
Christian streaming platforms make biblical teaching and worldview discussions accessible within those same habits and rhythms.
Even the best Christian content is not a substitute for relationships. Streaming works best when parents, pastors, and mentors stay involved. Simple conversations after watching a program can make a major impact:
These moments help teens move from passive viewing to active reflection.
Real Life Network provides a curated environment where teens can explore difficult questions, hear biblical teaching, and engage cultural topics without being overwhelmed by conflicting messages or distractions.
By combining apologetics, discussions, documentaries, conferences, and Bible teaching in one place, RLN helps younger viewers develop a worldview shaped by Scripture rather than trends.
Teenagers today need more than entertainment. They need wisdom, discernment, and a strong biblical foundation for navigating an increasingly complicated world.
Christian streaming platforms are helping meet that need by offering worldview-focused content that speaks honestly, thoughtfully, and biblically to the next generation.
Explore biblical worldview content for teens anytime on Real Life Network.
.webp)
“I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men.” Thus Benjamin Franklin exhorted the Constitutional Convention to prayer on June 28, 1787. Franklin was no born-again Christian, but even this man of the Enlightenment could recognize from experience the truth that Scripture proclaims from every page. In a chaotic election season, let Christians cling to this truth, lest an unbeliever show more faith in God’s power than we do.
The book of Daniel bears particular relevance to the current situation. It opens with God’s people in Judah sustaining a devastating political defeat. King Jehoiachin surrendered to the besieging Babylonian army, and Judah’s best and brightest were taken away into slavery and exile (2 Kings 24:10-16; Daniel 1:1-3).
Some exiles hoped for speedy deliverance, but soon Jeremiah wrote to inform the exiles that they would remain in Babylon for 70 years, “Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. … seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:4-7).
Such a devastating message met with skepticism and doubt. “Really, God? Your people should seek the welfare of their enemies? You have placed us as an oppressed minority in a nation that defies your word! Worse yet, they ridicule your name when they gloat in triumph over us!”
The book of Daniel counters both the doubt of Israel and the gloating of their captors by showing beyond any doubt that the God of Israel is the sovereign ruler of history, and no one can thwart his purposes. The book proves its case with three arguments: God knows the future, God humbles the pride of human rulers, and God saves his people.
First, God knows the future. The book of Daniel is known for its apocalyptic visions, especially its detailed predictions of history through the Babylonian, Persian, and Greek empires (Daniel 8-11), and the strange, fourth beast in Daniel 7. This beast “shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time” (Daniel 7:25).
Why would God allow such a blasphemous ruler to “wear out the saints”? As Abraham Lincoln would say, “The Almighty has His own purposes.”
What we can know is the reason why God foretold these events to a prophet: so that God’s people would not become discouraged by bleak circumstances. After the beast rules, Daniel is told, “the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end” (Daniel 7:26). “But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever” (Daniel 7:18). Sinful human governments have their moment, but God and his people will triumph forever.
In fact, God’s plan for the future is so secure that he can “call his shots” ahead of time, alerting hostile rulers to his future plans, as if daring them to stop him. Thus, God gave King Nebuchadnezzar a vision of “what will be in the latter days” (Daniel 2:28), which none of his advisors could interpret. Daniel interpreted the statue of different metals as different kingdoms of dwindling glory, going all the way down until the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed,” which “shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever” (Daniel 2:44).
Nebuchadnezzar admitted that Daniel’s God was “God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries” (Daniel 2:47), but then he turned around and built an image of solid gold (Daniel 3:1), as if defying the vision. But Nebuchadnezzar died, and his empire perished. And God has built a kingdom under the lordship of Jesus Christ that will never pass away.
It’s almost impossible to imagine such a revelation injected into American discourse today. Suppose that someone claimed: America will fall, China will fall, Russia will fall; the mightiest powers will all pass away, but the church of Jesus Christ will reign triumphant. Now suppose that God mystically revealed this to the most anti-Christian officials of our day, as if daring them: go ahead; try and stop me. Our God is the only one who “changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding” (Daniel 2:21).
Second, God humbles the pride of human rulers. As if the previous revelations were not enough, God gave Nebuchadnezzar another vision with a more personal warning: he would suffer seven years of madness and live like an animal (Daniel 4:13-16).
When Daniel provided the interpretation yet again, he exhorted his master, “Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you: break off your sins by practicing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed, that there may perhaps be a lengthening of your prosperity” (Daniel 4:27). But Nebuchadnezzar did not heed the warning, and so the judgment came just as God had foretold — God was once again “calling his shots” (Daniel 4:31).
Nebuchadnezzar’s sanity only returned when he “blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever.” The king finally realized that “his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?’ … All his works are right and his ways are just; and those who walk in pride he is able to humble” (Daniel 4:34-37).
God taught a similar but more severe lesson to Nebuchadnezzar’s son (or grandson) Belshazzar. Despite knowing the history of chapter 4, Belshazzar drunkenly mocked the God of Israel (Daniel 5:2), a disembodied hand wrote a message of doom on the palace wall (Daniel 5:5), and the king was killed that very night (Daniel 5:30). God is still undefeated in every contest against a king who challenged him.
Third, God saves his people. Even when his people are up against the wall — nay, especially then — God loves to demonstrate his saving power. When Daniel’s three friends refuse to worship the golden image of Nebuchadnezzar, they survive a trip through the fiery furnace that scorched their captors without so much as the smell of smoke (Daniel 3:26-27). How is that possible? Only with God. When Daniel disobeyed an edict to pray to God, he survived a night in a den of hungry lions without so much as a scratch (Daniel 6:22).
Again, this is only possible through divine intervention. And it prompted King Darius to decree that “people are to tremble and fear before the God of Daniel, for he is the living God, enduring forever; his kingdom shall never be destroyed, and his dominion shall be to the end” (Daniel 6:26).
This suggests an application still relevant for American Christians today. Instead of fretting over election results, let us resolve to keep following God. Love of neighbor should incite us to vote; but after we have done our duty, we can safely put the results in God’s hands. If the results turn out differently than we would wish, we can take comfort in the fact that God knows the future, that he can humble the pride of rulers, and that he can deliver us, too — both now and hereafter.
Daniel learned this as soon as he arrived in Babylon. Instead of succumbing to the enticement of Babylonian pleasures, he “resolved that he would not defile himself with the king's food, or with the wine that he drank” (Daniel 1:8). His faithfulness to God’s word was put to the test, and he came out so much healthier than his peers that his boss ordered everyone else to follow Daniel’s lifestyle (Daniel 1:15).
God also delivers his servants in the final judgment. When “those who sleep in the dust” awake to everlasting life or everlasting contempt, “your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. … And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever” (Daniel 12:1-3).
We can hope confidently in this because we worship the risen Son of Man, who came and proclaimed a kingdom. As Daniel saw, “to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed” (Daniel 7:13-14). Compared to such eternal dominion, what is a single election?
This article was written by Joshua Arnold and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
Nearly 5,000 Christians were killed for their faith in 2025 — 72% of them in Nigeria. For decades, the African country has been marked by bloodshed, and its government is complicit.
Brad Brandon, founder and CEO of the relief-work nonprofit Across Nigeria, told The Washington Stand that the instability Nigeria experiences festers as a genocide is happening against its own people, and the Nigerian authorities turn a blind eye.
But when it comes to covering up the facts, the government moves efficiently and doesn’t spare any expense. Reports in early 2026, verified by the Justice Department’s records, showed the Nigerian government paid $9 million to the Washington D.C. public relations firm, the DCI Group. According to Brandon, the investment enabled lobbyists to persuade members of Congress not to shine a light on the Christian genocide happening overseas.
In addition to paid lobbyists, Brandon claims the Nigerian government pays off mainstream media outlets — both international and American — to give minimal to no coverage to the genocide Nigeria is enabling. The nonprofit leader continued that Across Nigeria is building a case to expose possible corruption.
“[It looks like] they’re funneling money to the subset groups that are attached to these media outlets, and so we’re trying to sift through which of these subset groups are attached to which legacy media outlets,” he said.
Brandon explained that the more Across Nigeria researched the Nigerian government’s investments, the more they found. “In 2024, there was $547 billion that was divested from Nigeria, so foreign investors took that money out of Nigeria because of the instability. So, the logical conclusion is that Nigeria is trying to whitewash. They’re trying to clean up their global image, whitewash this genocide, so that they can attract those foreign investors back into the country.”
While radical Islamic terrorist groups massacre believers, Nigerian officials are slow to act, said Brandon. He recalled a time when he and others from Across Nigeria visited a community of widows in Nigeria, before getting called away to aid an attacked neighboring community. Local security forces were immediately notified — but took almost three hours to arrive on the scene, despite being stationed 20 minutes away.
“When we got there, there were 10 that were massacred, and we ended up burying them in a mass grave,” Brandon shared. “There’s no reason that it should have taken them two to three hours. And then, shortly after that, the security forces left. And later that night, that same village was attacked again, and five people were killed.”
“That was an attack against Christians. …The instability caused by radical Islamic groups like ISWA [Islamic State West Africa] and Boko Haram has opened the door to lawlessness throughout northern Nigeria, which has given opportunity to banditry groups to feel like they can walk into a community, slaughter 60 people, kidnap people, steal whatever they need to steal, and walk away and get away with it. And they do every single day because there’s no security forces being brought in to stabilize the region.”
Brandon noted that while the Nigerian government denies the attacks target Christians, he is not convinced. “We see the amount of Christians who are being killed and how they’re inordinately being targeted,” he asserted. “I think there’s a case to be made that the Nigerian government is complicit in this. The Boko Haram and ISWA are very strong political, not only terrorist organizations, but political organizations. In northern Nigeria, most of the political power is held in the north, and the north is mostly Muslim. It’s about 90% Muslim in northern Nigeria.”
While Brandon says the Nigerian government likes to boast of its “inclusivity” where Christians and Muslims are concerned, the country’s constitution mentions of Islam and Sharia law more than 100 times but makes no mention of Christianity.
“So, it does favor Islam in a major way,” Brandon explained. “The attacks in the north have been allowed to go on, and the security forces and the Nigerian government have done nothing in 15 years to secure it.”
While lives are lost almost every day, Brandon is sure the hope of God’s Word can heal the Nigerian nation.
“We believe that the gospel is the solution to this problem,” Brandon declared. “Governments can help, organizations can help, but the ultimate solution is the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
This article was written by Quinn Delamater and origianlly published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
A Pew Research Center survey released earlier this year found that 66% of Americans believe churches and other houses of worship should stay out of political matters rather than address day-to-day social and political questions. Does that mean a pastor should avoid any subject politicians happen to debate?
Consider abortion, marriage, human sexuality, immigration, and justice. These are not merely political issues that divide the parties. They are moral and spiritual issues which Scripture addresses. If pastors were to cut every biblical passage that becomes controversial in Washington, our Bibles would look like Swiss cheese.
Perhaps the deeper question is whether we understand how frequently God’s people were called to bring God’s truth to bear on matters of civil government.
In a 2019 Pew survey of biblical knowledge, 79% correctly identified Moses, 78% David, 69% Abraham, but only 28% Esther.
Pew didn’t ask what those four had in common. Besides being Hebrews, each had a consequential encounter with political power.
Moses stood before Pharaoh and demanded freedom for God’s people. David became Israel’s model king. Abraham dealt with kings and rulers. Esther risked her life by approaching the Persian king to save her people from destruction.
And the list hardly ends there.
Joseph rose to authority in Egypt. Nehemiah served a Persian king before becoming governor of Judah. Prophets such as Nathan, Elijah, and Jeremiah confronted rulers when their actions violated God’s commands.
Then there was Daniel.
Daniel served under pagan kings in Babylon and, later, under Persian rule. Yet his proximity to power never silenced his allegiance to God. When King Belshazzar offered him rewards, Daniel refused them and delivered a message the king did not want to hear: God had weighed his kingdom and found it wanting.
Daniel understood something the church must rediscover: God’s people cannot remain silent on matters God has clearly addressed simply because those matters have been declared political.
This pattern continues in the New Testament. John the Baptist confronted Herod over his marriage. Paul asserted his rights as a Roman citizen and testified before governors and a king. Their witness did not stop at the palace gates.
Certainly, ancient Israel and Rome were not modern America, and Scripture does not offer a party platform or a position on every legislative detail. But it does establish moral truths that apply to nations, to their rulers and citizens alike.
Jesus called His followers the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Neither image suggests withdrawal. Both describe engagement that makes a difference.
So the issue is not whether the church should become political. It is whether Christians will remain biblical when biblical truth has political consequences.
Our calling is neither to become the mouthpiece of a party nor to retreat into silence. It is to stand on God’s word, defend what is right, confront what is wrong, and speak with courage — even when the culture would rather we remain silent.
This article was orginally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
With the November 3 elections approaching, debates over immigration enforcement, economic policy, religious convictions, and America's relationship with Israel are taking center stage in several high-profile races. In Texas and Michigan, Democratic Senate candidates James Talarico and Abdul El-Sayed have become focal points of these disagreements, offering competing visions of government that raise broader questions about the country's political direction.
On The Daniel Cohen Show, Cohen used an unusual approach to examine those questions. Drawing inspiration from the classic film It's a Wonderful Life, he imagined a future in November 2027 in which Democrats controlled Congress and pursued their policy priorities.
The imagined future was not a prediction or an account of actual events. It was a rhetorical device designed to explore the possible consequences of proposals already being debated.
At the center of the discussion was a question extending beyond individual candidates: How might today's political decisions reshape the institutions, freedoms, and international commitments Americans have long taken for granted?
In Texas, Talarico has attracted attention for combining progressive economic proposals with religious language. His approach emphasizes economic opportunity, government accountability, and a political vision that he presents as compatible with his Christian convictions.
During remarks featured on Cohen's program, Talarico called for an economy that produces fewer trillionaires and more millionaires. He also expressed support for higher taxes on wealthy Americans and restrictions on their political influence.
Those positions reflect a longstanding disagreement over the relationship between government intervention and economic prosperity.
Supporters of progressive taxation argue that it can help finance public services and address economic inequality. Critics contend that increasing the tax burden on successful businesses and investors can discourage entrepreneurship, reduce private investment, and ultimately limit job creation.
Cohen emphasized the role of business owners in generating employment, arguing that successful entrepreneurs create opportunities extending far beyond their personal wealth.
The disagreement also extends to the judiciary.
Talarico has expressed support for Supreme Court reforms, including binding ethics requirements and term limits for justices. He has also indicated openness to discussing an expansion of the Court.
Such proposals have prompted a national debate about judicial independence. Advocates maintain that reforms could improve accountability and public confidence. Opponents warn that changing the Court's composition for political reasons could undermine its role as an independent branch of government.
But perhaps the most distinctive element of Talarico's public profile is his use of religious language.
In remarks discussed on the program, he described God as love and suggested that Jesus would express particular concern for transgender children experiencing bullying.
For Christians who hold traditional interpretations of Scripture, those statements raise theological questions about the nature of God, biblical authority, and the relationship between compassion and moral teaching.
Cohen challenged Talarico's interpretation, arguing that Christian teaching cannot be separated from Scripture's broader claims about creation, human identity, and morality.
The dispute illustrates a growing divide over who gets to define Christian values in American public life and how those values should inform public policy.
Michigan's Senate race presents another set of policy disagreements.
Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed and Republican Mike Rogers have offered contrasting approaches to immigration enforcement, health care, and American foreign policy.
El-Sayed has criticized Immigration and Customs Enforcement, suggesting that the country could return to an immigration system resembling the former Immigration and Naturalization Service. He has also advocated clearer legal pathways for immigrants seeking to live and work in the United States.
Supporters of immigration reform argue that enforcement agencies need stronger oversight and that legal immigration channels should be more accessible. Critics worry that weakening federal enforcement could create additional challenges for border security and immigration law.
Cohen portrayed El-Sayed's proposals as part of a broader shift away from traditional immigration enforcement. His program also questioned whether the candidate had adequately addressed concerns about the Iranian regime.
One exchange featured an Iranian American Christian student whose family, according to his account, had suffered persecution under Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The student asked El-Sayed to condemn the Iranian government and its treatment of protesters.
Rather than delivering the direct condemnation the student requested in the excerpt presented, El-Sayed responded by discussing America's role in international affairs.
Cohen argued that the response deserved greater scrutiny, particularly given the United States' ongoing security concerns involving Iran.
However, disagreements over foreign policy or the adequacy of a candidate's response do not, by themselves, establish sympathy for terrorism or ties to extremist organizations.
Health care is another major issue in the Michigan contest.
El-Sayed supports Medicare for All, a proposal intended to establish a comprehensive government-financed health insurance system. Supporters argue that universal coverage could reduce household medical expenses and simplify administration. Opponents question the cost, tax implications, and potential restrictions on private insurance.
Cohen focused particularly on whether voters were receiving a clear explanation of the financial trade-offs.
The distinction between lower personal medical bills and higher taxes is central to the debate. A government-financed system could change how Americans pay for health care without necessarily eliminating the underlying cost of providing it.
For voters evaluating competing proposals, understanding those trade-offs is essential.
Beyond domestic policy, Cohen devoted substantial attention to the growing disagreements over Israel within American politics.
His program highlighted a Colorado congressional contest involving progressive candidate Melat Kiros, whose criticism of Israel's military operations and American financial support reflects a broader debate among Democrats.
Kiros described Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide and argued that American taxpayers should not finance the conflict.
The genocide allegation is highly contested, and determining whether military conduct meets the legal definition requires examination of evidence and the applicable international legal standards. Israel disputes the allegation and maintains that its military operations have been directed against Hamas following the October 7, 2023, attacks.
The disagreement extends beyond terminology.
Some progressive politicians have called for restrictions on American military assistance to Israel, arguing that U.S. support should be conditioned on humanitarian protections and compliance with international law.
Others maintain that continued military cooperation is essential to Israel's security, particularly amid threats from Iran and Iranian-backed armed groups.
Cohen approached the issue from a biblical perspective, emphasizing the importance of America's relationship with Israel and citing Genesis 12:3 and Numbers 24:9.
His argument reflected a conviction shared by many Christians that God's promises concerning Israel remain relevant and that the Jewish state's security deserves particular attention.
Not all Christians interpret those passages identically, and there is considerable disagreement over how biblical promises should inform contemporary foreign policy.
Nevertheless, the theological dimension remains significant in American political discussions, especially among evangelical Christians.
The debate over Israel now encompasses more than foreign aid, touching fundamental disagreements about national security, biblical interpretation, and America's responsibilities abroad.
Cohen concluded his imagined journey into 2027 by returning to the choices confronting voters today. His fictional scenarios included expanded government programs, changes to immigration enforcement, judicial restructuring, and reduced American support for Israel.
Those outcomes are not inevitable consequences of any election. They represent one commentator's concerns about the direction of competing policy agendas.
Still, the underlying questions are real. Americans must evaluate what candidates propose, what those proposals would cost, how they would affect constitutional institutions, and whether their foreign policy commitments align with the country's long-term interests.
For Christians, the discussion also invites reflection on the proper relationship between biblical conviction and civic responsibility. Political engagement requires more than reacting to campaign rhetoric. It calls for examining competing claims, understanding the consequences of legislation, and distinguishing theological principles from partisan assumptions.
As election day approaches, voters have an opportunity to consider those questions carefully rather than relying on slogans or imagined futures.
For more reporting and commentary examining politics, faith, and America's relationship with Israel, watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.
A good movie can do more than entertain for a couple of hours. Stories can introduce important questions, demonstrate courage, challenge assumptions, and give families something worth talking about after the credits roll.
That is one reason faith-based films can be such a valuable addition to family movie night. Instead of constantly searching through mainstream streaming libraries for something appropriate, families can choose stories that reinforce themes such as faith, forgiveness, perseverance, purpose, and trust in God.
Real Life Network offers Christian movies and documentaries free to stream, with options ranging from biblical stories and historical dramas to biographies and modern stories of redemption.
Here are five worth adding to your watchlist.
Based on a true story, China Cry follows Nora Lam as she grows up in China during a period of enormous political upheaval and ultimately discovers faith in Christ.
Her Christian beliefs bring serious consequences, forcing her to confront persecution, fear, and questions of obedience when following Jesus becomes costly.
The film gives families with older children an opportunity to discuss religious freedom and the difference between believing something when it is easy and standing by that belief when there is something to lose.
It also introduces viewers to the experiences of Christians in parts of the world where faith cannot always be practiced openly.
Good conversation starter: What gives someone the courage to remain faithful when doing so comes at a personal cost?
Families who enjoy sports movies may appreciate Seven Days in Utopia, which begins with a young professional golfer watching his career fall apart.
An unexpected detour brings him to the small town of Utopia, Texas, where he meets an older man who helps him reconsider what success really means. Golf remains part of the story, but the deeper questions concern identity, purpose, priorities, and what happens when accomplishment becomes the measure of a person’s worth.
Those themes make the movie especially relevant for teens growing up in a culture that often equates success with performance.
Good conversation starter: How can someone’s identity change when winning or achievement becomes more important than everything else?
Before C.S. Lewis became one of Christianity’s most influential writers and apologists, he was an atheist.
C.S. Lewis: The Most Reluctant Convert dramatizes the intellectual and personal path that eventually led the author of Mere Christianity and The Chronicles of Narnia to belief in God and then Christianity.
The film is particularly useful for older teens and adults because Lewis does not arrive at faith through a simplistic emotional experience. His questions about reason, suffering, desire, and truth matter deeply to the story.
That makes the film a natural introduction to apologetics and an encouraging reminder that Christianity does not require believers to be afraid of serious questions.
Good conversation starter: Why do you think questions and doubts sometimes become part of a person’s path toward faith?
Sometimes the most valuable Christian movie is also the most foundational.
The Jesus Film presents the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus based largely on the Gospel of Luke. Rather than creating a fictional story inspired by Christianity, it brings the Gospel narrative itself to the screen.
That makes it especially useful for family viewing, outreach, or introducing someone to the life of Christ.
Parents can also use the film as a companion to Scripture. A family might read one of the Gospel accounts and then watch how particular scenes are portrayed, discussing what Jesus said, how people responded to Him, and why His death and resurrection are central to Christianity.
Good conversation starter: What do Jesus’ words and actions reveal about who He claimed to be?
John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress has been encouraging Christians for centuries, and its animated adaptation makes the famous allegory accessible to a new generation.
The story follows Christian as he leaves the City of Destruction and begins his difficult journey toward the Celestial City. Along the way he encounters temptation, fear, discouragement, friendship, deception, and spiritual opposition.
Children can enjoy the adventure while older viewers recognize the deeper symbolism behind characters and events.
That makes The Pilgrim’s Progress particularly well suited to family movie night. Parents and children can watch the same story at different levels and then discuss what Christian’s experiences represent.
Good conversation starter: Which obstacle on Christian’s journey seemed most like something people struggle with in real life?
Not every faith-based movie needs to become a formal Bible lesson. Families need opportunities simply to enjoy stories together.
But movies also create natural openings for conversations that can otherwise be difficult to start.
A sports drama can lead to a discussion about identity. A historical film can raise questions about courage and persecution. A biography can show how intellectual doubts are confronted. A biblical movie can bring families back to Scripture.
Those conversations are part of what makes Christian media valuable.
“Christian” and “family values” do not necessarily mean every title is appropriate for every age.
Movies dealing with persecution, suffering, or complex theological questions may be better suited to teens and adults. Parents should still consider the maturity and sensitivity of their own children when choosing what to watch.
What faith-based streaming provides is a stronger starting point: stories intentionally chosen for their connection to biblical truth rather than a library in which families must continually sift through conflicting messages.
Real Life Network makes that choice even easier by offering its Christian programming free. There is no premium movie tier or additional subscription required to explore the library.
A family movie night can certainly be entertaining. But with the right story, it can also inspire courage, deepen understanding, reinforce biblical values, and lead to conversations that last far longer than the movie itself.
Explore free Christian movies, documentaries, and family programming anytime on Real Life Network.
A Virginia pastor is challenging the lawfulness of a proposed state constitutional amendment to codify same-sex marriage and spread gender ideology. The Founding Freedoms Law Center (FFLC) filed a lawsuit last week in Prince William County Circuit Court on behalf of Pastor Ben Purves of Occoquan Bible Church in Woodbridge, Va.
The Amendment 2 initiative on the ballot in the Cavalier State this November would “(i) remove the ban on same-sex marriage; (ii) affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race; and (iii) require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law” should the Supreme Court ever overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, according to the Virginia Department of Elections.
The amendment would repeal the provision of Article I, Section 15-A of the Virginia constitution defining marriage as a “union between one man and one woman,” and would instead say marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness,” explains the FFLC press release.
The legal group explained its reasoning for the lawsuit, stating, “This Complaint does not concern the wisdom or policy merits of the Proposed Amendment. It concerns whether the Proposed Amendment was brought forward to the November 2026 ballot through the process that the Constitution of Virginia requires. It was not. The Proposed Amendment reached the ballot through a process that departed from the mandatory requirements of Article XII, § 1 of the Constitution of Virginia through Virginia Code § 30-13.”
It continues, “Virginia Code § 30-13 requires the Clerk of the House of Delegates to have published and distributed copies of a proposed amendment to the clerks of Virginia’s circuit courts, and requires each circuit court clerk to post a copy ‘at the front door of the courthouse’ and make a second copy ‘available for public inspection,’ no later than three months before the intervening general election of members of the House of Delegates. These steps exist to inform the voters before the pivotal House of Delegates election. They were not performed before the November 4, 2025 general election by the Clerk of the House of Delegates or the Circuit Court Clerk or any other Virginia circuit court.”
The complaint asserts that even if the amendment is favored by most voters, it should be considered invalid.
Purves, the plaintiff on the Complaint, told The Washington Stand that it is the responsibility of a pastor to proclaim biblical truth when it comes to every issue, even the polarizing ones.
“It’s my hope that pastors will become more bold in proclaiming the gospel and the truth of God’s word, and not letting it be restricted to the church building or to church members’ homes. We really need to amplify truth in the public square, and if we do not, we will find it increasingly anti-Christian,” Purves asserted.
“Pastors — the shepherds — are called to care for their sheep,” he added. “That means giving their sheep the food of God’s word, and not just some of it, but all of it. And so, when churches are setting aside parts of Scripture and not teaching those parts, and not willing to proclaim those parts of Scripture to the world, they are failing in their duty as shepherds. And when pastors do not stand to protect their flock from wolves that will prey on their church and on the vulnerable in their community, they are failing in their pastoral duty.”
Over 400 pastors have signed a letter Purves helped orchestrate asking Virginians to vote no on Amendment 2, as well as an additional amendment to codify abortion in the Constitution of Virginia. The Pastors of Virginia group is also asking Virginia voters to participate in a day or prayer and fasting for the state on November 3.
“We call upon every voter to oppose these amendments to protect pre-born children, to defend the institution of marriage, and to stand against the destruction of transgender ideology. God created mankind as male and female as a part of God’s good and perfect creation (Gen 1:27). God creates life in the womb, and every child is a blessing (Ps 127, 139). God created the institution of marriage as a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman which is to be a portrait of Christ’s love for the church (Eph 5:32). Instead of defacing marriage, we must honor it (Heb 13:4),” the group stated.
Any pastor in the state who affirms the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation is eligible to sign the Open Letter from Virginia Pastors to the Commonwealth until voting closes after Election Day.
“To voters who are discouraged and maybe thinking of not voting — you should not lose heart,” Purves implored. “We’re called to be faithful, and we need to stand for truth, even when and if we are a minority. If we only stand for truth and we’re a majority, what does this say about us? So, it’s important for us to do the right thing and vote for the sake of truth.”
This article was written by Quinn Delamater and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
With the November 3 midterm elections approaching, Minnesota is drawing attention as a potentially consequential battleground in the fight for control of the United States Senate. Questions about government accountability, immigration, national security, and voter turnout are shaping the political debate as candidates make their final appeals.
Former Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann believes the state could deliver one of the election's biggest surprises. During a conversation on The Daniel Cohen Show, available on Real Life Network, Bachmann discussed Minnesota's political future, the growing appeal of socialism, America's relationship with Israel, and the responsibility of Christians to participate in elections.
The conversation highlighted a broader question facing American voters: How should concerns about government leadership, national security, and biblical convictions influence civic engagement?
Minnesota has traditionally favored Democrats in statewide elections, but Bachmann believes growing dissatisfaction with state leadership could create an opportunity for Republicans in 2026.
The Senate contest between Republican Michele Tafoya and Democrat Peggy Flanagan has become a focal point of that discussion.
Bachmann pointed to allegations of widespread fraud involving publicly funded programs in Minnesota as a major source of voter frustration. High-profile investigations have raised serious questions about financial oversight, the administration of public assistance programs, and whether government officials responded adequately to warning signs.
These investigations have also become politically contentious, with Republicans questioning Democratic leadership and Democrats defending their records while addressing failures in oversight.
The existence of fraud cases does not establish wrongdoing by an entire immigrant community or prove that particular candidates participated in criminal activity. Determining responsibility requires evidence, investigations, and appropriate legal proceedings.
Nevertheless, the political consequences of government oversight failures can extend well beyond the individuals directly involved.
Voters want to know whether public resources are being used responsibly, whether elected officials are accountable, and whether state agencies can identify misconduct before it becomes widespread.
Government accountability depends on protecting taxpayer resources, investigating wrongdoing fairly, and holding responsible individuals accountable regardless of political affiliation.
Bachmann also expressed concern about election administration and mail-in voting. Although she raised questions about the possibility of improper ballot handling, the interview did not provide evidence establishing that such misconduct would occur.
Election integrity is a legitimate public concern, but allegations of fraud should be supported by verifiable facts rather than speculation.
For Minnesota voters, the Senate election ultimately presents competing visions of government leadership, public spending, economic policy, and national priorities.
Bachmann believes turnout will be decisive.
Even a competitive race can produce an unexpected outcome when participation differs from polling expectations. But polling uncertainty alone cannot establish which candidate will win.
The same principle applies nationwide as Americans prepare to elect representatives who will shape federal policy over the next two years.
Beyond Minnesota's political landscape, the discussion turned to national security and the United States' relationship with Israel.
From immigration enforcement to international terrorism, security concerns have become prominent issues in the closing weeks of the midterm campaign.
Bachmann criticized Representative Ilhan Omar and raised allegations concerning her family history and immigration background. These are serious accusations that require independent verification and should not be presented as established facts without substantiating evidence.
The discussion also addressed the broader question of how immigration policy intersects with national security.
Effective immigration enforcement requires appropriate screening, lawful procedures, and the ability to identify genuine security threats. At the same time, individual wrongdoing should not be attributed to entire national, ethnic, or religious communities.
The conversation then shifted to the Middle East, where Bachmann emphasized the importance of the relationship between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
She described their political partnership as a significant opportunity to confront the Iranian regime and its support for militant organizations throughout the region.
Iran's relationship with groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas has long complicated regional security and contributed to tensions involving Israel and its neighbors.
For the United States, decisions concerning Iran involve military readiness, diplomatic strategy, economic sanctions, intelligence cooperation, and the protection of American allies.
But Bachmann sees the relationship between America and Israel as more than a matter of international politics.
She believes Scripture establishes an enduring covenant between God and the Jewish people, one that remains relevant to how Christians understand Israel today.
This conviction shaped the interview's discussion of replacement theology, the belief, in some theological formulations, that the church has superseded Israel in God's covenantal purposes.
Bachmann rejected that interpretation, arguing that God's promises to Israel have not been revoked.
She pointed to biblical passages concerning God's covenant with Abraham and the prophetic significance of Israel, including Joel 3.
Within the Christian church, interpretations of these passages differ. Some traditions emphasize a continuing national role for Israel in biblical prophecy, while others understand the covenant promises through their fulfillment in Jesus Christ and His church.
These differences have significant implications for Christian eschatology and the interpretation of biblical prophecy.
The question of Israel's future is not merely political for many Christians; it is closely connected to how they understand God's covenant promises and the fulfillment of Scripture.
At the same time, biblical convictions and contemporary foreign policy require careful consideration. Supporting Israel's security does not mean every action of its government is beyond scrutiny.
Christians can affirm the importance of Israel, oppose antisemitism, and seek the protection of innocent people while thoughtfully evaluating the decisions of political leaders.
The conversation concluded with an appeal for Christians to recognize the significance of their participation in American civic life.
Bachmann expressed concern that many believers have become disengaged from politics, even as debates over education, religious freedom, economic systems, and national identity continue to shape the country.
She specifically criticized the growing appeal of socialism among younger Americans, arguing that public education has contributed to changing attitudes toward free-market economics.
The relationship between education and political ideology is complex, however, and broad claims about what schools teach require supporting evidence.
Nevertheless, the growing debate over socialism reflects genuine disagreements about the role of government, economic opportunity, taxation, and individual responsibility.
These disagreements deserve careful examination rather than automatic dismissal.
For Christians, political engagement also raises questions about how biblical principles should inform decisions at the ballot box.
Bachmann argued that voting is an opportunity Americans should not take for granted. She encouraged churches to help believers recognize the importance of participating in elections and evaluating candidates according to their convictions.
Scripture provides principles that can inform those decisions.
Micah 6:8 emphasizes justice, mercy, and humility. Proverbs 12:22 underscores the importance of truthfulness. First Timothy 2:1-2 instructs believers to pray for those in authority.
These passages do not supply a party platform, but they establish moral responsibilities that extend beyond election season.
Christians should consider whether candidates demonstrate integrity, how proposed policies affect their neighbors, and whether political leaders exercise authority responsibly.
Biblical faithfulness in public life requires more than casting a ballot; it calls for truthfulness, discernment, prayer, and a commitment to justice.
That responsibility also includes recognizing that Christians may disagree about the best policies for achieving legitimate moral goals.
A shared commitment to protecting human life, supporting families, and promoting religious freedom does not necessarily produce identical conclusions about every candidate or legislative proposal.
Political participation should therefore be informed by conviction without allowing partisan identity to replace allegiance to Christ.
With Election Day approaching, voter turnout remains one of the most important factors in determining the makeup of Congress.
Minnesota's Senate contest may attract national attention, but the larger election will influence decisions affecting the economy, national security, foreign policy, and the direction of federal government.
For Christians, the challenge is to participate thoughtfully while remembering that political outcomes are not the ultimate measure of God's faithfulness.
Elections matter. Leadership matters. The responsibility to pursue truth, seek justice, and love one's neighbor remains unchanged regardless of which party controls Washington.
For more election coverage, discussions about Israel, and biblical perspectives on the issues shaping America's future, watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.
Over the last two decades, we’ve seen increasing rhetoric from the Left, media sources, and the up-and-coming generation claiming that Islam is a religion of peace. My challenge to that assumption is how and where do you find grounds to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion? Is it the history of the Ottoman conquest? The vicious attacks against Israel over the last 50 years? The 9/11 attacks?
When I look at all these examples, I see a religion that has paved the streets with blood, tears, sexual violence, and pain. I’ve heard too many stories that show the brutality of a religion that is being described as peaceful. Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:10). He told His disciples to go low and to be servant-hearted. Yes, He came with a sword in His mouth, and He flipped tables and offended the Pharisees. But everything He did, He did for the love of His people, to establish the Kingdom of God, to free the captive, and to fulfill Isaiah 61.
Islam, however, does not espouse this love of God, but rather a thirst for conquest. And the religion is spreading. The Pew Research Center states that Islam is the fastest-growing religion worldwide. This should cause great concern among Christians. This change is primarily because Christians are simply not getting married and having enough children to repopulate. But perhaps the biggest problem is that many Christians don’t understand why this is concerning.
Since its inception, Islam has not been as welcomed or embraced as it is now. Why should Islam’s quick ascent to popularity concern Christians? Islam’s tenets are in direct opposition to Christianity, and its eschatological doctrine (their beliefs on the end times) seeks the destruction of Israel and its people.
Islam prides itself on being a religion that provides you the biggest upgrade to heaven if you commit suicide and bring others with you, also known as mujahid. Granted, not all Muslims practice to this extent, but this is concerning at best and is in complete opposition to Christianity at worst. Were people killed during the Christian Crusades? Yes, but did Christians go around killing people hoping to gain a better afterlife with more virgins and more spoils of the flesh? Absolutely not.
A few passages in the Quran that demonstrate this lust for martyrdom are listed below:
Perhaps one of the biggest concerns Christians should have with Islam is its eschatological view on Israel and Jesus. First, Muslims don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God, or that He died on the cross. They say he will come back as Isa and descend to liberate the Islamic people from their oppression.[i] The Bible refutes that, warning against these false religions:
“Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. ... Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist — denying the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also” (1 John 18-19, 22-23).
What this scripture tells us is that any religion that challenges the deity of Christ is of the anti-Christ spirit. This anti-Christ spirit continues to fill and deceive this generation. Wrapped up in this doctrine is also the belief that a false messiah will arise out of Israel while their messiah arrives. This false messiah will be the sign that they are to wipe out the entire Jewish population. Their literature states:
“Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah said, “The Last Hour will not come until the Muslims fight against the Jews, until a Jew will hide himself behind a stone or a tree, and the stone or the tree will say: ‘O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him,’ but Al-Gharqad tree will not say so, for it is the tree of the Jews” Riyad as-Salihin 1820 (Book 18, Hadith 13).
Israel’s existence is preeminent in the Christian perspective of the end times and in Scripture. It’s not just a minor detail — it’s a necessary part of the fulfillment of thousands of years of prophecy. Our very own messiah arose out of Israel, so for Islamic literature to say that their anti-Christ will arise out of Israel is a direct contradiction of two very different religions. In fact, many pastors, writers, and scholars even argue that our anti-Christ is their messiah, and our messiah is their anti-Christ.
The great battle for earth started when Adam and Eve were in the garden, but it continues today and until Jesus returns. As we look at the cultural moment, we are in, we must pause and ask the Lord what His will would be for the church as we watch a false doctrine that seeks to destroy our homeland, our history, and our faith rise across the world. Islam is a religion that directly contradicts Christian values and seeks the destruction of Israel, a historically, politically, and spiritually vital nation. As Christians, we must take a stand, refusing to compromise or sit quietly while a religion that does not please the heart of God seeks to overrun our nation and the nations of the earth.
What can you do? First, educate yourself and share the gospel! Remember, they do not have a savior or helper to get them to the finish line. So, remind them that Jesus came to help and save them through His sacrifice! Second, go to your local city halls and meetings. Push back when legislation to build communities ruled by Sharia law is presented, as what recently occurred in Texas. Stand against the influence they have in our nation. This is a Western country — don’t be ashamed of that. Lastly, pray that the Holy Spirit would open their eyes to see the deception of Islam and that they would come to know the true Messiah.
“Therefore, do not grow weary in doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up” (Galatians 6:9).
This article was written by Rebekah Harper and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
A settlement has been reached in the fight for religious liberty in the case of LifeWise Academy against the Everett Public School District in Washington state. In December 2025, the Christian nonprofit that seeks to evangelize to public school students through a release time program sued the school district after it established various oppressive limitations to its venture.
The settlement will require the Board Everett Public Schools Board of Directors to undergo religious liberty training, make changes to the district’s policies governing religious activities, issue a public written apology for its actions visible for six months, and pay $275,000 in attorney’s fees, according to an October 13 press release by First Liberty Institute.
Holly Randall, counsel at First Liberty Institute, the firm that defended LifeWise, detailed the ministry’s road to justice during a Friday appearance on “Washington Watch.”
“[The LifeWise] program allows students to attend Bible education classes on a voluntary basis during school hours, provided that they take place off school property. So, it all happens sort of pursuant to a Supreme Court decision from 1952. This is long been the law,” Randall said. “The program at Everett was operating successfully, but then the school started implementing different burdensome restrictions and sort of obstacles to its operation. So, they implemented a permission slip process that was incredibly burdensome for parents.”
Randall shared that the district also prohibited LifeWise from participating in community affairs with other organizations.
“And it required students to pack up their Bible and other religious literature they were given at LifeWise in sealed packages to take back to school, and they were unable to access them during class even if it was an appropriate free reading time. So, they were just adding challenges to the program that we saw as sort of unconstitutional obstacles that the school district was putting in LifeWise’s way,” Randall elaborated.
She further explained that just because a student is on public school property doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to religious liberties. “You don’t shed your constitutional rights when you enter the schoolhouse gate. That’s another long settled Supreme Court law. … The school was restricting the exercise of students and parents’ constitutional rights to direct the religious upbringing of their children.”
In April 2026, a federal judge in Washington issued a preliminary injunction against Everett schools, a ruling that was good news for LifeWise. “So, that’s how we’ve arrived at where we’re at now, which is the district acknowledging it’s probably wise to settle this and eliminate some of those burdens that are happening to the LifeWise program,” Randall clarified.
Randall went on to recall one of the most remarkable aspects of the case was the Everett school board’s unfriendliness towards LifeWise. “The judge’s order on the preliminary injunction was that the statements board members were making while at board meetings were expressing hostility toward LifeWise. And then they were taking actions that reflected that hostility.”
“The apology that the school district is being required to make, [and] the attorneys’ fees they’re being required to pay are really a reflection that school board members can’t just say whatever they want from the dais, express that hostility, take hostile actions, and get away with it. So, we’re hoping that this sends a message to board members across the country that they need to be careful when they’re speaking about religious organizations and treat them equally, not with hostility.”
Randall concluded by observing that the students who participate in LifeWise are the true heroes of the story.
“The students that attend that program are really the brave ones in this situation,” asserted Randall. “They are the type of students we want to be able to bring more Bible education to and expand their access. … The impact of a student in elementary, middle, or high school, hearing the word of God can only lead to life change and good.”
This article was written by Quinn Delamater and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
The artificial intelligence community just waved goodbye to yet another top safety and regulation official — and he offers a unique angle in his warning to the world.
David Robinson had been leading safety reports for OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT. Robinson resigned in the first week of October, stating that the industry’s approach to safety has been stemming from a broken culture. He penned the following words in a piece for The Atlantic, which contain more truth than perhaps he even knows: “The future depends on wisdom that Silicon Valley lacks.”
We’ll come back to that.
His departure comes on the heels of several other prominent AI safety researchers abandoning the industry. Their exits have paired with dreadful public warnings about the future of this technology, leaving the American people to grapple with the headlines and the unknown.
Take Jacob Coxon, for example. After leaving Claude developer Anthropic in September, he wrote on X that top tech labs are “gambling with our lives” by racing toward self-improving superintelligence. He went on to reveal that the people building AI “earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”
Comforting.
For clarity, the industry term “superintelligence” refers to a hypothetical AI system that developers believe could surpass humans in overall knowledge and capability. This could happen through recursive self-improvement (RSI) in which AI models design and continually improve their own successors.
While the Trump administration has taken to using the term as a reference to AI more broadly, Coxon used it as the industry intends: the potential nightmare of AI evolving beyond our ability to contain.
Let’s go back to David Robinson for a second. Beyond diagnosing the issue of a “lack of wisdom,” he went on in his article to describe the kind of wisdom that is desperately needed — the kind that shows us “how to handle dangerous technology and, more fundamentally … what it means to care for people.”
This kind of wisdom has only one source.
Proverbs 4:7 states, “The beginning of wisdom is: Acquire wisdom; And with all your acquiring, acquire understanding.” The natural question is, how can true wisdom be acquired? Well, it is not gained by happenstance or by any means of passivity.
The word of God teaches that wisdom is found only, “if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure” (Proverbs 2:4).
That same proverb states that when wisdom enters the human heart, it bears fruits of knowledge, discretion, and understanding. Knowledge is pleasant, discretion brings protection, and understanding guards the one who finds it.
If those spearheading AI labs begin searching for wisdom with the same fervency as they do innovation, capital gain, and victory in the arms race, perhaps we might reap the benefits of honing a brilliant technology for human flourishing, rather than threatening it entirely.
In the absence of wisdom, we ought not to expect flourishing. Thus, the need for appropriate guardrails toward that end is becoming increasingly dire.
Whistleblowers coming forward to expose carelessness in the industry is a good thing. Speaking up when danger is on the horizon is profitable. What is not profitable, however, is responding in fear.
The wisest man in history, King Solomon, tells us, “There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).
The pride of man has reared its head through the latest technology and means of production before. As soon as human beings had the chance, they took brick and mortar and built the tower of Babel, aiming to reach as high as heaven to make a name for themselves — not for the God who gave them clay, water, and sun in the first place.
Today, we are seeing the latest expression of that sinful pride: men thinking they can hold infinite knowledge without it destroying them. Casting wisdom aside, they trust in their own minds and technical ability rather than in God.
In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve fell to the temptation of wanting to be all-knowing, like God. He judged that decision then, and He will not be mocked now (Galatians 6:7).
There is nothing more urgent for the unbeliever than to humble themselves, fall on their knees, and cry out to the Creator for salvation. There is, likewise, nothing more urgent for the believer than to refuse every temptation to fear in these times — to live the joyful, abundant life offered to them in Christ.
It is not a suggestion to be unafraid. It is a commandment given us by God, time and time again throughout the Scriptures.
Do not stifle your witness to the watching world.
The book of Ecclesiastes warns us that there are many dark days in this life under the sun, and that we will encounter circumstances which are difficult, perplexing, and often don’t make sense. Yet, there are a few things that author King Solomon found to be good: “Behold, what I have seen to be good and fitting is to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life that God has given him, for this is his lot” (Ecclesiastes 5:18).
New threats to our livelihood may come at alarming rates, but our responsibility as Christians remains the same: Do not dread the future or fear the potential of “superintelligence.” Rather, “fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13).
So, keep breaking bread with those you love. Keep enjoying the toil and the lot that God has given you with a grateful heart. Regardless of the news cycle, and whatever may come out of Washington and Silicon Valley — rejoice in what you have been given.
Our lives are but a vapor, a mist, Solomon says. The years go by quickly, and soon, we will return to dust.
That need not be depressing — in fact, let it be motivating as you live the most upright, joyous, and noble life possible along the way. Be encouraged, for we have all the instruction we need to please God in every circumstance, including the ones out of our control.
God says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” in Revelation 22:13. If God is the Omega just as much as He is the Alpha, what is there to fear?
At the end of all things, just as much as at the beginning — He is there. And He rules and reigns at every point in between.
Human history was born from and ends in perfect wisdom, and God will tie the final bow on our story.
Not Sam Altman, or Dario and Daniela Amodei, or Donald Trump, or Xi Jinping — but Jesus Christ will do it, who is the same “yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).
This article was written by Erica Mendel and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
This article is adapted from a recent episode of Rose Unplugged featuring former Congressman Louie Gohmert — a former judge who served 18 years on the House Judiciary Committee.
Every so often, it's worth pausing to step away from the noise and lean into what's real. Right now, that means taking a hard look at two things: judges who think they answer to no one, and a culture that wants to erase the heroes who don't fit the modern mold.
They look unrelated. They're not. They're the same problem wearing two different masks. One is a refusal of accountability. The other is a refusal of honesty.
Scripture doesn't leave the subject of judges to guesswork. In Exodus 18, when Moses is drowning in disputes, his father-in-law Jethro tells him to appoint leaders — “able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain.”
Deuteronomy 16 goes further, instructing judges, “You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial.” That's the standard. Fear God. Reject dishonest gain. No favoritism. No corruption.
Now hold that up against what's happening in our own courts today — judges with undisclosed conflicts of interest, judges reportedly using AI to manufacture case law that doesn't exist, judges quietly reprimanded behind closed doors for conduct that would getanyone else fired.
This isn't a partisan gripe. It's a bench that has drifted from “good behavior” into something Scripture would call exactly what it is — corrupt judgment.
And this is not some abstract, inside-the-Beltway squabble. This is the unelected, unaccountable administrative state in black robes. We're talking about activist judges legislating from the bench, single district judges issuing nationwide injunctions to override the will of the American people and their duly elected president, and a judiciary that has quietly built itself into a fourth, untouchable branch of government.
That should alarm every single one of us, regardless of party, because a Republic where judges answer to nobody isn't a Republic anymore.
Here's what gets missed: accountability for judges isn't a modern political invention. It's baked into the oldest legal tradition we have. In 2 Chronicles 19, King Jehoshaphat appoints judges and warns them plainly, “Consider what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the Lord.”
A judge was never meant to be untouchable. A judge was meant to answer to a higher standard, precisely because of the power he holds over other people's lives, liberty, and property.
Isaiah 1 doesn't mince words either: “Learn to do good; seek justice.” Judgment is supposed to protect people, not shield the judge from consequence. When a judiciary polices itself for forty-plus years and the abuses keep piling up anyway, that bargain has failed.
Unchecked power, whether it's sitting on a bench or rewriting a history book, doesn't correct itself. That's not cynicism. That's what
Scripture has always told us about the human heart — and it's precisely why the Founders built in checks in the first place. They didn't build three co-equal branches so that one of them could operate with zero checks. And our faith doesn't teach us that any man — king, judge, or committee — gets a permanent pass from scrutiny.
And it's not just the courtroom. We're watching the same instinct — the refusal to be honest and the refusal to be accountable — show up in how the culture treats its own history. Britain is erasing Winston Churchill from its currency because a focus group calls him “divisive.”
This is the same woke revisionism we see here at home — knock down the statue, rename the school, cancel the man.
But there is exactly one perfect man who ever walked the earth, and none of us are Him. Scripture is remarkably unsentimental about its own heroes. It tells you David committed adultery and had a man killed to cover it up — and still calls him a man after God's own heart. It tells you Noah got drunk, Moses disobeyed God at the rock, and Peter denied Christ three times. The Bible doesn't airbrush its heroes. It shows the whole man, flaws and all, because the point was never that these men were flawless.
That's the opposite instinct of what we're watching happen with Churchill. Modern cancel culture wants a spotless résumé or it wants erasure. Scripture never asked us to pretend our heroes were flawless. It asks us to tell the truth about them — the good and the bad — and let the record stand.
A nation that can't hold “Churchill saved civilization” and “Churchill had serious flaws” in the same breath isn't practicing justice. It's practicing amnesia.
So let's be honest about what's at stake here. This isn't about one bad ruling or one bad headline out of London. This is about whether we still believe in a Republic of laws, or whether we've quietly let ourselves drift into rule by unelected robes and unelected editors of history.
Judges answering to no one and a culture rewriting its own history are two sides of the same coin — a slow, quiet abandonment of truth and accountability. That should matter to every conservative, every Christian, every American who still believes truth is truth regardless of what a focus group or a black robe says about it.
If we let the judiciary and the culture police themselves without any accountability to God or to “We the People,” we will wake up one day and not recognize the country our Founders risked everything to build. As citizens, we don't get to sit this one out. This is one to lean into, not scroll past.
I want to say this plainly: men like Louie Gohmert don't get nearly enough credit for the work they do long after the cameras and the Capitol Hill office are gone. Eighteen years on the House Judiciary Committee, a career on the bench himself, and he's still out there walking the halls of Congress, folder in hand, doing the unglamorous, unpaid, unnoticed work of trying to hold power accountable. That's not politics. That's public service in the truest sense of the word, and we don't say thank you for that kind of thing nearly often enough.
Whether it's a judge who thinks he answers to no one, or a culture that thinks history should answer to a marketing survey — the answer is the same. Truth, judged rightly, doesn't need to hide from scrutiny, and it doesn't need to erase the past to feel comfortable. It just needs someone willing to say it plainly.
So keep your faith steady, your focus clear, and keep moving forward — because you are here for such a time as this.
Watch or listen to the full conversation with former Congressman Louie Gohmert on Rose Unplugged: Rogue Judges, Erased History, SCOTUS Graded — Louie Gohmert Holds Nothing Back
Entertainment has never been more accessible. A television, phone, or tablet can provide an endless stream of movies, shows, short videos, news, games, and social media without ever reaching the bottom of the screen.
But having more to watch doesn’t necessarily mean families are better served by what they’re watching.
For many households, entertainment has become noisy in more ways than one. Programs compete for attention with faster pacing, stronger language, darker storylines, sexualized content, graphic imagery, and increasingly provocative themes. Algorithms encourage one more episode or video, while families can end an evening having consumed hours of media without feeling particularly rested, encouraged, or connected.
That raises a worthwhile question: Is it time to replace some of that noise with faith-based family media?
For Christian families, the answer may have less to do with watching less and more to do with choosing better.
Noise isn’t necessarily about volume.
Media can be noisy when it constantly demands attention without giving anything meaningful in return. It can be entertainment built around shock, conflict, outrage, anxiety, or relentless stimulation. It can also be content filled with ideas and assumptions that compete with what parents are trying to teach their children.
Even material that isn’t overtly inappropriate can leave viewers feeling distracted or spiritually empty.
Philippians 4:8 gives Christians a useful standard for what deserves sustained attention, directing believers toward things that are true, noble, just, pure, lovely, and praiseworthy. That doesn’t mean every program needs to quote Scripture. But it does challenge families to think about what repeatedly occupies their minds.
The phrase “media diet” is useful because entertainment has something in common with food: what is consumed occasionally matters less than what becomes normal.
One movie is unlikely to define a child’s worldview. Hundreds of hours of stories, characters, values, jokes, and messages over many years can have a much greater influence.
Children learn from stories. They notice which behaviors are rewarded, which relationships are celebrated, which beliefs are mocked, and what characters consider normal.
Adults aren’t immune either. Constant exposure to cynicism, fear, anger, or sexualized entertainment can gradually make those things feel ordinary.
Choosing faith-based media gives families an opportunity to put more spiritually nourishing material into that mix.
Parents can spend enormous energy saying no.
No, you can’t watch that show. No, that movie isn’t appropriate. No, we’re skipping this episode.
Boundaries are sometimes necessary, but they become much easier when there is also a good answer to, “What can we watch instead?” Faith-based streaming provides that replacement.
A family movie night could feature C.S. Lewis: The Most Reluctant Convert, opening conversations about doubt, reason, and conversion. A documentary such as The Listening Road can introduce thoughtful conversations about how people from different backgrounds think about faith. 7 Days in the Holy Land can help families visually connect places in Israel with biblical events.
The goal isn’t simply to remove entertainment. It is to replace some of it with stories and ideas worth carrying into the next day.
One of the greatest advantages of watching Christian content together is what happens afterward. A program can naturally lead to questions that might otherwise feel forced:
Those conversations help turn viewing into family discipleship.
A documentary such as The Call, for example, can lead to discussion about the Great Commission and what evangelism looks like in ordinary Christian life. Way of the Master can prompt older children and adults to think about how they would talk about Jesus with someone who doesn’t share their beliefs.
The screen becomes the beginning of the conversation rather than the end of it.
Replacing noisy entertainment with Christian media doesn’t mean turning every evening into a classroom. Families still need stories, laughter, discovery, music, and relaxation.
Faith-based media can include movies, animation, travel programs, interviews, biographies, documentaries, podcasts, and conversations. Some content teaches Scripture directly. Other programs simply tell compelling stories shaped by faith, courage, forgiveness, or hope.
That variety matters because healthy family media should still be enjoyable.
The distinction is that entertainment doesn’t need to undermine a family’s beliefs in order to hold its attention.
Another benefit of intentional viewing is simply reducing the constant demand for stimulation. Mainstream digital media often encourages viewers to keep going. Finish one episode and another begins automatically. Watch one short video and dozens more appear. Attention itself has become valuable currency.
Faith-based streaming can help families establish a different rhythm.
Choose one documentary. Watch a devotional together. Listen to a meaningful conversation. Then turn the television off and talk.
Programs such as Groundworks with Steve Wiggins are particularly suited to this approach because brief, Scripture-centered episodes can provide meaningful input without consuming an entire evening. Living Fearless with Andy and Hedieh can similarly encourage thoughtful conversation about faith and everyday challenges.
The objective isn’t to fill every available minute with Christian programming. It’s to make more intentional choices about which voices receive the family’s attention.
Children eventually make their own media choices. Before that happens, parents have an opportunity to model discernment. That includes more than policing what children watch. Kids also notice what their parents consume.
If adults spend hours immersed in angry commentary, dark entertainment, or endless scrolling while telling children to make healthier choices, the message can become confusing.
Christ-centered leadership in the home means asking the same questions of adult entertainment that parents ask about children’s programming.
Those questions can gradually reshape a family’s media habits without requiring an overnight purge of every mainstream platform.
Real Life Network was created to provide a different kind of streaming environment.
Rather than placing biblical programming beside an enormous catalog of conflicting content, RLN carefully curates its library around Christian faith and biblical truth. Viewers can move between films, documentaries, podcasts, Bible teaching, cultural discussions, devotional programs, kids’ content, and live events without leaving that foundation.
That gives families something increasingly difficult to find in modern entertainment: a place where they can discover rather than constantly defend.
Parents still decide what fits the age and needs of their particular family. But the starting point is very different.
Replacing noisy entertainment doesn’t require rejecting technology, storytelling, or even every mainstream show. It means becoming more intentional about what receives a family’s limited time and attention.
Some entertainment merely fills a room. Better media can fill conversations, reinforce truth, encourage faith, and give families something meaningful to carry with them after the screen goes dark.
For Christian households, that makes faith-based family media more than an alternative. It can become one practical way to cultivate a home in which entertainment supports, rather than competes with, what matters most.
Explore biblically curated movies, documentaries, family programs, devotionals, and more anytime on Real Life Network.
.webp)
If voters are trying to imagine what the nation would look like under the socialist policies of a Democratic majority in Congress, look no farther than California.
Governor Gavin Newsom (D) and the Democratic supermajority in both chambers of the state legislature offer an extensive list of policies flowing from the same socialist and Marxist ideology being championed by the ascendant wing of the Democratic Party.
The latest example is AB 1803, signed by Governor Newsom last week. Authored by Assemblyman Josh Lowenthal (D), the law requires employers with five or more employees to add training on hate speech to the growing list of California’s harassment-training laws.
Lowenthal said, “California must make meaningful progress to train Californians on the danger of hate speech not only in the workplaces, but in society as a whole.”
The law describes speech covered by the training as speech that “vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred” against people based on protected characteristics.
And what are those protected characteristics? They include religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, and reproductive health decision-making — which includes abortion.
There are others, but those are enough to raise serious questions for Christians and religious organizations.
First, there is no clear legal definition of hate speech. Whatever the intent, the effect is to give the term enormous elasticity. Who decides when a deeply held religious conviction crosses the line from disagreement into “humiliation” or “vilification” and is then defined as hate speech?
Second, California law does not make sufficiently clear how this new mandate applies to churches and religious ministries. That ambiguity itself should concern anyone who values religious freedom, because the protected categories include subjects on which biblical Christianity makes unmistakable moral and theological claims.
Jesus said in Matthew 19 that the Creator “made them male and female,” and then described marriage in terms of a man and a woman. Does teaching those words humiliate someone who rejects the biblical understanding of sex and marriage?
What about Jesus’s words in John 14: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me”? Christianity is inherently exclusive in its truth claims. Could that someday be deemed vilifying toward another religion?
This is why California’s law should concern the church and everyone else, for that matter. When state officials declare the state needs to train society on what is appropriate speech, all of society is in trouble. Frankly, the state of California should not be instructing the church — the church should be instructing the government on what is right and wrong.
For Christians, this is an Acts 4 moment. When Peter and John were ordered not to speak or teach in Jesus’s name, they answered: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge.”
California is not merely a laboratory for the Left; it is a warning to the rest of America. The question for voters is whether California’s experiment stops at the state line, or comes to Washington. And the question for the church is even more fundamental: when government demands that we compromise biblical truth, will we have the courage of Peter and John to stand firm and speak it?
This article was originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
The economy matters. Groceries, gas prices, housing costs, and the pressure on American families deserve serious attention. But national security belongs in that conversation, too. The decisions made in Washington affect more than household budgets. They shape the country's ability to confront terrorism, protect religious communities, secure its borders, and respond to threats abroad.
Those connections deserve closer examination. Through The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network, the intersection of faith, national security, Israel, and American politics remains central to understanding the headlines.
The approaching November 3 midterms raise questions that go well beyond which party controls Congress. Who sets national security priorities? How should America respond to Iran and its terrorist proxies? What responsibilities do elected officials have when antisemitism and political violence reach American communities?
National security is not an abstract debate reserved for Washington. Its consequences can reach neighborhoods, schools, houses of worship, and ordinary families.
Iran remains central to the discussion about American national security and the Middle East. Its support for armed groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas, has made its regional influence a continuing concern for the United States and Israel.
Yet political disagreements over Iran and Israel often become tangled in arguments about military assistance, international law, and America's responsibilities overseas.
Michigan's Senate contest illustrates those competing priorities.
Abdul El-Sayed has argued against unconditional American military assistance to foreign governments, including Israel. In interviews, his position has emphasized applying international law consistently and restricting weapons transfers to governments accused of violating it.
That approach raises legitimate questions about American foreign policy. Military assistance is not an unlimited obligation, and elected officials have a responsibility to scrutinize how taxpayer money is spent.
But the discussion cannot stop there.
Israel faces rocket and missile threats from hostile armed groups and regional adversaries. Defensive systems such as Iron Dome exist to intercept incoming projectiles and protect civilian populations. Any proposal to restrict military assistance therefore deserves careful examination of its potential consequences for defensive capabilities as well as offensive operations.
There is also an important distinction between criticizing a government's military decisions and excusing terrorism directed against its citizens.
The March attack against Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan, brought that distinction much closer to home. A vehicle carrying incendiary materials was driven into a synagogue complex that also serves children and families. The incident prompted renewed concerns about antisemitic violence and the reach of conflicts originating thousands of miles away.
Political leaders can disagree about Israel's government, military operations, and American foreign assistance. Those disagreements do not diminish the obligation to condemn attacks against Jewish civilians and religious institutions.
No disagreement over foreign policy can justify threatening Jewish families or treating American religious communities as extensions of a foreign government.
The same principle must apply to every community. A synagogue, church, mosque, or school should never become a target because of anger over events elsewhere.
The connection between national security and congressional elections is more substantial than campaign rhetoric might suggest.
Congress controls federal appropriations, establishes statutory authorities, conducts oversight, and plays a central role in shaping the agencies responsible for national defense and domestic security. The Senate also exercises its constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent on presidential nominations requiring confirmation.
Those responsibilities make congressional debates over homeland security, intelligence gathering, immigration enforcement, and counterterrorism consequential.
An alleged ISIS-inspired plot involving the Mall of America in Minnesota offers an example of the threats federal investigators seek to identify before violence occurs.
According to the account presented by federal authorities, an 18-year-old suspect had communicated about supporting ISIS and allegedly considered carrying out an attack in the United States after plans to travel overseas did not materialize. The allegations require the usual distinction between prosecutors' claims and facts established in court.
But the broader issue remains significant: preventing terrorism requires investigative resources, intelligence cooperation, appropriate legal authorities, and effective oversight.
Protecting the public also requires precision.
Terrorist organizations are responsible for their own violence. Their actions must not become an excuse to assign collective guilt to immigrants, Muslims, or particular ethnic communities. Effective counterterrorism depends upon identifying actual threats rather than confusing religious identity or national origin with criminal conduct.
That is why national security policy requires more than slogans about being tough or compassionate.
The public deserves to understand how candidates would approach terrorism investigations, border security, intelligence oversight, civil liberties, and the constitutional limits of government authority.
Those questions belong alongside debates about inflation, healthcare, education, and taxation.
Three years after the Hamas-led October 7 attack, the anniversary remains a painful occasion for Jewish communities around the world.
Approximately 1,200 people were killed in the attack, and 251 were taken hostage. The consequences have extended far beyond Israel, including heightened security concerns and incidents of antisemitism in the United States.
New York City's response to the anniversary illustrates how difficult the public conversation has become.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani's remarks acknowledging the suffering caused by October 7 while criticizing Israel's subsequent military actions became a point of contention among activists with sharply different expectations.
The controversy reflects a larger problem in contemporary politics: expressions of sympathy, criticism, and disagreement are increasingly measured against demands for complete ideological agreement.
Recognizing the suffering of Israeli victims does not require ignoring Palestinian civilian suffering. Likewise, expressing concern for Palestinians does not require minimizing the October 7 atrocities or excusing antisemitism.
Both truths can be maintained without contradiction.
Political movements become less capable of honest debate when every disagreement is treated as betrayal. Acknowledging suffering should not depend upon whether the victims belong to a preferred political or religious community.
For Christians, Scripture establishes a higher standard than political loyalty. Human beings bear God's image, and the obligation to speak truthfully does not disappear when truth becomes inconvenient to a favored party or cause.
Proverbs 18:17 reminds readers that the first account of a dispute may sound persuasive until it is examined. That principle applies to viral videos, campaign statements, accusations of extremism, and claims about political opponents.
Christian discernment requires consistency: condemn terrorism without qualification, reject antisemitism without hesitation, and examine political claims without surrendering judgment to party loyalty.
The approaching midterms will generate enormous attention around polling, turnout, and campaign strategies. Those subjects are part of the political process, but they should not obscure the governing responsibilities attached to the offices being contested.
A Senate vote can affect national security appointments. A congressional appropriation can determine resources available to federal agencies. Legislative oversight can expose failures or strengthen accountability.
Understanding those responsibilities provides a more useful framework than treating every political development as a contest between personalities.
The same seriousness belongs in discussions about Israel, Iran, and religious freedom. American foreign policy involves real tradeoffs, and domestic security decisions can affect both public safety and constitutional liberties.
No political party possesses a monopoly on wisdom, and no candidate should be exempt from difficult questions.
The standard should remain consistent: evidence before accusations, clarity before slogans, and responsibility before political convenience.
Follow the intersection of biblical truth, Israel, national security, and American current events through The Daniel Cohen Show, streaming free on Real Life Network
A newly enacted law in California that requires virtually all employers to give employees “anti-hate speech” training is raising red flags, as experts say that the mandate could force churches to provide training that conflicts with sincerely held biblical beliefs regarding sexuality, gender, and marriage.
Late last month, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed into law AB 1803, a measure that requires all employers with five or more workers, including all churches and other nonprofit religious organizations, to provide employees with “anti-hate speech” instruction. But as observers like the California Family Council (CFC) are pointing out, the legislation does not define “hate speech,” instead handing the job to the state’s Civil Rights Department. The bill mandates that the training must confront workplace speech that “vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred” against individuals based on what the state has already deemed a protected characteristic, which includes sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.
The CFC goes on to observe that the statute, which will go into effect on January 1, 2028, never mentions churches or religious nonprofits and their First Amendment rights to hold sincerely held religious beliefs about sexuality and gender. It also “fails to separate protected expression from unlawful conduct,” noting that the Supreme Court held in 2017 that “the First Amendment has no hate speech exception.”
Greg Burt, who serves as vice president of CFC, further pointed out the problems with AB 1803’s vague language regarding key terms that it says constitute “hate.”
“What does it mean to vilify? What speech actually humiliates?” he wondered during “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Tuesday. “[M]any times legislators consider many Christian beliefs when they’re expressed — especially regarding sexuality or gender — they accuse us of hating people. That’s [the] farthest thing from my mind. But we are simply advocating for our view that sex is determined by biology, and God created us both male and female. Well, to many people that is humiliating and that incites hatred. And so that’s the problem with this legislation.”
Burt went on to clarify that AB 1803 is being folded into a previously enacted statute that mandates sexual harassment training, which already specifies that using accurate biological pronouns constitutes “harassment.” “[Businesses are] already required to go through sexual harassment training, and we found out several years ago they redefined what sexual harassment means to include gender identity,” he explained. “… [The] California Civil Rights Department says misgendering is harassment, and so this training is on top of that already egregious training.”
As for how employers can fulfill the required training, Burt noted that hiring outside trainers is allowed, but the state-provided training that includes pro-LGBT messaging is free. “Right now, the state puts together a free curriculum — that’s how they do it with sexual harassment training, but you’re not required to use that training. You can come up with your own. But we don’t know exactly what ‘anti-hate’ is going to include, right? [Their] definition of speech that ‘humiliates’ — what does that mean? It really depends on the person who’s receiving the language.”
Burt further urged churches and other religious organizations in the Golden State to push back vigorously against the mandate. “What I think the state is doing is it’s trying to intimidate churches into following through with this,” he lamented. “They should not be receiving any kind of ideological training from the state on any moral issue. That’s why what churches need to be doing is asking for religious accommodations. The federal law and the state law already require businesses to accommodate people’s faith if they’re being required to do something that violates their faith. … [T]his is one of those points in history here in California where civil disobedience is going to be necessary.”
Burt concluded by emphasizing that state officials in California are counting on churches to kowtow to their demands instead of standing up for the constitutional freedoms, which has already proven to be a winning strategy.
“I’m sure they’re already thrilled that they get to retrain the entire population to believe what they believe regarding gender identity,” he reflected. “And so once we get accustomed to this and say, ‘Well, this is just what California requires, I guess we have to do it.’ No, you don’t. Folks, you’ve got to resist, and that includes individual employees. That’s what we are encouraging people to do. And we are having success. We have some attorneys we’re working with, and when people have been asking for religious accommodations, they have been accommodated.”
This article was written by Dan Hart and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
Social science data continues to emerge showing that America’s young people are increasingly non-religious, isolated, and unhappy. But the data also shows that young people who are religious are thriving, with higher levels of happiness, more friends, are more likely to be married, and better educational outcomes than their non-religious peers.
Research released by the Institute for Family Studies (IFS) notes that since 2000, reports of unhappiness among young people aged 20 to 35 has more than doubled, surging from 11% to 23%. This has coincided with an era where young people are isolating at unprecedented levels as they immerse themselves in screens, pornography, social media, video games, and AI chatbots. “Socializing among young men and women is down more than 50%, from 12 hours to 5 hours per week,” IFS observes. Unsurprisingly, this has led to a precipitous decline in relationships and dating, with two thirds of young people not in serious relationships and teen dating down 50%.
As unhappiness and loneliness has risen among young people, so too has secularism. In March, Arizona Christian University’s Cultural Research Center reported that only 1% of Gen Z (ages 18 to 22) and 4% of adults in general has a biblical worldview (defined as “individuals whose beliefs and behaviors are consistently aligned with biblical principles”). The figure is down significantly since 1994, when 12% of adults reported a biblical worldview.
But married and religious young people seem to be largely escaping the unhappiness trap, with 50% saying they are “very happy” compared to just 16% of their secular, unmarried peers. As IFS points out, “faith and family remain two of the strongest bulwarks against loneliness and despair.”
For young men in particular, religion appears to be the hinge that catapults them into a future of contentment and success. Data shows that religious men are more likely to desire and attain marriage than those who are non-religious. They are also almost twice as likely to report feeling “very happy” and to say that life feels “purposeful/meaningful” than secular men. Religious men also report less mental health issues, anxiety, and depression. They also have bachelor’s degrees at far higher rates than non-religious men (46% vs. 16%) and report finishing trade school/apprenticeships at 29% (vs. 14% of secular men).
Where a happier minority of young people find meaning and purpose in religion, a far larger percentage appear to hold politics and government as their primary focal point, especially with the rising popularity of socialism.
“[M]y generation has grown up in a very hyper political age,” Counteract USA Founder and CEO Abigail DeJarnatt contended during “Washington Watch” Friday. “… [Many believe that] government can be the arbiter of morality. That’s what happens when Marxism infuses into our society. And that’s just what we’ve grown up with. So when you’re online and you’re on TikTok [watching] recipe videos, there’s also political ideologies that are being pushed on and talked about amongst Gen Z. So it’s not surprising at all that this is where we’re at, and I think we’ll just continue to see a lot more of it among young people.”
DeJarnatt further explained how her ministry is attempting to engage Gen Z with truth. “The primary thing that we’re focusing on with Gen Z Christians is teaching them a framework of biblical critical thinking,” she explained. “Because the reality is, a lot of Gen Z’s world is unfolding online. A lot of the conversations, online friendships, relationships. … What we’re trying to teach Gen Z to do is look at what they’re seeing online and ask, ‘Is it true? Is it not?’ … We’re trying to tell Gen Z [to] ask questions as fast as we’re scrolling online. Slow down. … And as Christians, we have to weigh that against the Bible itself.”
DeJarnatt went on to argue that a sense of self entitlement undergirded by Marxism has heavily influenced young people to abandon a solid biblical ethic. “[T]his Marxism that’s invaded our culture, just the hyper individualism in Gen Z,” she emphasized. “[Much of] Gen Z is [saying], ‘We aren’t happy with either political party.’ I think we have this idea that we can have it all. [It’s the] same framework of pick and choose our own ideology to the Bible. … [W]e think, ‘I like this, I don’t like this. I’m going to choose this. I’m not going to choose this.’”
DeJarnatt concluded by urging young believers to move beyond their comfort zones in order to spread the gospel to an isolated and unhappy wider culture.
“We see so many young Christians who are taught all these amazing things and their amazing churches that are Bible-based,” she noted. “They’re in Bible-based families that are going back to Scripture, but we need to teach Gen Z to take all the things that they know and actually apply them to the key conversations happening around us, having the conversations, just getting Gen Z to talk to each other … articulating those beliefs so that they actually become effective in wielding the sword of the spirit in the spiritual battle that’s raging all around us. They have the tools. They just need to know how to use them well.”
This article was written by Dan Hart and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
Like a lot of girls her age, Rosalie Markezich knew the standard talking point about mifepristone. Don’t worry, the online sites say. It’s just like taking a Tylenol. “Well, I’ve taken a lot of Tylenol in my lifetime,” she tells people now, and “it has never killed my child. It has never ruined my life, and it has never made me bleed for over a week.”
Unlike most moms, Rosalie never got the chance to hear that lie from her doctor, because she didn’t ask for a prescription in the first place. Her boyfriend ordered the pills in her name, and without any sort of ID or verification, the drugs magically showed up at her house. “I told him, ‘No thank you. I do not want you to do that, and I do not want them.’ Well, [he] found the website. He filled it out all with my personal information that I did not give him to use … [and] $150 later, he successfully ordered abortion pills through the mail from a [California] doctor named Remy Coeytaux, shipped directly to my doorstep.”
When he forced her to swallow them, her plan was to go inside and throw them up. But it was too late. “That night, I laid on a blood-soaked towel by myself, choking on my own breath. I remember my body rejecting it, rejecting its own breath — the one thing that it needs. I was praying to God, ‘Please take me too.’” Now, filled with grief and anger at how the government has robbed her of everything the Left insists this debate is about — choice, privacy, and safety — she’s fighting back.
“The FDA was wrong,” Rosalie said emotionally at the Pray Vote Stand Summit. “They allowed these drugs. They allowed them to go through the mail. They knew the warnings. They knew what could happen. And yet they are still sending them through the mail after seeing firsthand what it has done to women and children.”
We’re talking about a drug, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R) reiterated, “that is facilitating domestic abuse and even murder.” And yet, four years ago, he shook his head, pro-lifers were at this same event celebrating the overwhelming victory of Dobbs, a success story a half-century of prayers and activism in the making. “But I don’t think any of us that were on that stage left the stage believing that we would have more abortions today than we had at that time.” All because of mifepristone — and the presidents since 2022 who have turned a blind eye to the violent consequences.
“It’s why, frankly, [we] are still amazed at this administration — which talks about being the most pro-life administration — simply burying their head in the sand on what we know is going on around us.” With a single signature, President Trump could turn this whole situation around, Marshall insists. “The data is there. … They have the capacity to be able to do it. The question is whether or not they have the political will.” And so far, they have not.
Instead, they’ve created a black market for abortion drugs that not only puts women who voluntarily take the pill in life-threatening situations, but sets fire to every pro-life state law in America. Right now, it doesn’t matter whether you live in Louisiana or New York, abortionists are illegally flooding every zip code of the country with mifepristone — and getting away with it.
If the Trump administration had the nerve to enforce the federal laws already on the books, Rosalie would be the happy mom of a two-year-old right now. Under the Comstock Act, the Justice Department should be cracking down on anyone shipping abortion pills through the mail — let alone to pro-life states whose voters have already made their voices heard on the issue. But instead, for reasons no one who witnessed the first Trump term can understand, Republican attorneys general like Louisiana’s Liz Murrill (R) are having to fight their way to the Supreme Court just for the right to have their laws respected.
Murrill, who’s already battling the FDA over its ridiculously lax standards on the drug, is expanding the war to states that are knowingly protecting the criminals sending pills into pro-life states. Together with Marshall and Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R), the trio is suing New York, California, and Massachusetts to try to dismantle the “shield laws” in blue states that refuse to punish anyone mailing mifepristone.
“They shield the doctor, they shield the pharmacist, they shield anybody who is involved with what I call the pill pipeline, sending those pills into our state,” Murrill told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “This Week on Capitol Hill.” “And they are doing it for a political purpose. They are doing it because they disapprove of the laws that our state has passed. And so they want to flood our state with those pills illegally.”
To get away with it, the prescribers leave no trace on the bottles. “They sanitize it. And so, you will never you may never know who actually prescribed those pills. … [They’re] filling the prescription bottle and sending it into our state with no name on it, no pharmacy on it, no recipient name.”
Murrill explained that her team actually tested the current market, having agents order drugs online. Asked if there’s any kind of consultation with a medical person, she replied no. “There’s none. They’re not even verifying who’s even buying them. … They mail them to anybody who basically fills out a form on the internet. So it’s extraordinarily irresponsible.” Not to mention, she added, that “they are directly trying to nullify our laws.”
And regardless of whether the women are coerced or ordering these of their own will, the AG sadly acknowledged that the number of emergency room visits is skyrocketing — mainly because no one is adhering to the FDA’s 10-week limit for the drug. “Is any other drug treated like this?” Perkins wanted to know. “None,” Murrill replied. “None,” she repeated. “That’s why I say over and over again … this is not health care. There is nothing about this that is health care. I mean, there is no situation in the medical field where they would do this with drugs or patients.”
That’s why red-state AGs sued the FDA in the first place, because it’s so shocking and unconscionable that a pill sending 10% of women to the ER doesn’t even require a doctor’s visit or approval. “Those rules are not in place anymore. And so, you know, it really poses a significant risk to women all over the country.”
Imagine, she emphasized, if blue states “mailed us cocaine or they mailed us fentanyl.” There would be legal consequences. Or, Perkins suggested, “What if … Louisiana said, ‘You know, we’re not going to work with California and New York on anything related to the Second Amendment. I don’t care what your laws say. We’re not going to support you in that.’” It’s like saying, “I’m going to mail guns to anybody who wants them,” Murrill agreed. “… They have laws that restrict gun ownership and possession in ways that we don’t. … [What if] I decided to violate those laws? And they wouldn’t be able to enforce them if we had a shield law similar to that. But we haven’t done that.”
At the end of the day, this is not a minor issue, the FRC president argued. Not for the baby, not for the mother, not for the constitutional process, and certainly not for state sovereignty. “You know,” Marshall underscored, “we can solve [this] problem right now. We have the ability to do it with the administration that’s in place. And it’s why not only is our prayer so important, but also our ability to stand together is so critical. Because the reality is it’s not about Republican or Democrat. It’s about protecting women’s health and preserving life. That’s our issue. That’s important — and on it, we’re right.”
This article was written by Suzanne Bowdey and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this visit Real Life Network.
A case centered on the Title IX rights of women to have male-free sports has been thrown out by a Biden-appointed judge, leaving Riley Gaines and the Independent Council on Women’s Sports (ICONS) determined to appeal.
Gaines and over a dozen female former college athletes filed the lawsuit funded and supported by ICONS in March 2024, claiming that the NCAA broke Title IX safeguards by allowing men to participate in women’s sports and infiltrate locker room spaces.
Gaines said in a statement on Tuesday, “This momentary setback will not deter me or other women athletes in the least. Rest assured, we will be appealing this decision. We are on the side of truth. I am confident Americans will rally to our side to fight the NCAA. Working together, we will defeat the NCAA’s continuing efforts to trample women’s rights in sports.”
U.S. District Judge Tiffany R. Johnson of the Northern District of Georgia on Monday dismissed the case, ruling that the NCAA does not have to abide by Title IX standards since it does not directly receive federal funding, which is a “prerequisite for liability under Title IX,” Fox News reported.
Johnson wrote, “Here, there is no evidence that the NCAA ever received, or could have received, federal funds. Thus, Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims cannot proceed.”
“Judge Johnson accepted the NCAA’s argument that the NCAA is not subject to Title IX and dismissed the case Gaines v. NCAA, brought by women college athletes seeking to hold the NCAA responsible for granting men access to women’s sports and private locker rooms,” ICONS said in a statement. “This decision removes all protections for women in NCAA collegiate competition across the country and underscores the vulnerability of women’s sports until court victories are secured.”
ICONS Co-Founder Kim Jones, a former NCAA All-American tennis player, insisted that Johnson was wrong in her ruling. “We believe the district judge erred and that the Court of Appeals will find that the NCAA, which is the controlling body of college sports for more than 1,100 member schools, almost all of which are federally funded, is subject to Title IX. We will not give up our fight for women and girls’ rights in sports.”
CEO and President of Concerned Women for America Penny Nance remarked that she is appalled by Johnson’s decision, and that it is “inexcusable for a judge to rule that the NCAA is above the law, and that a man’s identity takes priority over women’s rights.”
She continued, “This ruling effectively upholds the NCAA’s repulsive policy enabling sexual harassment and discrimination against female athletes. We are disgusted that the NCAA is lobbying for federal protections but refuses to protect female athletes. We will not back down from this fight in support of female athletes.”
The case comes at a time when far-left political candidates refuse to define what a woman is and affirm biological reality. A poll by Concerned Women for America found that “69% of Americans believe it is very or somewhat important in deciding who to vote for in this election that candidates oppose forcing female athletes to participate in sports and share locker rooms with biological boys/men identifying as girls/women.”
Nance continued, “Whether or not the NCAA takes federal funding, it directly benefits from the participation of its 1,100-plus member institutions, all of which are required to comply with Title IX. If the NCAA doesn’t comply with Title IX, no university should be allowed to be a member of the NCAA.”
“U.S. Senate passage of the Protect College Sports Act, along with this new ruling, exposes the glaring disconnect with federal civil rights law that Congress must address,” she added. “The NCAA continues to violate the rights of female athletes, but it should not be allowed to do so.”
The plaintiffs must file their notice of appeal in the next 30 days to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
This article was written by Quinn Delamater and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
Something is happening among younger Americans. Spiritual questions have not disappeared. If anything, a generation often described as secular appears increasingly interested in religion, spirituality, meaning, and transcendence. That hunger deserves attention because hunger alone does not determine what eventually satisfies it.
That is one reason conversations about faith, culture, religious liberty, Israel, and the institutions shaping the next generation matter. Real Life Network exists to bring a biblical perspective into precisely those conversations.
The central question is not whether young people will believe in something. Human beings inevitably build their lives around some understanding of truth, identity, morality, and purpose. The more important question is what will shape those beliefs.
Joshua put the choice plainly before Israel: “Choose for yourselves today whom you will serve.” There was no illusion of neutrality. Something would occupy the center.
A spiritually hungry generation will be formed by something. The question is what reaches it first.
That question becomes especially important when families, schools, churches, and courts disagree about religious formation.
A recent Maine custody dispute illustrates how complicated those conflicts can become. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld an order giving a father final decision-making authority concerning his daughter’s involvement with a particular Calvary Chapel congregation. The mother argued that the restriction violated her constitutional religious rights.
The details matter. The court rejected the characterization that it had determined Christianity itself was psychologically harmful. Instead, it said the lower court’s concerns involved messages the child received about her father and the effects of the parental conflict. That distinction deserves to be represented accurately even as the case raises significant questions about parental rights, religious upbringing, and how courts should navigate disputes involving faith.
Similar questions emerge in public schools.
Liberty High School in Frisco, Texas, recently faced scrutiny after a Muslim student organization reportedly described a school space as intended for Muslim prayer and said “only Muslims” would be allowed. Frisco ISD responded that the space is actually a “quiet room,” is not designated as belonging exclusively to one religion, and can be used for purposes other than prayer. District policy allows students of any faith to request reasonable opportunities for voluntary prayer.
That is the standard worth defending: equal religious liberty.
Christian students should be free to read Scripture, gather voluntarily, pray, and express their faith under the same rules that protect Muslim, Jewish, or other religious students. Religious liberty becomes unstable when society begins treating freedom of religion as something that must be protected for certain beliefs but restrained for others.
The answer to religious pluralism is not less religious freedom. It is the consistent application of religious freedom.
That principle matters because schools and courts do more than settle isolated disputes. They help establish the boundaries within which families and young people understand faith in public life.
The competition for belief extends well beyond churches and schools.
Entertainment, political movements, universities, influencers, social media personalities, and celebrities all participate in forming cultural assumptions. The influence can be especially powerful when it arrives as entertainment rather than instruction.
Consider the controversy surrounding actor Adam Brody. Brody, who stars as a rabbi in Nobody Wants This, recently told GQ that he considers Israel’s conduct in Gaza a “genocide” and expressed support for a free Palestine. GQ
That is Brody’s political position, and the characterization of Israel's conduct as genocide remains fiercely disputed. But the larger cultural question extends beyond one actor or one television program: what happens when entertainment, identity, politics, and moral formation become intertwined?
Audiences should be capable of encountering political opinions without automatically adopting them. The same standard applies across ideological lines. Celebrity does not establish truth. Popularity does not establish truth. A viral video does not establish truth.
Neither does political influence.
Rep. Ro Khanna recently called for Israel to release Marwan Barghouti, describing him as a potentially unifying Palestinian leader who could contribute to a peaceful Palestinian state. Barghouti, a prominent Fatah figure, is serving multiple life sentences after an Israeli court convicted him on five counts of murder connected to attacks during the Second Intifada. Barghouti rejected the court’s jurisdiction and denied the charges.
That creates a serious policy and moral debate. Supporters of Barghouti’s release view him as a potential political alternative in Palestinian leadership. Critics point to the murder convictions and argue that presenting his release as a path toward peace minimizes the victims and the violence for which he was convicted.
Those facts should not disappear behind political slogans.
The same principle applies to Israel and Gaza more broadly. October 7, Palestinian civilian suffering, Hamas’s actions, Israel’s military response, and the future of Palestinians and Israelis deserve serious examination rather than arguments inherited from celebrities, influencers, political parties, or social-media feeds.
Discernment begins when the source of an idea matters less than whether the idea is actually true.
That brings the discussion back to spiritual hunger.
A generation searching for meaning is not necessarily a generation returning to biblical Christianity. Interest in spirituality can lead toward Christianity, but it can also lead toward astrology, manifestation, political ideology, personalized spirituality, or countless other belief systems. The transcript’s central argument is precisely that distinction: spiritual appetite and Christian revival are not automatically the same thing. Pasted text
Christians should therefore resist two temptations.
The first is panic. Cultural change does not mean God has lost control.
The second is passivity. Confidence in God’s sovereignty has never meant indifference toward the formation of children, families, churches, or communities.
Parents are forming children. Teachers are forming students. Churches are forming congregations. Algorithms are forming users. Entertainment is forming audiences. Political movements are forming supporters. The question is not whether formation is happening. It is whether people recognize it.
Joshua’s challenge remains remarkably relevant: choose whom you will serve.
That choice reaches far beyond elections or partisan politics. It reaches into what is watched, what is believed, what is taught to children, what voices receive trust, what definitions of good and evil are accepted, and ultimately where authority is located.
A hungry generation is already at the table.
What matters now is what it is being fed.
Find more biblical perspective on faith, culture, Israel, and the stories shaping the next generation on The Daniel Cohen Show, streaming free on Real Life Network.
Christian families have more streaming choices than ever. Alongside mainstream services, a growing number of platforms now offer Christian movies, Bible teaching, children’s programming, documentaries, inspirational series, apologetics, and family-friendly entertainment.
But the best Christian streaming platforms serve very different purposes. Some are built around biblical teaching. Others focus on movies, children’s programming, Bible studies, or simply giving families cleaner entertainment options.
Here are 10 Christian and faith-oriented streaming platforms worth considering.
Cost: Free
Real Life Network offers one of the broadest combinations of biblical programming available without a subscription fee. The donor-supported platform includes Bible teaching, Christian news, apologetics, documentaries, podcasts, kids’ programs, movies, cultural commentary, and live events.
Viewers can find programs such Real Life with Jack Hibbs, RLN News, The Daniel Cohen Show, Cross Examined, The Creation Today Show, Superbook, and many other offerings within one biblically curated environment.
Unlike services centered primarily on movies, RLN is particularly strong for viewers who want entertainment combined with biblical teaching and programs addressing faith, culture, current events, and worldview.
Best for: Christians looking for a broad, free streaming platform built around biblical truth.
Cost: Paid subscription; plans begin at $9.99 per month
Great American Pure Flix is one of the best-known Christian streaming services for faith-forward movies and scripted entertainment.
Its catalog combines original series, Christian films, family dramas, Christmas programming, kids’ shows, and uplifting entertainment centered on faith, family, and traditional values. Multiple membership levels are available, with higher tiers adding features such as special screenings and early access.
For viewers who want a faith-oriented alternative to browsing mainstream movie libraries, Pure Flix remains one of the strongest options.
Best for: Christian movies, original series, family dramas, and faith-centered entertainment.
Cost: $5.99 per month or $59.99 annually
UP Faith & Family offers thousands of hours of commercial-free family movies, dramas, series, and inspirational entertainment.
Its catalog is broader than explicitly Christian programming. Viewers will find faith-friendly movies alongside wholesome family dramas and popular series such as Heartland.
That distinction makes UP Faith & Family particularly useful for households looking for cleaner entertainment without requiring every program to function as Christian teaching.
Best for: Wholesome dramas, family movies, romantic stories, and uplifting entertainment.
Cost: Free
FaithChannel is a free Christian streaming service offering movies, television shows, documentaries, preaching, teaching, music, podcasts, children’s programming, and other inspirational content.
Its growing library includes programming from a variety of independent Christian ministries and content producers. Titles range from Heroic Faith and The Torchlighters to apologetics, Bible prophecy, family films, podcasts, and children’s shows.
Because much of its catalog comes from different creators and ministries, viewers can encounter a particularly wide variety of formats and perspectives.
Best for: Exploring free Christian films, independent programs, teaching, podcasts, and inspirational content.
Cost: $10.99 per month or $69.99 annually after a free trial
Minno is designed specifically for Christian families with younger children.
Its library includes more than 175 shows, including the classic VeggieTales collection, Bible stories, music, educational programs, and Christian children’s entertainment. Families can stream across multiple devices and download programming for offline viewing.
Because the service is built specifically for children rather than including kids’ programming as one category within a larger library, it gives parents a focused alternative to mainstream children’s streaming.
Best for: Preschool and elementary-age children, Christian cartoons, Bible stories, and faith-based learning.
Cost: $7.99 per month or an annual subscription after a free trial
Yippee combines Christian children’s television with the energetic creator-driven format kids often encounter online.
Its library includes thousands of episodes from hundreds of series and movies, including Superbook, Christian programming, music, educational shows, and parent-approved creators. Yippee emphasizes that its environment contains no ads and no recommendation algorithms.
That makes it especially attractive to parents whose children enjoy online video but who want more control over what appears next.
Best for: Families seeking a Christian alternative to children’s YouTube viewing.
Cost: Access is generally provided through subscribing churches and Christian organizations
RightNow Media is less like Netflix and more like an enormous digital discipleship library.
It offers more than 25,000 video Bible studies covering Scripture, marriage, parenting, leadership, finances, recovery, Christian living, and other topics. The service also includes more than 2,000 children’s episodes and downloadable materials for many studies.
Rather than purchasing individual subscriptions, users generally receive access through a participating church, ministry, or organization.
Its combination of teaching videos and discussion materials makes RightNow Media particularly useful for small groups and church ministries.
Best for: Bible studies, small groups, church discipleship, leadership development, and Christian education.
Cost: Free
RedeemTV offers more than 2,000 faith-filled titles without subscription fees or advertising.
Its donor-supported library includes Christian movies, documentaries, animated programs, television series, and family entertainment. Titles include The Pilgrim’s Progress, Vindication, Fragments of Truth, Ryan Defrates, and many others.
RedeemTV is especially strong for viewers whose primary interest is films and entertainment. Real Life Network offers a broader mix of teaching, news, cultural programming, and entertainment, while RedeemTV concentrates more heavily on movies and series.
Best for: Free Christian movies and shows without commercials.
Cost: $9.99 per month when billed directly; supported streaming subscriptions may also be required
VidAngel takes a completely different approach to family entertainment.
Rather than providing only a traditional catalog of Christian programming, VidAngel lets viewers apply customizable filters to supported movies and shows from other streaming services. Families can choose categories of language, sexual content, violence, and other material they would prefer to mute or skip.
That means parents do not necessarily have to reject an entire movie because of a handful of objectionable scenes.
VidAngel requires users to have their own subscriptions to compatible streaming services for much of its filtered content.
Best for: Families who want more control over mainstream movies and television shows.
Cost: Individual rentals and purchases; optional subscription plans are also available
Christian Cinema is useful for viewers who do not necessarily want another monthly streaming subscription.
Movies can be rented individually and streamed for a limited viewing period or purchased and stored in a digital library for on-demand viewing. The service specializes in Christian and faith-based films rather than trying to compete as a broad general-entertainment platform.
Christian Cinema also offers optional subscription plans for additional movies and television programming, but its rent-or-buy model remains a major distinction.
Best for: Viewers who want specific Christian movies without committing to another full streaming subscription.
The best platform depends on what you want from it.
Start by considering biblical alignment. A platform described as “family-friendly,” “inspirational,” or even “faith-based” is not necessarily the same as a service intentionally grounded in Scripture. Families should consider who selects the programming and what worldview shapes the library.
Next, consider the type of content your household actually watches. Parents with young children may get more value from Minno or Yippee, while a small-group leader may find RightNow Media far more useful. Movie lovers may prefer Pure Flix or RedeemTV, while viewers interested in Bible teaching, apologetics, news, and culture may find Real Life Network a better fit.
Finally, consider cost, commercials, device compatibility, offline viewing, parental controls, and whether a service requires other subscriptions to function.
Yes.
Real Life Network is completely free and donor-supported, offering Christian teaching, news, movies, kids’ programs, apologetics, podcasts, and more without a paid tier. RedeemTV is also donor-supported and offers more than 2,000 titles free without ads. FaithChannel provides free faith-and-family programming as well.
Angel has selected titles available without a Guild membership, although most of its full catalog now requires paid access.
For families trying to reduce monthly subscription costs, the amount of Christian programming available free is substantial.
There is no single answer for every household. For families seeking a platform the whole household can use, Real Life Network has an advantage because its free library extends beyond children’s entertainment to Bible teaching, movies, documentaries, current events, apologetics, podcasts, and family programming.
Families primarily concerned with younger children may prefer Minno or Yippee. Those wanting a traditional movie-and-series experience may choose Pure Flix, UP Faith & Family, or RedeemTV.
The best choice is the one that not only avoids objectionable material but also supports the values parents are working to build at home.
What Is the Best Christian Streaming Platform?
The best platform depends on your priorities. Real Life Network is a strong all-around choice for viewers seeking free biblical teaching, Christian news, apologetics, kids’ programming, movies, documentaries, and cultural content. Pure Flix is particularly strong for Christian movies and scripted entertainment, while Minno and Yippee specialize in children’s programming.
What Is the Best Free Christian Streaming Service?
Real Life Network and RedeemTV are two of the strongest completely free options. RLN provides a broad mix of programming, while RedeemTV has a particularly large free library of Christian films and series. FaithChannel is another free option worth exploring.
Is There a Christian Alternative to Netflix?
Several services can function as Christian or family-oriented alternatives to Netflix. Pure Flix most closely resembles a traditional subscription movie-and-series platform, while Real Life Network combines entertainment with teaching, news, apologetics, and family programming at no cost.
What Is the Best Christian Streaming Platform for Kids?
Minno and Yippee are specifically built around Christian children’s entertainment. Real Life Network also offers free children’s programming within a larger platform designed for the whole family.
Do I Need to Pay for Christian Streaming?
No. While many Christian streaming services charge monthly or annual subscription fees, Real Life Network, RedeemTV, and FaithChannel offer free options.
Christian streaming is no longer a single category. Families can now choose platforms specializing in movies, Bible studies, kids’ shows, documentaries, teaching, news, apologetics, and wholesome general entertainment.
The right choice depends on what you want entering your home and what role you want media to play in your family.
For viewers who want to begin with a service built around biblical truth without adding another monthly expense, Real Life Network provides free access to Christian teaching, news, family programming, movies, documentaries, podcasts, apologetics, kids’ shows, and more.
Explore free Christian streaming today on Real Life Network.
