I spent a considerable time preparing a Bible study for the book of Esther. In that process, I came across some pretty interesting theories, opinions, and debates on Esther. And then I ran into this article and couldn’t let such a travesty go unchallenged. To view the original article, click here. The article starts with a question from an individual directed to Prof. Herman Hanko to answer. (For reference, anything blue is me) Original Question: How can it have been acceptable for Mordecai to give Esther first as a concubine to King Ahasuerus (Esth. 2:8) and later to marry him (Esth. 2:17)? Yet this event is evidently blessed of God in that the deliverance of the Jews turns on it. How can God’s blessing on Esther’s unequally yoked marriage to a heathen king be explained? I’m going to start with the poster’s question. For context, Esther 2:8 says, “When the king’s order and edict had been proclaimed, many young women were brought to the citadel of Susa and put under the care of Hegai. Esther was also taken to the king’s palace and entrusted to Hegai, who had charge of the harem.” In the original Hebrew, specifically referencing Esther, it says, וַתִּלָּקַ֤ח (Laqach). Meaning: “accept, bring, buy, carry away, drawn, fetch, get, infold.” “A primitive root; to take (in the widest variety of applications) — accept, bring, buy, carry away, drawn, fetch, get, infold, X many, mingle, place, receive(-ing), reserve, seize, send for, take (away, -ing, up), use, win.” What we are told in the Bible doesn’t state or hint that Mordecai “gave” Esther to anyone. Mordecai instructed Esther not to reveal her heritage and family background (Esther 2:10), and every day he went to check on her because he wanted to know how she was doing. (Esther 2:11) The word “welfare” is used. Mordecai was concerned about her welfare, enough that he went every day to see what was happening with her. Quite the fascinating little word, šə·lō·wm. It means “completeness, soundness, welfare, peace.” Click here to learn more about this word, what it means, and how it is used in the Bible. I may be “untrained” compared to an ordained individual, scholar, or theologian, but I do not see the “to give Esther” part that the questioner is referencing. And it’s not the person’s question that’s the heart of the issue; it is the response he received from Hanko that is the problem. Hanko’s response begins here: The book of Esther tells a stirring story, the theme of which, as the question indicates, is the salvation of the church from Haman’s plot to commit genocide. It is, therefore, the story of God’s sovereign preservation of Israel, from which nation Christ was destined to come. It is a remarkable and astonishing display of the mysterious and wonderful ways of God’s providence. The whole coming of Christ, through the preservation of the church in the Old Testament, rested upon one sleepless night of Ahasuerus ( Esth. 6)! I will admit I do like how the responder framed that point. “One sleepless night” — Oh, the wonders that God can do. Hanko: Vashti had, for moral reasons, refused to appear at a banquet her husband had prepared for all his government officials throughout the vast Persian Empire. Although she was not a member of the Jewish nation and was not a child of God, she had higher moral standards than Esther, the Jewess. 1. “Moral reasons” and “Higher moral standards.” Now that is something we don’t actually know without knowing Vashti’s full story; we weren’t there to know her moral compass, reasoning, or religious beliefs. But historically, noble women were raised to be potential Queens, and they expected to be treated with the respect due to them, especially if they became a Queen. Royal and noble Persian women were respected, that’s a historical fact, and Queens held their own court, signed agreements with their own seal, had their own properties, went where they wished, and participated in meetings with the King. Women of nobility were highly respected women (yes, still “property” and considered expendable at times, or used to bolster alliances, which is evident everywhere in ancient societies, but also in a peculiar way, very respected in their culture) 2. For the King to call her in such a manner was actually an insult to her royal station; it wasn’t necessarily the moral judgment call that this author is trying to insinuate. This action by the King put her on the same level as a concubine. The responder neglects historical facts of the Achaemenid Period, Persian culture, and the respect due to Queen Vashti based on her royal position. 3. The King was drunk, seven days of drinking. Let’s be real, one night of drinking can induce all sorts of stupid ideas to happen. This guy celebrated for seven nights in a row, and they were most likely engaging in some “celebrating” with other women as well, which was a common practice in ancient societies. 4. Her “beauty” being noted, is of importance as to the reason she refused the King. Hebrew writing doesn’t mince words when stating a point and doesn’t use a word or phrase like that for no reason. She could have potentially been walking into a really bad situation, on top of the insult to her station. Her refusal was justified. 5. “Although she was not a member of the Jewish nation, and was not a child of God, she had higher moral standards than Esther, the Jewess.” When I was reading this article, I wrote the words “wow” beside this part. What an insulting slap to Esther. Let’s take a moment here — God loved this woman for what she did for her people, He made sure HER story was included in the Bible and had it titled Book of Esther. Mordecai is also a prominent figure in this book and a male. He could have easily been the subject of inspiration from God with him as the main character, yet he wasn’t; it is Esther’s story, and God made that happen. There is a gender bias and attitude that this author is clearly attempting to convey. He appears to be attempting to create a point of view based on his feelings, which is a red flag right there. Hanko: Because Vashti refused to show her beauty to a host of drunken government officials, she was divorced and deposed from being queen. So, that’s a half-truth. Are we reading the same Bible? Because the other half of his statement is false. It may seem little, but a little can become a lot very quickly. We should not be adding to the word of God. Let’s look at Esther 1:19 closer. I don’t see where divorce is mentioned; in fact, it’s very clear what happened to her. She was no longer to come before the King. This was actually a cultural norm, especially since she publicly embarrassed him; she most likely went to live in the King’s Harem or on her own property. To divorce a person of noble blood was to potentially start a war and, at the very least, create “bad blood.” It wasn’t something a King would or could do lightly with a Queen from a noble family. Also in verse 18, as they are discussing what is to be done with Vashti, they are clearly concerned about other “noble” women as well doing the same thing; they had to make a decree because of this situation. There was no debate on divorce, just on how to handle the situation. About my opinion, and I’m not stating any facts here — Vashti’s demotion within the king’s hierarchy of women is simply based on studying the history and different cultures of the time, and how harems and royal women’s ability to own their property worked. My opinion aside on where she went afterward, there is still the nagging issue that there was no divorce written about in any of the verses where they discussed what was to happen to Vashti or afterward. Hanko: In a sort of beauty contest, which involved at least one night in bed with the king, Esther the Jewess was chosen to be the new queen. “Historically, Biblical interpreters frame the exploitation of the “virgin girls” as a harmless, even “fun,” beauty pageant. Defining the exploitation as a “beauty contest,” however, ignores the elements of capture, captivity, and forced displacement and prevents the analysis of such experiences as exploitative and trauma- inducing trafficking. -Ericka S. Dunbar: A command from the King. A decree was actually issued for these young, beautiful virgins. (Esther 2:8) They were “gathered.” To read the Book of Esther and not see the sex trafficking that happened is mind-blowing to me. Quote from the Layman’s Bible: “During Israel’s time in exile, a law among the Medes and Persians comes up a couple of times that is really inconvenient and honestly quite annoying. According to this law, any laws or proclamations that are made cannot be repealed. This means that once it is written, the law stands. It generally ends up being a stumbling block for God’s people after the king of the time makes a stupid law." Fact check time: 1. An edict was issued for virgins. 2. Officers were appointed with the specific task to go out “that they may gather.” 3. The best “pleaser” got the crown. 4. It could not be ignored by the people without severe penalty, and the phrases “when were gathered” and “also was taken” were the words used. Also, how do you think they became “pleasers”? It was very common in ancient cultures for young girls to be trained in sexual knowledge. This was sex trafficking. They may have had great food, wonderful skin treatments, beautiful clothing, amazing quarters, and personal servants, but they did not have their freedom. Sex trafficking with a pretty bow slapped on it. To be blunt, the author’s use of the phrase “beauty contest” in such a manner demonstrates his lack of knowledge both biblically and historically, and paints him in an interesting light. I’d be curious about his day-to-day interactions with women. Hanko: She had entered the contest at the prompting of her uncle, Mordecai, also a Jew. See above, I addressed this issue from the questioner, but now we should be questioning the responder’s understanding of the Book of Esther with his response. Both were in Shushan, the capital of the Persian Empire, because they or their ancestors had been taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar and had moved from Babylon to Shushan when the Babylonian Empire had been conquered by the Medes and Persians. Through a marvelous sequence of events, God used Esther, in her position of power, to save the Jewish nation, and Haman, the Jews’ enemy, was hanged on the gallows that he had built to hang Mordecai. It is well our readers read the story once again to refresh their minds. The questioner asks how Esther can marry Ahasuerus and receive the blessing of God. The assumption in the question is, of course, that, because God used Esther’s marriage to Ahasuerus to save Israel, God blessed that adulterous union. That assumption is wrong, although many commentators take the same position. The Bible doesn’t claim to bless their union; in fact, nothing about their union is mentioned. We don’t even know if they were legally married. But he sure blessed Esther and Mordecai, along with a lot of other people, because of it. Many have been the discussions (and sometimes arguments) I have had with saints who have taken the position that Esther was a true child of God. The book of Esther is itself the proof that she was not. We are all children of God, no matter what we may do, or what situation is forced on us. “Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my attendants will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.”Esther 4:16. She was scared, and I don’t blame her. Mordecai had to point out the obvious to her, but look what’s recorded next. She said, “fast ye for me” and “if I perish, I perish”. Three days later, after she had fasted, she went to the King and found favor in his sight. I would like to note here that the Bible is clear that she and her maids also fasted. That is valuable context for a couple of reasons. 1. This is an indication she had done this before. She knew she needed to go to God and humble herself before God in this time of great need. 2. She did not come up with other ideas to try; she went straight to God. 3. Her maids were either converted or Jewish and were familiar with this Christian custom, which means the use of prayer during fasting. 4. She wanted everyone to fast, including those closest to her. Prove to me responder that she was not a believer in God or a “true child of God” as the author puts it when she fasted and prayed for three days. To do this action, she knew God, she went to Him, humbled herself before Him, and most importantly, she TRUSTED Him. The author’s declaration that she was not a true child of God as a “factual” reason to back his opinion doesn’t logically work. I’d be curious to know what the responder’s definition of a “true child of God” is. Because, based on the author’s logic, there would be a WHOLE LOT of people and books of the Bible that shouldn’t be in there or read very differently. But the Bible says fasting, not prayer. I know this is where this question will come in. This is quite often used as a ding against the book of Esther. But….. 1. We don’t know who wrote the book, and what their linguistic approach to things were. 2. Using the word “fast” actually incorporates a lot of context with just one word, and it does not detract anything from this book or from the Jews and their faith. 3. As followers of Christ, we should all be aware of the connection between fasting and prayer. The two are absolutely connected. Letting us know they fasted is a direct statement that they were believers. Here are a couple of links on fasting and why it’s important: DailyVerses.net, Biblestudytools.com & C.S. Lewis Institute. Hanko: Think of her sins and the sins of her uncle. This statement just kind of hangs out there without any connecting context. It’s a weird stand-alone statement meant to steer a person towards the author’s point of view. I want to emphasize this: we are all sinners, that’s nothing new, and God has beautifully used many imperfect people in the Bible. Elijah, Samson, Rahab, Jacob, Jonah, Peter, David, Saul etc.…. Mordecai’s and Esther’s families had refused to return to the promised land when Cyrus ordered and encouraged the captives to return. Their refusal was simply due to the fact that they far preferred life in captivity to a return to the land of promise. The reason was that they had no interest in the coming of Christ. 1. “ordered”? Wrong — this is what the responder wants to interpret. He created this to back his opinion, and the use of “encouraged” with “ordered” is an attempt to conceal it as a truth. The truth is that both Ezra and 2 Chronicles tell us Cyrus told the Jews they were allowed to leave, and the words “and let him go up” were used. They were given a choice. Ezra 1:1, Ezra 1:3 & 2 Chron 36:23. The only thing that even borders on an “order” would be the instruction for those who stayed to provide silver, gold, goods, livestock, and a freewill offering.“And in any locality where survivors may now be living, the people are to provide them with silver and gold, with goods and livestock, and with freewill offerings for the temple of God in Jerusalem.” Ezra 1:4. This was never an order. 2. We don’t know why some stayed and shouldn’t assume anything. That’s what these statements are: assumptions. Assumptions that are used to back up a point of view, and again, try to use it as “truth.”Here are a couple of legitimate reasons to take into account as to why some people didn’t leave: Some would have been too old to return, and seventy years had passed. It was a 900-mile journey in front of them. It was dangerous; safety would have been a huge concern. Some did not know anything other than Babylon. Some may not have been able to survive that journey, such as pregnant women, infants, and children, someone sick, an injured or disabled person etc. Obviously, some didn’t want to return because they preferred their lives in Babylon; every society has that. But we should also be wise enough to know that that doesn’t indicate a people as a whole. 3. Hanko's claim: “The reason was that they had no interest in the coming of Christ.” See above, and wow, that’s one heck of an assumption by Hanko. The Book of Esther has not backed up any of the responder’s feelings or claims. Hanko: Esther, at Mordecai’s promptings, entered a royally-sponsored beauty contest, which involved fornication with the king. What child of God would ever enter a beauty contest in the first place? What child of God would ever enter a beauty contest, thereby agreeing to fornication with the one sponsoring it? It was a gross violation of the seventh commandment. She showed that her moral standards, even though a Jewess, were lower than the heathen, Vashti. Already addressed this author’s point of view on this topic. I think that Vashti is introduced by God into history simply to demonstrate the moral decay that the Jewish captives had fallen. I’ve never read it that way and legitimately tried to read it again with that mindset. It didn’t work. I also took a mini poll among the Christian men I know, and they also never read it that way. Queen Vashti is mentioned for a couple of reasons, on purpose, I’d like to add. 1. We had to know her story to understand Esther’s. 2. It showed us the King’s character. 3. The King wanted beautiful women. 4. It also makes perfect sense to mention her since what she did led the way for Esther. Hanko: By agreeing to marry Ahasuerus, Esther violated the marriage ordinance God had established in paradise, for she contradicted the purpose of marriage by being unequally yoked to an unbeliever. Again, not a choice. Also, a person’s choice is commonly referenced in the Bible, but in this case, it is not. I do believe that is significant. Hanko: The book of Esther is the only book in Scripture which does not mention the name of God. This omission of God’s name is intended to demonstrate to us how wicked everything that happened in Shushan was — a wickedness providentially used by God for good. It takes a lot of ignorance to say “only book in Scripture which does not mention the name of God." Esther is not the only book in the Bible without a direct reference to God.- Song of Solomon. Hanko: “This omission of God’s name is intended to demonstrate to us how wicked everything that happened in Shushan was” Hanko claims with this statement to know God’s intentions for why His name is left out. How can he assume God’s intentions when he is a false teacher, twisting the word of God? He lacks any authority at this point to be teaching anything. He is making inferences, then using that as a “fact”, then building upon it to make his opinions look like truth. It does not work that way; your personal issues should never twist or replace the word of God. Hanko: Did God bless the union of Esther and Ahasuerus? He most emphatically did not! It was an abomination in His sight and the curse of the Lord was in the palace in Shushan (Prov. 3:33). I guess the first thing I’ll bring up here is if it was such a truly horrible abomination, why didn’t God emphasize or even touch on that in some way? The fact that it is not is important and adds interesting context to Esther’s story that is worth investigating. Proverbs 3:33 — Not denying this verse exists, however, there are two things to consider. 1. The way the responder has written his article and then placed this verse here, he is using it as though the verse was directed explicitly at Esther. This verse was written by Solomon, it was advice for his son. 2. Here is what the WHOLE verse says: “The Lord’s curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the home of the righteous.” "but he blesses the home of the righteous.” If Esther, Mordecai, and the Jews were all unjust, why did God save them? And I will admit to not fully understanding this next part yet, but I feel it is relevant. For the wicked: “house” is used. For the just: “home” is used. I’ll have to look into that later, but it is significant that the two are separated. Hanko: But it may be argued that God used the marriage to save Israel and preserve His Christ, who was in the loins of the nation. Indeed He did! The salvation of the nation and the remarkable events that led up to it were surely under the guidance of God’s sovereign control. Agree. But the responder still did a horrid job with his response. He infers a lot, is driven by feelings, and states many false and misleading teachings. Hanko: But we may not conclude from this that God blessed Esther and that she was a true believer. Wrong, please see above. This is merely an uninspired opinion based on personal feelings, packaged to look like the truth. A principle is at stake here. In a very broad sense of the word, it is the principle laid down by Paul in Romans 8:28, that all things work together for good to them that love God. The “all things” include the whole wicked world and everything they do. It is by no means a strange idea in Scripture that God uses wicked men to accomplish His purpose. I find this statement by the responder particularly interesting and honestly almost comical because the author emphasized and used the “all things” part, but ignored the next part, “good to them that love God.” Hanko: He did so pre-eminently in the cross of Christ (Acts 2:23; 4:27–28). God is completely sovereign. He rules sovereignly in all the lives of the wicked (although in such a way that they remain accountable for their sins). He uses the wickedness of the ungodly to serve the good of His church, as reprobation must and does serve election. Even persecution is the means to purify and save those who suffer with Christ. All things are yours, Paul writes to the Corinthians, for “ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s” (I Cor. 3:22–23)! Let us together marvel at God’s wonderful providence and bow in worship before Him who governs all things for us and for our salvation!” Who is it you truly bow to sir? The Bible is not what we want it to be, it is what we need it to be. Your feelings are irrelevant and you sir, need to go back to seminary school. © 2026 Jane Isely. Want more content like this? Explore more articles in Rethinking Doctrine. Thank you for reading if you made it this far! I know it was a lot, but I didn’t want to break it up. First published July 2024 in Never Stop Writng on Medium.com. Since publishing my original Herman Hanko has added to his article. I have not done a response to his follow up. Sources: When I started preparing for my Bible study, I didn’t anticipate doing this response article, I did not track every source I read, here’s what I saved online. 1. 2. 3 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Bible Gateway-Public Domain Bible Hub-Translations Press Ctrl + P (Windows) or Cmd + P (Mac) to print this article or save it as a PDF.

Even between those in the same religious community. While learning and sharing similar doctrines, Scripture, and base beliefs can draw people together, everyone is going to interpret things slightly differently. People come to faith at different points in life, which shapes their maturity, understanding, and experiences of Christianity. Some grew up deeply involved in church. Sunday school, youth events, even community concerts. I, however, wasn’t very active in church life as a child. My mother, a single parent, wasn't always feel welcomed by churches, so faith in our home looked different. We prayed, worshiped, and learned together, just not always within a larger church community. Even so, my faith was strong. I sometimes longed for a church community, but I also knew God was with me whether I worshiped in a sanctuary or around the dinner table. Others I know feel the opposite, that faith must include regular church attendance and activity. What I’ve realized is that many of us share similar experiences, struggles, doubts, spiritual battles, even miracles, yet we don’t often talk about them. Sharing our stories, whether within a congregation or just among family and friends, helps us grow in faith and encourages others along the way. That’s why conversation matters. To truly understand a faith, we need more than general guidelines, we need to listen to the lived experiences of those who practice it. © Maia Vashti 2nd Year Anthology Student at SNHU Reference: Brodd, J., Little, L., Nystrom, B., Platzner, R., Shek, R., & Stiles, E. (2021). Invitation to World Religions (4th ed., pp. 475, 492, 494). Oxford University Press Academic US.

There’s a pattern in the Gospels that too many modern Christians ignore: Jesus never insulted the weak. He never mocked the sinful women. He never degraded the tax collectors. He never ridiculed the morally broken. But the Pharisees? That’s a different story. They were called “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “whitewashed tombs,” and a “brood of vipers.” The contrast is not accidental. It reveals something profound about both theology and human psychology: Christ confronts pride. He does not humiliate weakness. The only sinless man in the room refuses to perform condemnation. Rembrandt van Rijn, Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery (1644) The Gospel Pattern: Gentle With the Broken, Severe With the Proud In the Gospel of Luke 7, Jesus defends a sinful woman and honors her repentance. In the Gospel of John 8, He refuses to condemn the woman caught in adultery. In the Gospel of Luke 18, the tax collector who beats his chest goes home justified. But in the Gospel of Matthew 23, Jesus unleashes blistering rebukes against the Pharisees. Why? Because the Pharisees had power. They had influence. They believed they were righteous. And self-righteous power is far more dangerous than confessed sin. Jesus punched up — not down. What “Punching Down” Really Is Punching down isn’t just cruel. It’s attacking someone who: Is already socially vulnerable. Lacks institutional power. Is morally struggling. Is outside your cultural tribe. It’s safe aggression. It’s low-risk dominance. It’s ego reinforcement. And psychologically, it’s almost always compensation. The Psychology of Punching Down Why do people attack the weak instead of confronting the powerful? Because confronting power is risky. Confronting weakness is safe. From a psychological perspective, punching down often flows from: 1. Insecurity When someone feels spiritually, socially, or intellectually insecure, attacking a vulnerable group creates a quick sense of superiority. It temporarily relieves feelings of inadequacy. 2. Displaced Aggression People who feel powerless in one area of life often redirect frustration toward easier targets rather than confronting the real source of their anxiety. 3. Social Identity & Tribal Reinforcement Mocking an out-group strengthens bonds within an in-group. It signals loyalty and earns applause — which can be addictive. But applause is not righteousness. The Spiritual Cost There is a spiritual erosion that happens when you repeatedly demean the weak. You harden your heart. You confuse dominance with holiness. You replace compassion with superiority. And that is precisely the disease Jesus confronted in the Pharisees. What Real Christian Courage Looks Like Relational — it sees human dignity before disagreement. Humble — it remembers “but for the grace of God, go I. Costly — it confronts hypocrisy and injustice even when uncomfortable. Controlled — it disciplines the tongue instead of weaponizing it. Real courage makes the powerful uncomfortable. Fake courage makes the vulnerable afraid. The Standard Is Clear Jesus did not insult sinners. He invited them to repentance. He did rebuke the Pharisees — because pride plus power is spiritually lethal. If you want to follow Christ, the pattern is simple: Be gentle with the broken. Be firm with the proud. Examine your motives before you speak. And never confuse ego with courage. Punching down is un-Christlike, not just because it is cruel —But because it reveals a heart more interested in dominance than redemption. © Joel Sarfraz References & Biblical References Gospel of Luke 7:36–50 — Jesus honors the repentance of the sinful woman. Gospel of John 8:1–11 — Jesus refuses to condemn the woman caught in adultery. Gospel of Luke 18:9–14 — Parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. Gospel of Matthew 23:13–36 — Jesus’ rebukes of the Pharisees. Epistle of James 1:26 — On controlling the tongue. Epistle to the Romans 12:3 — Warning against thinking of oneself more highly than one ought. Psychological & Sociological References The Authoritarian Personality — Theodor W. Adorno et al. (on displaced aggression and authoritarian tendencies).Social Identity Theory — Henri Tajfel & John Turner (on in-group/out-group dynamics).The Lucifer Effect — Philip Zimbardo (on power, dehumanization, and moral disengagement).Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J. (1998). “Threatened Egotism, Narcissism, Self-Esteem, and Direct and Displaced Aggression.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Rembrandt van Rijn, Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery, 1644. Oil on panel. The National Gallery, London. Public domain image available via Wikimedia Commons:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rembrandt_-_Christ_and_the_Woman_Taken_in_Adultery.jpg Press Ctrl + P (Windows) or Cmd + P (Mac) to print this article or save it as a PDF.

Other than the cool coincidence that only 12 people have ever set foot on the moon and that Jesus had 12 disciples, there are a surprising number of similarities between the moon landings and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. While watching the recent Artemis II mission with joy and wonder, I couldn’t help but come across the comments sections on every social media post relating to the event. Many of the comments were from people like me, who thoroughly enjoyed watching these four brave souls (and their little “Rise” mascot) fly around the moon and back. Yet there were just as many, if not more, people claiming that the whole thing was fake. Among those of us who believe in moon landings, the level of scepticism shown by the non-believers is quite astonishing. It seems that there is no evidence that one could show them — short of sticking them on a rocket and sending them up — that would convince them that the moon landings (and space travel in general) actually happened. Another video I watched recently brought home the link between moon landings and the Resurrection (and belief in God generally). In a debate between Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross and atheist scientist Peter Atkins, Atkins finally admitted that there was no amount of evidence that anyone could show him that would convince him that God is real. Both sending a human to the moon and seeing one rise from the dead are extraordinary events. Prior to 1969, many would have doubted that landing on the moon was even possible. One obvious difference is that the moon landings are based on science, which works within the parameters of natural laws, while the Resurrection is a supernatural event that operates beyond nature. For the moon landing-denier, however, sending a human to the moon is akin to the miraculous, as per Arthur Clarke’s third law: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” When making the case for either event, we find that the hyper-sceptical audience demands “extraordinary evidence” before they are willing to accept the “extraordinary event”. This idea was popularised by Carl Sagan — an astronomer who obviously believed in space travel, but was famously sceptical of Christianity. The problem with the “extraordinary evidence” bar is that it is impossible to achieve. What kind of evidence counts as “extraordinary”? An actual photo of the moon’s surface? Photoshop, according to the moon landing denier. The conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus? Hallucination, according to the atheist. Peter Atkins said that if God wrote his name in the stars, he would put it down to him going mad rather than believe in God. Interestingly, there are many people like Sagan and Atkins who fall into the believing category for one event and the unbelieving category for the other. There are Christians who disbelieve the moon landings. This is where comparing the two sets of evidence that we have for these two events becomes an interesting exercise. If you believe in one event, what is your excuse for disbelieving the other? The eyewitnesses One key similarity is our dependence on relatively few eyewitness accounts. As stated earlier, only 12 people have set foot on the moon, and Jesus had only 12 close male disciples. Yet in both cases, we have many more people with similar direct experiences than the 12 in the inner circle. The crew of Artemis II are among the larger group of astronauts who have been close enough to the moon to count as eyewitnesses that moon landings are possible. Over 700 people have been in space — including those who have served on the International Space Station. All of these can testify that getting into space is certainly possible, and not a single one of them would say that the moon landings were faked. In the same way, there were many more than 12 male disciples who saw Jesus after He rose from the dead. His female disciples were the first to see the empty tomb, and saw Him in the flesh soon thereafter. His brothers — who did not believe in Him before He died — saw Him too. In 1 Corinthians 15:6, Paul says that 500 people saw Jesus after the Resurrection, besides His closest disciples. Like the crew of Artemis II, none of these people would say that Jesus did not rise from the dead. The moon landings involved multiple events, not just Neil Armstrong and his crew doing it once. The later Apollo missions involved driving rovers on the moon, collecting samples and doing experiments. Multiple independent events are more convincing than one fleeting event. Someone claiming to have once seen a UFO that flashed by in an instant is far less convincing than the moon landings. Furthermore, some of the missions failed. Astronauts died or had to abort the mission. Failure has a ring of truth to it — if one is faking a story, it always works out perfectly and makes the story teller look good. If NASA has been telling us tall tales the whole time, there would be no embarrassing examples of failure. The Resurrection was followed by multiple independent occasions where Jesus came to be with His disciples. In one case, He walked next to them and taught them, in another, He invited them to touch His scars from the cross, in yet another, He cooked them fish for breakfast. These were not momentary uncertain flashes, they were real encounters. Finally, the accounts of the disciples first discovering the empty tomb and meeting Jesus are embarrassing. None of them had taken Jesus seriously when He told them that He would rise from the dead. The male disciples acted like cowards, while the women bravely went to the tomb. Familiar human weakness and failure is stamped all over this story. If the original 12 disciples wanted people to follow them in their newly manufactured cult, this would not have been the story they told. They would be portrayed as brave, believing men who always knew that Jesus would come through for them. The first audiences In our search for reliable testimony, we can cast the net wider still. Thousands of people work for NASA directly, while thousands more supply them on a contract basis. None of these people have ever personally been to space, but if it was all fake, what are they being paid to do? To suggest that NASA is forking out billions just to fake space travel is absurd. The people working for them know that and therefore have good reason to believe in the moon landings. Similarly, there were thousands of people in Jerusalem during the crucifixion. Many of these were present during Pentecost when Peter gave his first speech about seeing the risen Jesus. They knew for certain that Jesus had been crucified. The man standing before them, alongside hundreds of others eyewitnesses, was willing to risk his life to tell them that Jesus was alive. Why would he fake the Resurrection at such a cost? To do so would be absurd. After this message and his next one, 8,000 people had good reason to believe in the Resurrection. Millions of believers More than a few thousand people who are directly involved with NASA believe in the moon landings. I am one of the millions who have never visited NASA’s operations, never seen a rocket launch with my own eyes, or had the opportunity to handle a moon rock, and yet I believe. Why? I have judged that the “ordinary” evidence from reliable witnesses is sufficient to conclude that the “extraordinary” moon landings really happened. I count the live footage sent from Artemis II and other space missions as evidence. Watching these events may be second-hand information, but it is still a convincing experience for me. When the astronauts floated upside down, described their awe and wonder of seeing the moon, and answered many detailed questions about their mission, it was clear to me that they were doing something real. These are not Hollywood actors, as some claim. As with the moon landing believers, there are millions of Christians around the world today, and millions more who have gone before us. We haven’t physically touched the resurrected Jesus, or heard Him teach us from the Bible, or eaten breakfast with Him. Yet we still believe. Why? We have judged that the “ordinary” evidence from the earliest Christians is sufficient to conclude that the “extraordinary” Resurrection really happened. Most Christians have an even better experience of Jesus than watching the Artemis crew members on YouTube. We have met the Lord ourselves in thousands of different ways. Some have seen Him in visions, others have felt Him speak to them in the Bible, while still others have felt a tangible presence or heard a voice while praying. These experiences differ widely, but every person who has ever had such an experience will tell you that it was more real to them than anything they have ever watched on TV. Beyond testimonies Perhaps your scepticism is such that you don’t trust reliable witnesses. You need more evidence than their personal experiences with the moon, space, or NASA. Regarding the case for Christianity, you are sceptical of the eyewitness accounts in the gospels. Yet we have more evidence than their word — the astronauts have taken hundreds of photos and video footage, from Apollo 11 to Artemis II. Some missions brought moon rocks back with them. These tangible artifacts are enough to convince most people, and one really has to stretch the bounds of incredulity to claim that they are all Photoshop or CGI. Since the Resurrection happened before the advent of cameras, no reasonable person would demand video footage of Jesus leaving the tomb. But we do have other tangible evidence. Luke was a particularly scrupulous historian who gave highly detailed accounts in his Gospel and the Book of Acts. These are so detailed that they are easily ‘falsifiable’ — if he was making up a legend of Jesus and His disciples hundreds of years after the fact, many of these details would be wrong. Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay recognised this and set out to prove that Luke and Acts were wrong. After many years of archaeological research — finding tangible artefacts such as engravings on stone — he conceded that “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy. …[He] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.” Beyond Luke’s works, we have thousands of very early copies of the manuscripts that form our New Testament. There are artworks, rock engravings, and letters from early church leaders that all confirm the basic message of the New Testament hundreds of times over. The Bible has been critiqued from nearly every angle imaginable, including by people who simply refuse to believe that it is true. Like those claiming Photoshop or CGI for the moon landings, they stretch the bounds of incredulity to breaking point. The enemy’s testimony Soon after the first moon landing by Apollo 11, the USA received a message from their arch-enemy and main space rival at the time: the Soviet Union. While they didn’t like losing the race to the moon, they knew that they had lost. The USSR had no reason to admit that it happened and every reason to deny yet. Their congratulating the USA for getting to the moon is strong evidence that it happened. The Jewish leaders — known as the Sanhedrin — were the arch-enemies of Jesus and the early church. They had conspired against Him and ensured that Pilate put Him to death. Jesus claimed to be God, which was the height of blasphemy to them. He also threatened their precarious political position with Rome — the Jews were not supposed to recognise anyone but Caesar as their king. What if the people got out of hand and tried to crown Him? Once they finally had Jesus crucified, the Sanhedrin took a collective sigh of relief. The reports of the empty tomb three days later rocked their boat, but bribing the Roman guards to spin the “stolen body” story seemed to be a good fix. Peter’s first message at Pentecost — accompanied by thousands of Jews believing him — threatened to sink them altogether. One member of the Sanhedrin was especially wild with anger. Saul of Tarsus felt the threat of Christianity as an attack on his core identity. He was a Pharisee — part of the group of Jewish leaders that Jesus spoke against more than any others. This movement among Christ-believing Jews would be a disaster for the Pharisees. The only option for Saul seemed to be to stamp out this movement with violence: throw them in prison and threaten them with death. The greatest enemy of the church suddenly did a 180-degree turn. One day, he met the risen Jesus Christ in person. He could do nothing but admit defeat. The disciples he hated so much were right, after all. This about-face was not at all beneficial for Saul in terms of his societal status or career expectations. He went from a promising young leader of the Sanhedrin to an outcast among the Jews who was stoned, beaten, and thrown in prison numerous times for his claim that Jesus is alive. Saul’s testimony is a powerful piece of evidence for the Resurrection. A point of difference between moon landings & the Resurrection Saul’s story illustrates one important difference between the evidence for the moon landings and the Resurrection. People who disbelieve the moon landings often claim ulterior motives on the part of NASA and the USA government. Supposedly, NASA did it to secure more state funding, while the USA wanted the prestige of winning the space race against the USSR. Alternatively, the government in 1969 was trying to distract the public from the Vietnam War. Today’s conspiracy theorists claim that Artemis II is a distraction from the war in Iran or the Epstein files. Some of these purported motives are at least conceivable. Certainly, the USA wanted the prestige of winning the space race, and the benefits for domestic politics are not far-fetched. The astronauts themselves gained prestige that lasted their whole lives. They were hailed as national heroes, went on speaking tours, and were no doubt well rewarded for their work. For an astronaut to stick with their original claim — that they actually went to the moon, or travelled in space — is not particularly difficult. At worst, they may encounter moon landing-deniers who call them liars. Buzz Aldrin famously punched one of them. In that case, the police took Buzz’s side because he was being harassed. By contrast, finding ulterior motives for claiming that Jesus rose from the dead is extremely difficult. Within the broader Jewish community, these early eyewitnesses faced ridicule at best, torture and death at worst. If they didn’t realise this initially, it was beyond doubt after Stephen was stoned to death. At that point, the rest of them could have recanted — if they really did steal the body of Jesus, then the game was up. Come clean or die. Saul (known later as Paul) was ultimately beheaded, while Peter was crucified upside down. Many of the other thousands who believed in the Resurrection went the same way. When Rome finally turned on the Christians, they took persecution to new levels — crucifixion, being burned alive or fed to the lions were just some forms of the torture and death inflicted upon Christians in the few centuries after the Resurrection. Being a Christian in those early days came with none of the advantages that astronauts have and many huge disadvantages that astronauts have never had to face. No one tortured Buzz Aldrin (or any other astronaut) to try and get him to deny the moon landing. Questions for the sceptics As a believer in both the moon landings and the Resurrection, I have questions for people who do not believe in one or both of these historical events. First, is your scepticism reasonable? Ask yourself whether there is any reasonable evidence that would convince you to change your mind — unreasonable evidence includes things like being strapped into a rocket yourself, or seeing video footage of Jesus walking out of the tomb. Second, have you really pursued answers to your doubts with an open mind? Have you read widely around the topic, including the eyewitness accounts? Have you taken these seriously and considered if it makes sense that hundreds of people created elaborate cover-up stories that include failure and embarrassment? Finally, for those who accept moon landings but not the Resurrection: unlike NASA, the USA government, and the astronauts, the original disciples and early Christians had nothing to gain and everything to lose for their claim. Yet they went to their graves sticking to their stories. Is that not a good reason take their claims seriously and examine the evidence for yourself? © 2026 Gail Thomson. Want more content like this? Explore more articles in Exploring Scripture. Press Ctrl + P (Windows) or Cmd + P (Mac) to print this article or save it as a PDF.

The Confusion In an age obsessed with identity, many people have begun to speak about history in ways that blur a basic moral truth: we are not our ancestors. Yet in modern cultural and political debates, people are increasingly encouraged to either carry the guilt of those who came before them or claim credit for achievements they never personally accomplished. Both impulses are misguided. The idea that we inherit the moral crimes of our ancestors is deeply flawed. But the opposite idea—that we inherit their greatness and therefore deserve honor for it—is equally mistaken. Both errors stem from the same root problem: the collapse of individual moral responsibility. Christian theology offers a powerful corrective to this confusion. The Scriptures consistently affirm that each person is responsible for their own actions, not the actions of previous generations. At the same time, Christianity refuses to erase history or pretend that the past does not shape the present. The tension between these truths—historical inheritance and individual responsibility—lies at the heart of many of our modern social conflicts. The Guilt The clearest statement of this principle appears in the Old Testament. In the Book of Ezekiel 18:20, the prophet writes: “The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son.” This was a radical statement in the ancient world. Many ancient cultures believed that the sins of one generation permanently stained the next. Families, tribes, and entire peoples were often judged collectively. But God rejected that logic. The Biblical message is simple but profound: moral responsibility is personal. A person is judged according to their own actions, their own choices, and their own conduct. This principle protects human dignity. It means no one is permanently condemned because of their lineage, their tribe, or their bloodline. In other words, the Bible rejects the idea of collective inherited guilt. But if guilt cannot be inherited, neither can moral credit. The Pride Modern debates often revolve around historical guilt, but the same flawed logic appears on the opposite side of the argument. Many people take pride in historical accomplishments achieved by people who share their nationality, ethnicity, or culture. They speak as if they personally participated in the achievements of previous centuries. But this too is an illusion. If we cannot be blamed for the sins of our ancestors, we also cannot claim ownership of their greatness. A modern person did not build the cathedrals of Europe. They did not draft the founding documents of nations. They did not invent the technologies that transformed civilization centuries ago. Those accomplishments belong to the individuals who actually did them. History can inspire us. It can shape our cultural inheritance. But it does not grant us moral credit. This cuts both ways. Those who want modern people to feel ashamed for historical crimes commit the same error as those who boast about historical triumphs. Both are treating history as a kind of moral inheritance system, where guilt and glory pass through bloodlines. Christianity rejects this entirely. The Obsession With Collective Identity Why has this confusion become so common today? One reason is that modern culture has increasingly abandoned the concept of the individual. People are no longer primarily understood as unique moral agents. Instead, they are sorted into categories—race, class, nationality, gender, or political tribe. These categories then become moral identities. Under this framework, individuals are judged not primarily by their actions but by the historical behavior of groups they are said to belong to. This mindset exists across the political spectrum. Some people insist that certain groups must carry historical guilt. Others insist that certain groups should feel pride because of historical accomplishments. Both sides are participating in the same philosophical mistake: they are replacing individuals with tribes, and this approach inevitably fuels resentment and division. When guilt becomes collective, people feel accused of crimes they never committed. When pride becomes collective, people feel entitled to honor they never earned. Neither produces humility. Neither produces justice. Both destroy the moral clarity that comes from evaluating individuals by their actions. The Cycle of Resentment This issue becomes especially explosive when discussions turn to race. Modern racial debates often revolve around the idea that contemporary individuals should somehow carry the moral weight of historical injustices committed by people of the same racial category. But race is a crude and historically unstable concept. The categories we use today did not even exist in the same form centuries ago. Yet people are now asked to feel guilt or pride based on these shifting classifications. This approach traps society in an endless cycle of resentment. If guilt is inherited, it never disappears. Every generation becomes morally entangled in the past. Every historical injustice becomes a permanent accusation against people who had nothing to do with it. But the Christian worldview breaks that cycle. The gospel insists that every person stands before God individually. Not as a representative of a race, not as the embodiment of a historical tribe, but as a human being responsible for their own actions. This does not erase history. It does not deny injustice. But it refuses to treat people as moral extensions of the dead. Individual Responsibility: A Pillar of Christian Civilization Ironically, the modern world’s emphasis on individual rights and moral agency grew directly out of Christian thought. The Christian doctrine that every human being is accountable before God helped produce a civilization where individual conscience mattered. Figures like Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas developed moral frameworks centered on personal responsibility, intention, and moral agency. Later, Christian thinkers influenced political systems that emphasized individual rights and protections against collective punishment. But today, that idea is slowly eroding. Many modern ideologies—both secular and political—are drifting back toward ancient tribal thinking. Instead of evaluating individuals, they assign moral status to entire groups. In doing so, they undermine one of the most important ethical insights Christianity ever contributed to human civilization. The Christian Answer Christianity offers a response that avoids both extremes. It rejects inherited guilt, but it also rejects inherited pride. The Christian does not need to carry the shame of historical crimes committed by others. But neither can the Christian boast in the accomplishments of people who lived centuries ago. Instead, Christianity calls each person to something far more demanding: personal repentance and personal righteousness. The Christian asks a different question than the modern culture wars. Not: What did my ancestors do? But: What am I doing now? Am I acting justly? Am I loving my neighbor? Am I living truthfully and courageously? Those are the questions that matter before God. History is real. It shapes our world, but the moral burden of history belongs to those who lived it. Our responsibility lies in the present. We cannot repent for the sins of the dead, and we cannot claim their achievements as our own. The obsession with ancestral guilt and ancestral pride both collapse under the same truth: you did not live their life. You did not commit their sins. You did not earn their achievements. History is memory, not morality. Responsibility belongs to the living. © Joel Sarfarz Press Ctrl + P (Windows) or Cmd + P (Mac) to print this article or save it as a PDF. References: -Book of Ezekiel 18:20 — “The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son.” -Book of Deuteronomy 24:16 — “Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.” -Epistle to the Romans 2:6 — “God will repay each person according to what they have done.” -Epistle to the Galatians 6:5 — “For each one should carry their own load.” -Gospel of Matthew 16:27 — “The Son of Man… will reward each person according to what they have done.” -Augustine of Hippo. The City of God. Translated by Henry Bettenson. Penguin Classics. -Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. Sections addressing sin, moral responsibility, and individual accountability. -C. S. Lewis. Mere Christianity. HarperOne. -Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The Cost of Discipleship. SCM Press. -Hannah Arendt. Responsibility and Judgment. Schocken Books. -Karl Popper. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Routledge. -Thomas Sowell. Black Rednecks and White Liberals. Encounter Books. -Shelby Steele. White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. HarperCollins. -Graph from Statista.com

Contrary to popular belief, America was not founded as a Christian nation. Might sound jarring, and honestly, I hope it is, because it is true. The idea that the United States was this uniquely chosen, blessed, and divinely established nation just keeps growing. It keeps getting repeated from pulpits, abused in political conversations, and got woven into the way people talk about our history. But when you actually look at the foundation of this country, who built it and what they believed, you start to realize Christian Nationalists have conveniently forgotten a few things that never make it into speeches. Before Taking Up Another #Cause The Constitution does not establish Christianity as our nation’s foundation. It does not declare Jesus Christ as its king. Our government was intentionally designed to avoid religious control and allow all beliefs to exist freely. It was a response to centuries of religious conflict and state-controlled faith in Europe that the Founding Fathers did not want to happen in the United States. Even the Declaration of Independence, while referencing a “Creator,” never defines that Creator in Christian terms. The document also refers to “Nature’s God,” the “Supreme Judge of the world,” and the “protection of divine Providence,” using intentionally broad language meant to include a range of beliefs across the country rather than committing to any one faith. The Brilliant Balance of Diverse Beliefs Now for the monkey wrench. The men behind these documents were complex. The Founders did not come from one single faith, let alone a unified Christianity, which is why what they did was so brilliant and balanced. We had Anglicans, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, former Quakers, Unitarians, and Deists. Some flat-out rejected the divinity of Christ. Others spoke of God in general terms, some emphasized moral reason over Scripture, some rejected central Christian doctrines, and Thomas Jefferson even created his own version of the Bible, removing miracles and supernatural elements (including His resurrection) to focus solely on Jesus’ moral teachings. Some were also Freemasons, reflecting Enlightenment ideas. As you can see, this was not a group of people unified by any one theology. It was a group wise enough to recognize that history should not repeat itself, and that when religion and government are fused, both become corrupted. So they built a system not to establish any one single faith above the other, but to protect the freedom for all of them to exist. This is a monumental distinction between what actually happened and what is being presented by the Christian Nationalism movement. Double Standards I don’t know which is more obnoxious. Barely getting the word Christian out and getting lumped in with a group I want nothing to do with, or watching the double standards play out in the public eye daily. For clarification and transparency, I will not support any movement that deliberately changes anything or downplays real, documented facts and history to convince people that God has somehow ordained this country, that it is similar to Israel, or that it carries a divine status it was never given. I also will not support the twisting of Scripture to fit political agendas or justify claims that go beyond what the Bible actually teaches. And simply labeling something “christian” does not equate to earning my support. I rely on God, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the awesome critical thinking skills I was given at conception. Beyond that, what is even more grating is the double standard. They claim to fight moral decay, defend traditional values, and push back against any ideas they dislike, and condemn the people with those ideas for bending and twisting things to have their narrative in the spotlight while at the same time…………….. They are also bending facts and constructing a narrative that serves their agenda. Please pause on that for a second. If you can’t sit on the truth without bending or tweaking something, then maybe, just maybe, it’s not the truth? You could say, well, they are doing this for the right reasons, but whose right reasons? Last time I checked, history is full of painful and hellious examples of people trying that. Christians in positions of power have a long and well-documented history of using the Bible as their backbone to get what they want. From the Spanish Inquisition, where Scripture was used to justify torture and execution, to American slaveholders who cited the Bible to defend human bondage. History should be a clear reminder of just how one can abuse the other. Watching this unfold among Christians is not just disappointing; it’s an affront to my senses, faith, and Christ, because it’s trading integrity for another set of ideology, elevating the nation above Christ, and is an abuse of Christianity. The United States is not the Kingdom of God. It is a nation that was built by men with quite a variety of different beliefs who wisely realized you cannot force a country to be a religion, but you can protect all religions. Wonder how many people know George Washington said this? “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…” Faith Should Not Be Legislated We need to be honest about what’s happening. This movement is not hypothetical; it is happening right now. It is dangerously close to idolatry (already is for a lot of people), not because people love their country, but because of how they are elevating it above God. It is also dangerously close to dictating what we can and cannot believe, even within the Christian community. It may sound pretty on the outside, but where are the lines drawn? What sect of Christianity will be approved, or worse, not approved, over the coming years? Are you going to be told what church you can and can’t go to? Think about that: who gets to determine what you believe? Are you willingly going to hand that freedom over to the people who make our laws? Humanity has more than proven that when it is given an inch, especially in the name of religion, it will lead to bloodshed. I love my country, I love my freedom, I respect my leaders, and I pray for them, but my country does not come before God and does not have the right to force my faith on anyone. Jesus never once forced a single person to follow Him or believe in Him. Not once. You can not justify something as being “for the greater good” when Christianity has never taught that the ends justify the means. You cannot abuse truth, distort history, and pressure belief, then call the result righteous. A wrong done in the name of good is still wrong. As a Christian who loves and studies her history, I cannot get behind any movement that tries to force belief through power or pressure. Whether it comes from the left, the right, male, female, or under the banner of religion, it is the same pattern, one that the founding fathers tried to protect us from. Christian Nationalism in Action Example 2025 — “a Texas Senate panel heard testimony on a bill that would require public schools to adopt anti-communist curriculum. On its face, the bill does not seek to put more Christianity in classrooms. But supporters argued that the bill is crucial to combating godless ideologies that they say have crept into American education and undermined the nation’s true, Christian heritage.” (Texas Tribune) Other concerning statements: “America is a Christian country,” said Cruz, who was invited by lawmakers to testify. “And we need to build upon that foundation, because if we build that foundation in our children, everything else will fall into place.” (Texas Tribune) “In many instances our classrooms are failing us, because they’re following an agenda,” Cruz said. “It is not our agenda. It is a communist agenda that has, like tentacles, immersed itself into our education system. So we need to retrieve our educational system from that evil agenda.” (Texas Tribune) “Last week, lawmakers heard testimony from Rafael Cruz, a pastor who is the father of U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s and an adherent of Christian dominionism, which argues Christians must dominate society to usher in the End Times. Cruz repeatedly argued that America — and thus, Christianity — are under threat from communist and socialist forces who seek to indoctrinate children through Critical Race Theory, diversity initiatives and other things that Republicans have targeted in recent years.” (Texas Tribune) “In the decades since immigrating, Cruz has been a leading advocate for Christian dominionism, which argues that the Bible commands Christians to have “dominion” over all parts of society in order to bring about the apocalypse.” (source) (Please tell me, even you paused at this one!) Now, before you come running at me, you really need to read this entire article without a political lens and with critical thinking. I’m not saying that what they are testifying about are not valid concerns. But a valid concern does not give anyone the authority to circumvent the First Amendment and force my faith (or any faith) on another person. This is where the line is getting crossed, from expressing belief to enforcing it, because where does that line stop if you keep letting them cross it? These are a few examples showing the dangers of Christian nationalist ideology. (This goes for any religion, for that matter) Attempts to codify a particular religious belief into law, elevate a nation above God, and pressure children and citizens to conform to a specific theological viewpoint. (Again, I will ask, whose theological viewpoint?) Amanda Tyler of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Freedom calls this a long-term strategy, saying that lawmakers often start with seemingly small measures and then gradually build to more extreme legislation. This is precisely what the Founders were trying to avoid. America Is In The Outhouse With everything falling apart in this country, I can see why it is so easy for people to panic and look at the surface of a movement and believe it is a good thing. They desperately want it to be good; they need it to be because they feel like that will solve all their problems. But we live in a world of open secrets, lies, shared traumas, and frankly lazy and self-entitled people, who would rather have someone else solve their problems, and hand them the new solution, instead of doing one very basic, key thing. Go back to God. Not a party, or movement, or group. You have to understand that unless you go to God in all your decisions, others will freely and happily make them for you. You want to make a real difference in this nation, go to God in prayer. You want better politicians, then pray for them. You want a better nation, then lift our leaders up in prayer. (yes, even the ones you don't like) You want the hate to stop, then stop hating. You want your children to do better, then be better parents. You want the fighting to stop, then stop fighting. You want moral decline to stop, then be moral. What made this country, quote Christian in the first place, was the Christians in it who prayed for it, but that has fallen away, quite severely over the last few decades. Our nation and government are, in many ways, a reflection of its people. Forcing any religion on a nation isn’t going to fix anything; in fact, it is going to further drive wedges between the people who live here. Do I like everything I see going on in our country? Absolutely not, it breaks my heart, and I will continue to speak and write Biblical truth, but truth NOT dictated by any religious government or church, and truth that a person does have the right to scroll past. (Or yell at me, that happens a lot to. But guess what? I have the right not to engage in that either.) There is a line, and it is being crossed in politics, and it is dangerous, very dangerous. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need to worry about the separation of church and state, but this is not a perfect world. We need the church and state separated because we have too many power-hungry and self-serving individuals roaming around that will take every inch they can and damn the consequences, and too many people ready to jump on the next algorithm bandwagon, instead of exercising any amount of respectful decorum and critical thinking. Extra Historical Context Many references to God that people assume come from the Founding Fathers were added later. The phrase “under God” was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance by Congress and signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1954. (source) “In God We Trust” did not originate with the Constitution or Declaration but was adopted as the official national motto in 1956 and first appeared on U.S. coins during the Civil War before becoming standard on paper currency. (source) Also, the common “so help me God” at the end of a presidential oath is not in the Constitution’s text at all; it became a tradition in the late 19th /early 20th centuries rather than a requirement. (source) I love my faith, and I firmly believe it can stand on its own, and spectacularly at that. I mean, come on, Jesus rose from the dead! To say or imply that it cannot stand on its own, or that we need to force it on people to help it along, shows me that those individuals have lost faith in God. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” © 2026 Jane Isley. Want more content like this? Explore more articles in the Culture & Faith category. Press Ctrl + P (Windows) or Cmd + P (Mac) to print this article or save it as a PDF.

“Jesus wins by serving and triumphs by losing” (quote from the Amazon description of the book pictured above by Donald B. Kraybill) Not too long ago, God gave my husband and myself a vision that looked something like this. This morning our Loving Creator gave us this verse:“He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much.” Luke 16:10 NKJV To be perfectly honest, this life of total surrender to God’s Will is a frightening, exhilarating, and joyfully wild ride! Without going into too much detail yet, I will share with you that we both had a hope. Then our hope survived a painful crash-landing. We accepted the disappointing outcome, and chalked it up to God’s protection. We can do this with complete confidence and peace, because we KNOW our Higher Power sees the timeless BIGGEST picture from a perspective, we cannot even begin to fathom. In God we trust because Isaiah 55:8–9 reminds us He is sovereign. The tapestry pictured above we admired on our tour of Hearst Castle on December 21, 2024. It is actually much BIGGER than the image included here. My point is that there were several of these kinds of ornate detailed works of art displayed in this castle located in California, USA that told entire historical stories over extended periods of time on a wall. That example is the closest my finite brain can get to almost wrapping my mind around the way God views our existence. He sees all people, all time, all events weaved into one giant tapestry and STILL simultaneously honors our FREE WILL to choose Him or reject Him. 🤯 The reason I believe God gave us Luke 16:10 (quoted above) this morning is because in our growing pains, He has led us to serve more and expect less (Upside-Down Kingdom). As a result, the previous disappointment we felt when our dream was perceived to be crushed, has been replaced with “Wait for it, I’ve got you.” As this Ephesians 3:20–21 vision comes to fruition, we are praising our Heavenly Father of Lights (James 1:17) who gives the BEST gifts, as He graciously and generously helps us navigate the next steps of this LEAP of FAITH process! The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want or fear what comes next. In Jesus’ most precious name, Amen © Nora Gwen Want more of this Faith, Hope, & Love💖? Your coffee☕ helps me write about it. Press Ctrl + P (Windows) or Cmd + P (Mac) to print this article or save it as a PDF.

As a Christian with brains and eyeballs, I can distinctly see we have many issues in our churches today, emphasis on that word “many.” According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, there are currently approximately 47,000 Christian denominations worldwide. Not congregations, denominations. Distinct, named, organized expressions of Christianity, each with its own doctrine, definitions, and rules. By 2050, that number is projected to be 64,000. How Did We Get Here? That answer is the same impulse driving our culture right now. Someone disagreed with a definition, someone needed a new label, someone decided their interpretation was different enough to warrant a split, a new name, a statement of faith, and a new doctrine. And then someone split from that. And then someone split from that. On and on, year after year, until we have tens of thousands of variations of Christianity, each convinced it has the clearest handle on truth, and many of them can’t sit in the same room with each other. Paul Saw This Coming Paul was addressing this in the first century. Romans 14:1: “Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.” The whole chapter is Paul telling believers who were dividing over differences, judging each other, separating over disputable matters, making secondary things primary, to stop it. They were already doing this before the ink was dry on the New Testament, and Paul was calling it out. Romans 14:19: “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.” We have had the best instruction manual for this for 2,000 years, and still ended up with 47,000 denominations anyway. To Be Clear This is not a call to accept everything; there is a fine line here that needs to be addressed, Romans 14 is not a blank check. Peace is the ultimate goal, not constant in fighting, but also not at the cost of Biblical truth. Not all denominations and churches teach sound doctrine. Way too many teach things that are flat-out contradictions of Scripture, and you are not required to accept and make peace with false teaching just to avoid conflict. Paul made this plain in Galatians 1:8: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” That is not a gentle verse people. That is Paul being absolutely immovable on the line between truth and error. And 2 Timothy 4:3–4 reads like it was written in today's news: “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” So yes, pursue peace with other believers where you genuinely can because Romans 14:19 still stands. But you must stand firm on Scripture first; there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. If peace is possible without compromising Biblical truth, chase it; it can happen. You can disagree on things and still be friends. What you cannot do is reshape your beliefs to fit a denomination’s or anyone’s preferences and call that faith. Pray over the state of the church. Seriously and genuinely, open your Bible and read it for yourself, and test everything against Scripture. Society Was Watching The Whole Time This is the part that should make us uncomfortable. We are supposed to be salt and light. Jesus said it in Matthew 5:13–14: “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden.” Probably wondering what that means? I’ll tell you, it means that a person’s true character and faith are impossible to hide and are always on display to the world. When the “Church” fractures, argues, splits, labels, divides, and builds walls between believers, guess who sees that? The entire world. Just as much as society likes to blame religion for its issues and bring up past abuses done in the name of religion, it also learns from it. They watched churches do this for centuries. Churches have been publicly splitting, feuding, and multiplying divisions since the beginning, and the world was watching every single moment of it like a child watching a parent slowly fall apart. Children do what they see modeled, they absorb it, normalize it, and eventually repeat it. We handed them the blueprint. We demonstrated for generations that when you disagree with someone’s definitions, you separate, create a new label, and build a new slogan. We showed the world that identity is built around which group’s doctrine you align with. We modeled that splitting is always an option when unity gets hard. And now we are shocked that society does the same thing. We were supposed to be the city on the hill. A light, a beacon, God’s physical examples on Earth of His love, mercy, kindness, gentleness, and forgiveness, and a beautiful, glowing lamp for this world. Instead, the hill has 47,000 different towns on it, most of them barely speaking to each other, and the world looked at that and took notes. It is on us, the remaining faithful, to pick up the cross daily and stand apart from the world, to stop chasing labels and simply start following Jesus. Read your Bible. Follow Jesus. You don’t need anything else attached to that. © 2026 Jane Isley. Want more content like this? Explore more articles in Culture & Faith. Sources: Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary — Center for the Study of Global Christianity Christianity is Fragmented — Why? Lausanne Movement Polycentric Christianity — Christian Denominations Romans 14 Press Ctrl + P (Windows) or Cmd + P (Mac) to print this article or save it as a PDF.

In the middle of unimaginable pain, He revealed a kind of mercy far deeper than anything we practice ourselves. Imagine the moment. A man has been beaten, mocked, and nailed to a cross. His body is collapsing under the strain of crucifixion. Every breath requires him to push against the nails in his hands and feet. The crowd below him is not mourning but laughing, mocking, and gambling over his clothing. And then he says something almost impossible to comprehend. “Father, forgive them.” Those words, spoken by Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, are among the most astonishing ever recorded. They reveal something about forgiveness that most of us struggle to grasp. Because if we are honest, forgiveness does not come naturally to us. Before thinking about Jesus’ prayer, consider a simple question: How would you define forgiveness? It sounds straightforward until you begin to reflect on your own life. Have you ever had to forgive someone who hurt you deeply? What did it actually take to reach that point? Or perhaps the harder question: have you ever had to ask someone else to forgive you? When most people think seriously about forgiveness, they discover that their relationship with it is complicated. We believe forgiveness is good. We admire it when we see it in others. Stories of radical forgiveness move us deeply. Yet when the time comes to practice it ourselves, especially when the wound is personal and painful, something inside us resists. Part of the reason is that forgiveness feels unfair. When someone hurts us, we instinctively want balance. We want the scales to even out somehow. We want the person who caused the damage to feel the weight of what they did. Yet the moment we demand repayment, forgiveness disappears. By definition, forgiveness means absorbing a wrong without insisting that the debt be repaid. That is what makes it so difficult. The Way We Usually Forgive If we look honestly at our lives, most of us forgive in a very particular way. We forgive with time. When someone hurts us deeply, we rarely forgive immediately. Instead, we create distance. Sometimes we slowly drift away from the person who hurt us. Sometimes we bury the memory and hope it fades. Eventually we begin repeating something people often say: time heals. But does it? In reality, time rarely erases the wound. It simply dulls it. The memory becomes less vivid and the emotions surrounding it soften. Over months or years, the pain becomes manageable enough that we feel able to move on. Yet every so often something unexpected, a comment, a memory, a situation, brings the past rushing back. In those moments we realize that the wound never truly disappeared. It only became easier to live with. That complicated relationship with forgiveness shapes how we view God as well. Because if our forgiveness works this way, we often assume that God’s forgiveness must operate the same way. We imagine that when we ask for forgiveness, God might say the words but still remember the offense deep down. Perhaps we need a period of good behavior first. Perhaps we should clean up our lives before approaching Him. After enough time passes, maybe the sting of our sin will fade. Only then do we feel safe coming to God. But when we come to the crucifixion of Jesus, we discover something radically different. God’s forgiveness does not operate like ours. The Most Astonishing Prayer Ever Spoken In Luke 23, Jesus has been condemned to death. He is surrounded by soldiers, religious leaders, and a crowd that had only days earlier shouted his praise but now cries out for his execution. As the nails are driven through His hands and feet, Jesus speaks: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34) Notice what is happening here. Jesus does not wait for the pain to subside before forgiving. He does not wait for time to pass or for apologies to be offered. Instead, He forgives in the very moment the injustice is occurring. And the word “them” includes everyone involved. Pilate, who knew Jesus was innocent yet sentenced Him anyway. The crowd that demanded His crucifixion. The soldiers who hammered the nails into His body and gambled for His clothes. The religious leaders who orchestrated the entire trial. All of them stand within earshot when Jesus prays this prayer. And in the middle of unimaginable suffering, He asks the Father to forgive them. Most of us struggle to forgive someone after weeks, months, or years of reflection. Jesus offers forgiveness while the nails are still in His hands. Compassion in the Middle of Cruelty What Jesus says next is just as striking. He adds, “for they know not what they are doing.” At first that sentence sounds confusing. After all, many of the people involved clearly understood what they were doing. Pilate knew Jesus was innocent. The religious leaders acted out of envy and jealousy. The soldiers carried out their orders without hesitation. Yet Jesus sees something deeper. In one sense they knew exactly what they were doing. In another sense, they did not understand the full weight of their actions. They could not see the complete ripple effects of the injustice they were participating in. Human beings often live in that same tension. We know when we lie. We know when we cross moral boundaries. We know when we betray someone’s trust or indulge destructive habits. And yet we also do not fully know. We rarely see the deeper damage our choices create. We do not grasp how our actions shape the lives of others. We do not recognize how deeply sin distorts the world around us. Jesus sees all of that clearly. And astonishingly, His response is compassion. What the Cross Reveals The cross reveals two truths at the same time. First, it shows us how serious sin really is. If forgiveness were easy, the cross would not have been necessary. The suffering of Jesus reveals that sin carries enormous weight and consequences. But the cross also reveals something even greater. It reveals the astonishing depth of God’s mercy. Jesus willingly endured suffering so that forgiveness could be offered, not reluctantly, but freely. And the next scene in Luke’s account demonstrates just how radical that mercy is. The Criminal Who Had Nothing Left Jesus was crucified between two criminals. One of them mocks Him. Even as he faces death, bitterness and anger dominate his words. But the other criminal responds differently. He acknowledges his guilt and recognizes that his punishment is deserved. Then he turns to Jesus and says: “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” It is a simple prayer spoken by a man who has nothing left to offer. He cannot repair the damage of his past. He cannot perform good works to make up for his mistakes. He is only moments away from death. Yet Jesus responds with astonishing generosity: “Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.” That man had nothing to offer. And Jesus offered him everything. The Scandal of Grace For years I misunderstood this story. When I was younger, part of me almost envied that criminal. It seemed as though he had discovered a loophole — living however he wanted and receiving forgiveness at the last possible moment. But that perspective completely misses the reality of his situation. This man’s life had led him to a Roman cross, one of the most brutal forms of execution in history. His final hours were filled with agony and regret. That is not a life anyone should envy. What the story actually reveals is something far more profound. Salvation is not earned through moral effort or religious achievement. It is not a reward given to people who manage to fix themselves. It is a gift of mercy. Jesus saves this man not because of what he has done but because of grace. Walking With Jesus Through Passion Week Each year Christians remember these events during Passion Week. But Passion Week is more than a historical remembrance. It is an invitation. Imagine a close friend receiving a devastating diagnosis. You cannot remove the suffering that lies ahead, but you can stay close. You can walk beside them through the appointments, the difficult conversations, and the long nights. You remain present because you love them. Passion Week invites us to do something similar with Jesus. It invites us to stand near the cross, to witness His suffering, and to allow our hearts to grasp the depth of what He endured. When we do, we begin to understand something profound. The same sin that fills our world with violence, betrayal, and grief is the very thing Jesus came to confront and overcome. He endured the cross so that forgiveness could be offered to us. Forgiveness offered not after the pain has faded , but in the very midst of it. And that is why the words spoken from the cross still echo across centuries: “Father, forgive them.” Those words reveal the heart of the gospel. A mercy greater than our failures. A forgiveness stronger than our sin. And a love that refuses to let the story end in condemnation. © David Jun

Have you ever lost everything you had? Was it easy to let go? I know of many who lost everything they had, either through natural disasters, carelessness, or human actions such as arson or theft. I've seen many sifting through rubble, desperately searching for remnants of their past lives. They needed a photo, a child's toy, or something else to cling to for comfort. This is especially true if the loss included the life of a loved one. If you have lived long enough, I'm sure you are acquainted with loss. God tells us not to dwell on the things of the past, as He is doing a new thing (Isaiah 43:18-19). There's a good reason for this. I have found that when I dwell on the past and recall what I have lost, I become despondent and depressed. When I remember the people involved who have wronged me, I feel bitter. These feelings are natural and normal, but this is not the way I want to live. I have taught myself to live one day at a time. In fact, my mantra has become "one thing at a time, one step at a time." This is how I get through each day. There was a time when I felt that life had turned its back on me, but I have since realized that it's not true. Life is challenging. Jesus didn't sugarcoat this reality when He told us that in this life we will have troubles. Thankfully, He didn't leave it at that, but encouraged us to take heart as He has overcome the world (John 16:33). Paul's life encourages me too. He had everything, but gladly sacrificed it all for the sake of following Jesus and proclaiming the Gospel. He changed from being a highly respected Pharisee to a persecuted prisoner who suffered stoning, beatings, shipwrecks, and even snakebites. He learned to be content with little or much (Philippians 4:11-13). He enjoyed blessings, but he didn't allow his circumstances to determine his attitude or rob him of his joy. I have learned that God gave us all things to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17), but He doesn't want us to become attached to temporary earthly things. At least this applies to me and my life. I lost everything I owned. For a time, I lost hope, dreams, and ideals. My husband and I thought that we had a second chance at life and building a future together, but a debilitating stroke robbed us of this opportunity too. Every day has become a battle with survival, responsibilities, and exhaustion. There is little to celebrate when looking at everything we've lost. My husband lost everything due to misplaced trust in an unscrupulous family member. He has forgiven this person, but he struggles to let go. After losing his business, his house, and everything he worked for, he also lost his health, mobility, speech, and most recently the lives of beloved family members and friends. Yet, despite all of this, God has remained faithful. We haven't lived extravagantly, but neither have we gone without necessities. We have never gone to bed hungry. We've always had a roof over our heads. Despite the challenges, I'm still strong and healthy enough to hold down a full-time job and take care of my husband. God gives us what we need. I strongly believe that if God doesn't provide, we don't need it. Sure, I'd love for God to restore everything I've lost, and I know my husband feels the same. We would dearly appreciate it if his health could be restored. We are believing that God will heal and restore him, but if He doesn't, we trust that God has a special plan and purpose for everything He allows. Favorite verses like Joel 2:25, Romans 8:28, and Jeremiah 29:11, to name but a few, seem empty or void of meaning when compared to our daily reality. Did God really promise to restore the years that the locusts have eaten? Can He give me back 30 years of my life? Can He restore my youth? I'm sure He can, but does He want to? Were these promises meant for me, or did they apply to the Israelites only, and only in the time and circumstances they lived in at the time? Will He work all things for my good, or is it ultimately for His purpose? I know that I'm not living the future I had hoped for. Reality is much different from dreams or ideals. How are we to apply what we read in the Bible to our own lives? I've learned to let go and trust God. He is the only constant and unchangeable reality in my life. Everything else is fleeting and subject to change. Life offers no guarantees. We don't even know if we will see another sunrise. God taught us that this life is not our home (Hebrews 13:14). We are merely passing through on our way to eternity. As someone once said, "we are walking each other home." We are meant to enjoy life, live carefree, and not fret or worry while anxiously trying to accumulate as many possessions as we can. Possessions neither bring happiness nor security. Our joy and our security are found in God alone. God takes care of my needs, and if He doesn't provide, I don't need it. I may want it, but I don't need it. This has become my philosophy in life. I would be so grateful if my husband could be healed. I would love to have my own house again, but at the same time I wonder whether I'll be able to maintain it and take care of it. I question whether my longings are realistic or whether I'm clinging to memories. I wonder about my motive. Do I want my own place because of the security it gives? Am I trying to find security in things, rather than in God? I'm not getting younger. The years are marching on. Time passes relentlessly. I feel old age creeping up on me. I know I can't do the things my younger self could do, but I'm not sure that I'm factoring in this knowledge when I think of my desires. How do I let go without letting go? How do I give up on desiring the things I once had without giving up on life itself? I grapple with this every day. How do you cope with loss and the emotions that accompany it? © Rina Schultz