On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that cities have the authority to prohibit sleeping and camping in public spaces, and homeless individuals can be fined or arrested. The 6-3 decision, divided along ideological lines, overturned lower court decisions that had previously deemed such bans as “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment if no alternative shelter was available.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, acknowledged the complexity of homelessness and its varied causes but emphasized that federal judges are not best suited to dictate how cities should handle the issue.

“The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy,” he stated.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the ruling ignores the needs of the most vulnerable individuals. She highlighted the biological necessity of sleep, asserting that the decision forces homeless individuals to choose between staying awake or facing arrest.

“This decision leaves a homeless person with an impossible choice,” she wrote.

The ruling is seen as a victory for Grants Pass, Oregon, which brought the case, as well as for numerous Western cities that have sought greater enforcement powers amidst rising homelessness. Local governments argued that previous lower court rulings restricted their ability to manage public spaces effectively, compromising public health and safety. These cities argued that they were hindered from addressing homeless encampments without first providing adequate shelter, a challenging requirement given the shortage of shelter beds and the unwillingness of some individuals to accept available shelter due to various restrictions.

However, advocates for the homeless believe the decision exacerbates the problem rather than solves it.

Rosanne Haggerty, President and Chief Executive Officer at nonprofit Community Solutions, a leader in homelessness solutions, called the decision “deeply disappointing.”

“Arresting or fining people for experiencing homelessness is cruel — and it won’t solve the problem,” she said. “Countless studies show we can’t police homelessness out of existence. But there are proven solutions to homelessness. It takes a community-wide effort to make sure that every person experiencing homelessness is accounted for and cared for.”

Street homelessness in the United States has risen dramatically, experiencing a 25 percent increase since 2017, according to the most recent report from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Despite billions of federal dollars being spent on support services and shelter space, cities still struggle to keep up with the demand, especially in West Coast areas where homelessness is pervasive and encampments are sprawling. An estimated 400,000 individuals are currently experiencing homelessness, and with 59% of Americans living only one paycheck away from homelessness, that number is expected to grow over the next several years.

“Leaders have a choice,” Haggerty said. “The law now allows them to punish people for experiencing homelessness, but this won’t solve the problem. Cities can make a different choice. By choosing proven solutions to homelessness, together we can create communities where everyone has a home.”

Political discourse is the Las Vegas of Christianity—the environment in which our sin is excused. Hate is winked at, fear is perpetuated and strife is applauded. Go wild, Christ-follower. Your words have no consequences here. Jesus doesn’t live in Vegas.

Not only are believers excused for their political indiscretions, but they are often applauded for committing them. Slander is explained away as righteous anger; winning arguments are esteemed higher than truthful ones (whether or not the “facts” align); and those who stir up dissension are given the pulpit. So I balk when pastors tell me the Church should engage in the political process. Why would we do that? The political process is dirty and broken and far from Jesus. Paranoia and vitriol are hardly attractive accessories for the bride of Christ.

Rather than engage in the political process, Christians have a duty to elevate it. Like any other sin, we are called to stand above the partisan dissension and demonstrate a better way. Should we have an opinion? Yes. Should we care about our country? Yes. Should we vote? Yes. But it’s time we talk politics in a way that models the teachings of Jesus rather than mocks them.

Here are seven things to remember about politics:

1. Both political parties go to church

There’s a Christian Left and, perhaps even less well-known, there’s a secular Right. Despite your point of view of who is on the other side, party lines are drawn in chalk, and they’re not hard to cross. The Church must be engaged in politics, but it must not be defined by the arbitrary lines in politics.

2. Political talk radio and cable “news” only want ratings

When media personalities tell you they are on a moral crusade, they are lying to you. These personalities get rich by instilling fear and paranoia in their listeners. If we give our favorite political ideologues more time than we give Jesus, we are following the wrong master. There are unbiased, logical and accurate news sources out there. But it’s up to you to be a good steward of information—to fact-check for yourself, take ideology with a grain of salt and make decisions based on facts rather than gossip.

3. Those who argue over politics don’t love their country more than others

They just love to argue more than others. Strife and quarreling are symptoms of weak faith (Proverbs 10:12; 2 Timothy 2:23-25; James 4:1) and are among the things the Lord “detests.” We need to rise above the vitriol and learn to love our neighbors the way God commanded us. We need to love our atheist neighbor who wants to keep creationism out of schools; our Democrat neighbor who wants to keep gay marriage and abortion legal; our Republican neighbor who celebrates death penalty statistics and gun ownership; and yes, even the presidential candidate from the other side.

4. Thinking your party’s platform is unflawed is a mistake

The social policies of your party were constructed by imperfect politicians fueled by ambition. It’s nearsighted to canonize them—and it will make you obsolete in a few years. Every four years, the parties adopt a current, updated platform at their respective conventions. And while they stay on general tracks, every four years the platform evolves to meet the needs of a growing, modernized and changing party. The Republican party of today doesn’t look like it did 10 or 20 years ago. We need to know when to change our views to meet a changing culture—and when to stand by them.

5. Scripture tells us to pray for our governing leaders (2 Timothy 2:1-4) and to respect those in authority (Romans 13:1-7)

Translation: if you’re mocking your governing leaders on social media, the Holy Spirit is grieved. We should spend more time honoring our leaders and less time vilifying them. This doesn’t mean praying the President will be impeached; it doesn’t mean praying your candidate will win. God commands us to pray for our leaders—for their wisdom, for their hearts and for them to be led by Him.

6. Don’t be paranoid

The country is not going to be destroyed if your candidate loses. As 2 Timothy 1:7 says, “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.” Stand up and demonstrate what God has given you. America has functioned—albeit, at varying levels of success—for years under the direction of alternating Democrat and Republican control, and at every flip, the other side thought it was the end of the world. It’s not. And if we’re a Church that believes God is in control, we have to believe that He is the one in control of the end times—not whoever’s in office now, and not whoever succeeds them.

7. Stop saying, “This is the most important election in the history of our nation”

It’s not. The most important election in the history of our nation was when Abraham Lincoln was elected president. Before that, we thought it was OK to own people. Every generation thinks it’s living in the most important moment in history. We’re not, our parents were not and our children probably won’t be. And that’s OK.

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated from an original version posted in September 2020.

Limiting access to the pill was a priority for pro-life advocates, considering the number of abortions has actually increased since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022. That increase is largely due to the availability of mifepristone, even in states that have largely banned other abortion options.

The court voted 9-0 that the group of doctors who challenged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s decision to make the pill more easily accessible did not have the proper legal standing to sue.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that while the doctors have “sincere legal, moral, ideological and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone,” that doesn’t mean they have a federal case. Instead, the court wrote that the plaintiffs should use other channels to challenge the FDA’s decision.

“The plaintiffs may present their concerns and objections to the president and FDA in the regulatory process or to Congress and the president in the legislative process,” Kavanaugh wrote. “And they may also express their views about abortion and mifepristone to fellow citizens, including in the political and electoral processes.”

The case was brought forth by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a conservative group of doctors and medical professionals. Over the last several years, the FDA has allowed mifepristone to be prescribed online, mailed to patients and dispensed at physical pharmacies. Mifepristone is used as part of a two-drug FDA-approved regimen that is now the most common form of abortion in the United States. The use of abortion pills has increased by 60% since 2022 as the FDA’s policy has helped it become easily accessible and cheaper than surgical abortions.

Access to abortion pills is believed to be the primary factor in the continued rise of abortions. Reports found that an estimated 1,026,690 abortions were performed in 2023 — a 10% increase from 2020, the last year for which comprehensive estimates are available.

Katie Daniel, the state policy director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said, “It is a sad day for all who value women’s health and unborn children’s lives, but the fight to stop dangerous mail-order abortion drugs is not over.”

One thing that hasn’t changed much, however, is how Christians engage with politics. And while there’s not precisely a one-size-fits-all method when it comes to politics, there is a way that Christians are called to speak about our country’s leaders.

Michael Wear addresses this often tense relationship between faith and politics in his latest book, The Spirit of Our Politics. Wear is a member of the executive leadership team for the AND Campaign and the founder of Public Square Strategies. Before becoming a leader in the non-profit world, Wear spent four years working with former President Barack Obama managing The White House’s engagement on religious and values issues. In short, he’s had plenty of experience watching the relationship between faith and politics.

In The Spirit of Our Politics, you write about how American politics is “sick” right now. What is the root of the sickness?

There are many ways to talk about the sickness of our politics, and I address it in several ways in the book. One of the central threads is the framework of political sectarianism, a way of thinking about the kind of polarization we have.

This concept was advanced by social scientists in 2020. They described it as a toxic cocktail of three primary ingredients. First, a tendency of aversion, which is a tendency to dislike or distrust people who have different political views or belong to a different political party. Second, a tendency of othering. Finally, a tendency of moralization or misplaced moralization, elevating political disagreement to the level of sin or iniquity, a pure contestation of good and evil. This toxic cocktail is having disastrous consequences for the way our politics functions, including governance and the ability to get things done, as well as significant spillover effects at the personal, social and community levels. Our families and churches are strained by this toxic polarization, this political sectarianism.

At the core of my book is the argument that the kind of people we are has much to do with the kind of politics we have. We can think about political sectarianism in terms of the structures that facilitate or exacerbate this tendency of aversion, othering and moralization. It is also vital for individuals to consider their role in this. What are the ways in which you are incentivizing or playing into these tendencies of aversion, othering and misplaced moralization?

How, if at all, should we let our identity inform our politics?

There have been some predominant ways we’ve thought about politics. One is to place politics above the gospel and faithfulness. Another is to view politics as outside of and irrelevant to the gospel and questions of faithfulness. What I address in this book is the need to place politics under and within the gospel.

We should approach politics as essential, not ultimate, not the only, but an essential form in which we can love our neighbors. We should view politics as a form in which we live out our faith and learn from Jesus how to live our lives as he would live them if he were us. That is a different paradigm for thinking about politics than others that seem prevalent these days.

What does a genuine Christian approach to politics look like?

I think we need to move away from the idea that having a Christian approach to politics means having the “right answers” to a limited set of policy or political questions. These ideas are deeply related to the broader Christian life, which is about more than just having the right answers to a few doctrinal points.

In my book, I discuss what Dallas Willard referred to as “Gospels of Sin Management,” which I call the “Fixer Gospel” and the “Toolbox Gospel.” These concepts are tied to our approach to politics. Instead, Christians should recognize several things about politics: it is penultimate, not ultimate; political opinions aren’t tantamount to Christian dogma; and politics is an area of prudence.

When we engage in politics, we are translators, not stenographers. We seek to translate ultimate values into the prudential area of politics, not to enact God’s will through our political pronouncements in an unimpeachable way. Politics is contingent on time, place, and context; policies that might be good in one context may not be in another.

Christian resources can offer valuable perspectives on issues like immigration, poverty, and the dignity of life. We should bring these contributions with humility and discernment. However, I believe that the greatest contribution Christians can make to politics now is not dictating what politics should be, but reminding politics of what it is not and the space it should not occupy. Christians have tremendous resources to aid in this effort.

One of the things you write about is a call for a “gentler approach” to how we talk about American politics. What does that look like practically? And can we actually achieve it in today’s political climate?

I think that thinking about gentleness in politics requires specific thought. There isn’t just a general answer. We must consider what it looks like for gentleness to be viable in political life.

We’ve operated for so long as if politics is an area of life cordoned off from God, where the way of Jesus either doesn’t hold up or isn’t realistic. One question I have is: Don’t think about this theoretically. Think about your life and the specific challenges to gentleness in political life. Particularize it to you because you can’t be faithful with Senator so-and-so’s life or the head of an advocacy organization. You can only be faithful with, as Willard would say, that which is within the effective range of your will. Politics can be contentious, and as we discussed, there is a logic of politics that is not gentle.

In the book, I argue that we can become the kind of people our politics needs. We can resist the impulses, promises, and temptations of politics that suggest that if we were just willing to cultivate anger in the right way, we could achieve something good. The other side is angry, but not for the right reasons. They keep winning, so what if we used anger on our side to move politics in a better direction? A Christian will say, “I’m not confident in our ability to cultivate anger, direct it, and do more good than harm.” I’m concerned about what it does to the soul to promote a politics of fear. I think there are better motivations in our political life, in my political life, and in what we’re promoting generally, so that the means match the ends.

When talking with people working in politics, there’s a specific kind of conversation. They have jobs and may be asked to do things they don’t personally agree with, or there may be a deep embeddedness in the practices. For those not working in politics, it’s important not to take on the burdens of being political strategists in an unhealthy way or carrying out our politicians’ fights for them. Political parties and campaigns are constructed to make the case for why they’re the best, often by making the case for why the other side is bad. But as citizens, we don’t have that burden. You don’t have an obligation to assume a political identity. We can be freed from that burden.

To a majority of Americans, it feels like we’re in a polarized system, but you are arguing we can live in the middle in a more balanced way. What are some guidelines we can have to keep ourselves in check and make sure we’re not feeding into the polarization?

In the new book, I offer a range of practical ways of thinking about your political involvement and how your life intersects with politics, along with some practices relevant to the particular challenges our politics presents right now.

Those practices range from thinking about tried-and-true practices like silence, solitude, prayer, worship, celebration, study, and confession as connected to our political life. They also include what I call 21st-century spiritual disciplines for public life. These are things like how we consume and approach the news, and how we can be agents of breaking groupthink, especially in our own groups, where political consensus among friends can sometimes be unhelpful. I suggest the discipline of affirming those you oppose politically in specific ways and critiquing those you generally support.

There’s a section in Bonhoeffer’s Life Together, an incredible passage where he says Christians never meet one-on-one. Jesus is always standing between them, mediating among them. He says that when we meet with another Christian, we’re never seeking to act directly on the person we’re meeting with. We’re looking to Jesus and seeing what Jesus is seeking to do in the life of the person we’re interacting with.

That has the potential to free us from the desire to coerce, manipulate, and instrumentalize people. I propose in the book that it would be incredibly life-giving for us to approach politics in the same way.

What encouragement do you have for young people who already feel politically burned out?

It’s important to keep in mind your motivations. Political engagement can be difficult, especially for younger people who have grown up in a digital environment and a culture of customer service and responsiveness. If I donated $50 to Charity Water right now, they’d send me a GPS feed where I could watch a live camera of a well that my money helped support. I could literally see people drinking water from the well my contribution made possible.

You will rarely know whether your actions, like showing up at a school board meeting, writing a letter, or having a conversation, made a difference. If you are engaging in politics for the desire of that kind of credit, you will burn out quickly. Before burning out, you may go through a period of seeking certainty about the value of your contribution.

Christians engage in politics because we care about people. God loves people, and we love people too. We know political decisions greatly impact our neighbors, particularly the most vulnerable and disinherited. Whether the political system gives us affirmation or not, we are seeking to steward the limited responsibility we have in a loving way toward our neighbors. As citizens, we do not choose to have political responsibility; we already have it. The only choice we have is what to do with it.

I want that to be encouraging. As my friend Tyler Wigg Stevenson wrote in his book about a decade ago, the world is not ours to save. Taking responsibility for political outcomes can lead to a soul-crushing place. Instead, try to be faithful with what you have. Keep the means in mind, not just the end, because for Christians, faithfulness is both the means and the end. Always keep learning and keep your political engagement practical.

Many young people feel burned out by politics, but they aren’t actually engaging in politics. They say they’re burned out from watching cable news, scrolling through their newsfeed, and arguing online. Getting in arguments online is rarely, if ever, politics.

A lot of people are burned out and apathetic toward our political culture without ever participating in our political system. One of the most encouraging and invigorating things you can do is to focus on a specific issue and a particular aspect of our political system you can personally engage in. By doing the work, the political culture will become less oppressive and wearing.

Student protests over the the Israel-Hamas War have intensified and expanded over the past week across several college campuses including Columbia University, Yale, New York University and the University of Texas at Austin, among others. Police have been called on to several campuses to arrest demonstrators and break up encampments.

It is the most serious threat yet to TikTok’s future in the U.S., but don’t expect to see any changes to the app just yet. Here’s what we know:

Is TikTok shutting down?

No. The law states that ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, must sell its stake in the app within 12 months otherwise it will be banned in the U.S. According to the bill, ByteDance has nine months to divest and find an American buyer for TikTok. After that, the president can push back the deadline by an additional 90 days.

In the meantime, users will likely not experience any changes on the app.

How long until the app would be banned?

While it’s unlikely, a potential ban would probably be several years from now. The earliest it would shut down is one year from now, assuming ByteDance doesn’t find an American buyer.

However, ByteDance previously said if the bill passed, it would block the implementation of the statute, which means any ban would be paused while under judicial review by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Once the court issues its ruling, whichever side loses is likely to request a review by the U.S. Supreme Court. That would lead to a further pause in the ban by another year, meaning nothing would likely go into effect until 2026. (And that’s only if ByteDance refuses to sell.)

Following Biden’s announcement, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chow posted a video response, calling it a “disappointing moment” and reiterating the company’s commitment to legally challenge the law.

“This unconstitutional law is a TikTok ban, and we will challenge it in court,” the company wrote in a Wednesday statement on X following Biden’s signing. “This ban would devastate seven million businesses and silence 170 million Americans.”

If ByteDance does sell, who is most likely to buy TikTok? 

The bill states that TikTok can continue to operate in the U.S. if ByteDance sells the app to a U.S.-approved company, which means there are a wide array of options. Major U.S. tech companies like Microsoft have been rumored to have interest, but the Biden administration has stated they have no interest in expanding the already massive power and influence of such companies.

This leaves room for outside groups to jump in. Former Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, for example, has sought to make a bid, and has already put together an investor group. The Wall Street Journal also reported that former Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick was looking for potential partners to pursue it.

It comes down to who will have the right price point. ByteDance is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, but TikTok would fetch less than that, experts say — especially if it is sold without its powerful recommendation algorithm. And that’s assuming ByteDance agrees to sell at all.

How did we get here in the first place? 

U.S. lawmakers have been concerned about TikTok for several years. In August 2020, President Trump signed an executive order that tried to ban the app after TikTok users used it to coordinate disruptions to his campaign rallies.

In the years since, Congress worried that TikTok could be pressured by the Chinese government to hand over personal information of its American users, potentially facilitating targeted misinformation campaigns or providing China with intelligence targets.

“How can we ban TikTok among ourselves and not ban it for our children? That is the moral question of today and of our time,” said Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul. “TikTok is a modern-day Trojan horse of the [Chinese Communist Party] used to surveil and exploit Americans’ personal information… In other words, it’s a spy balloon in your phone.”

The current law was passed so quickly because it was tucked into a larger spending bill providing emergency financial aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan. The Senate passed it on Tuesday evening, and Biden signed it into law on Wednesday morning.

Following in the footsteps of California’s “Skittles ban,” these laws have a serious goal: eliminating food additives linked to cancer, fertility issues and adverse effects on children’s behavior.

California’s ban, set to take effect in January 2027, targeted four additives—brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, and Red 3—due to their association with various health risks, including cancer and mood disorders. Building on this initiative, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Jersey and Missouri are now advancing similar measures.

(Pennsylvania’s proposal is taking a particularly broad approach, aiming to outlaw five common food colorings associated with hyperactivity in children.)

States are looking to the European Union’s standards for this bill. In many European countries, snacks such as Hot Cheetos, Lucky Charms and Gatorade are all available without the additives, proving that these dangerous chemicals are not necessary for the production of the products.

The move has garnered support from experts like Brian Ronholm, director of food safety at Consumer Reports, who emphasizes the urgency of removing these chemicals from our food supply.

“There is no consumer confusion on this issue — they want these chemicals out of foods,” Ronholm said. “But when [consumers] see that the FDA has not been able to keep up with the latest research… they recognize that the states are the only ones trying to protect them from toxic food chemicals right now.”

However, opposition from industry representatives, like Chris Gindlesperger of the National Confectioners Association, suggests there are ongoing debates over the scientific evidence supporting these bans.

“This [research] has blatant shortcomings,” he said. “Other bodies have consistently countered that study and concluded there is no causal relationship between food color additives and behavior in children.”

Despite this, campaigners remain optimistic, pointing to bipartisan efforts and the precedent set by European countries, where similar bans have been successfully implemented.

It was delivered to our house in December, and made its rounds from the front door, to the kitchen table, to the kitchen cupboard before my wife finally stated, “throw it out, I’m sick of looking at it.”

I threw most of it out. 

The front cover I laid aside, then carefully cut out the picture on the front page. A woman stands in the middle of the picture, her upper body and face obscured by the sign she is holding. On the sign are two simple words: “Not Welcome.”

The city where I live has a problem. It has a significant population of unhoused individuals, and (currently) inadequate resources to shelter them. This past fall, tents and makeshift tarps lined the city sidewalks in a central downtown location close to various shelters and services. The tent-city eventually took up an entire block. And then in late November, the city unexpectedly and suddenly moved this population and their belongings to less central, residential areas. Areas much closer to people’s homes.

I kept the picture on the front page because it disturbed me. Temperatures had dropped significantly that week, and snow had begun to cover the ground.  On the edges of the picture I can see the sign holder’s, embroidered scarf and fur-lined mittens. In contrast to their seemingly put-together appearance, the signboard appears hastily written, blotches of paint visible within the letters. Their face was obscured, their identity and disdain protected. They could have been anyone. For a while, they seemed to be everyone. 

That story captured a moment of collective anger, fear and judgement. For days people called in to the local radio or wrote into the paper expressing their frustration over scores of unhoused individuals being unceremoniously moved near their homes and parks. 

At that time, a prominent pastor in our city was highlighted by a national news program for an editorial he had written regarding the homeless population in our city. I was hopeful that this pastor was going to comment on our common humanity, our need for empathy, and our need to stop “othering” this unhoused population. 

But this was not what was written.

Initially, I was encouraged. The editorial began with the pastor challenging each person to walk down the affected street in our city, to see the faces of those most affected. The people hunkering down under makeshift tarps, those who worked at the nearby shelter, the business owners attempting to make a living. He reflected on his own religious instruction to have compassion and care for the poor. He lamented the tragic history that many of these individuals have had that has led to their current living situation. 

And then as expected, he likened the plight of our city’s unhoused to a story in the Gospel of John. In John’s account, Jesus comes upon an encampment of people near a pool. The pool is thought to be a place of healing for those who can reach the pool while water is stirring (supposedly by a divine being). Many sick, blind, paralyzed and emaciated lived nearby. It is here that Jesus comes across a man who has had an infirmity to his legs for 38 years, and asks him if he would like to be well.

That question, “Would you like to be well?” is an interesting one, and one the aforementioned pastor focuses on. He reckons that perhaps the man did not want to be healed. That he preferred begging, that perhaps he would have to take responsibility for his life if he was healed. And then he related the story to the unhoused. Maybe some of them don’t want to be housed. Maybe some of them don’t want to “be clean and sober and work and pay [their] own way.”

Ah. There it is. So that’s the pastor’s true message. That there are deserving and undeserving. Sick or poor, 2,000 years ago or today, some people deserve our help and compassion, others do not. This pastor ends his editorial with the opinion that if an unhoused individual does not wish to become a productive member of society, that we should make our city “a very unwelcome place for them”.

There it is again. “Not Welcome.”

I cannot tell you how deflated I felt after hearing these words. I was expecting the Gospel, good news for the unhoused. I was expecting a story of compassion to yield more compassion, not justified condemnation. 

And yet, I understand the frustration that leads one to look for answers, especially from the Bible. Frustration is understandable because the problem of homelessness is not simple, and has not been easily addressed in any city I am aware of. This pastor is frustrated with “handouts,” nonprofit and municipal resources spent because they don’t “fix” the problem of homelessness in our city. 

What if it’s not about fixing? What if it’s about compassion?

I work as a nurse, and I regularly witness firsthand how important and commonly overlooked compassion is. Where we can, practitioners endeavor to heal to the best of our ability. But there are many things we cannot heal. Certain diseases, chronic conditions, even the human condition of aging and own slow decay are inescapable, unfixable. 

In these cases, compassion and care becomes infinitely more important than outcomes. In fact, compassion becomes the outcome. Reducing suffering matters, even and especially when all seems hopeless. Imagine if I refused to treat the next patient with a chronic disease, on the basis that they would never “get better”.

I make this connection with our city’s unhoused and their treatment because I think this pastor, this unknown sign holder, and many of us need to rethink what a homeless plan should look like. What our compassion and care looks like, regardless of desired outcomes. I believe this pastor wants to help, wants to heal. He looks at the homeless encampment and sees a disaster, a crisis. He’s not uncaring, he’s motivated. He’s a fixer. It’s a good impulse.

But what if we can’t fix the problem? Or what if it takes a really long time? What if, as the experts imply, this is a result of lost social and institutional structures, multi-generational trauma, systemic racism, a society-wide dependence on numbing through substances? What if this isn’t an “everybody work harder!” problem? What if those with past trauma are unable to trust institutional structures? What if someone who was part of a residential school can’t bring themselves to spend one night in a shelter with the name “Mission” on it. Or in the basement of a church? What if someone with longstanding substance use can’t simply sober up by sheer willpower alone in order to jump through the hoops of “dry housing?” What if someone can’t focus on job training before they find a reliable place to sleep that night? What then? 

What do we do when we can’t win, can’t fix?

Our compassion matters. It matters to the people around us, and it matters within us. The moment I saw the front page, and that “Not Welcome” sign, I thought of Jesus’ warning that it is possible to gain the world, and forfeit your soul. Forfeit what best and truest within you. I grieved for a soul so willing to display it’s fear and hatred, and filled with enough shame to hide its face. I think about the soul of someone who thinks that the way of Jesus includes making a city unwelcome. Who reads a story of compassion and healing and justifies that some are undeserving of help or healing. The soul of someone who sees the coming snow, and doesn’t think of those sleeping in tents as deserving of warmth. That soul is cold.

And that soul is my soul, too, of course. Who hasn’t turned away from a stranger asking for help, hiding behind judgments of deserving or undeserving? Who hasn’t hoped that the next shelter would be miles away from their house, their work, or their children’s school? It’s easy to focus on an outspoken community pastor, or an anonymous sign holder, but each time I choose judgement or dismissal over compassion, my soul is wounded too.

I wonder if our purest love is shown best in the darkest places. When a perfect outcome seems impossible, when we barely move the needle. When nothing is winnable or fixable, we have only our compassion, our desire to reduce the hurt. We touch the wound, and we are the ones who are healed. 

There is a place for a call to action. A call for businesses, communities, and organizations to partner. A call for personal responsibility, for those housed and unhoused. A place for compassionate municipal strategies. Power structures can change. Systems can ensure less people fall through the cracks. Outdated ideologies can be replaced. But our compassion is nonnegotiable. 

I know people who are sure they will see an end to homelessness. Their focus is unwavering, until they make it reality. But whether they are right or wrong, one thing I am sure of is this: they will work to that end with dedication and compassion until their dying day. With their every action, in a thousand different words, they will tell the soul in front of them: “You are welcome here.”

And they will see none of it as wasted.

“Many people have asked me what my position is on abortion and abortion rights,” Trump said in a video posted on his Truth Social site. “My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both. And whatever they decide must be the law of the land — in this case, the law of the state.”

“Many states will be different,” Trump continued. “Many will have a different number of weeks or some will have more conservative than others and that’s what they will be. At the end of the day, it’s all about will of the people.”

Mike Pence, Trump’s former vice president and a staunch pro-life supporter, called Trump’s stance “a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans” who have previously supported him.

President Trump’s retreat on the Right to Life is a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him in 2016 and 2020. By nominating and standing by the confirmation of conservative justices, the Trump-Pence Administration helped send Roe v. Wade to the…

— Mike Pence (@Mike_Pence) April 8, 2024

In the video, Trump reiterated he personally opposes abortion with three exeptions — in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk. He then described the current legal landscape, discussing how different states have varying restrictions post-Roe. 

Many states have, in fact, had widely varying responses to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. At the time of this writing, 21 states have enacted near or total abortion bans. Arizona is the latest state to enact a law that bans abortions of all kinds, with the only exception being if the mother’s life is in danger. On the flip side, states like California, Minnesota and Kansas have enacted laws that expand abortion access. 

Noticeably, in the video Trump did not endorse a national limit on abortion, an idea his campaign floated earlier this year and many conservatives support. However, some Republican leaders warned Trump that abortion rights would be at the forefront of the 2024 election, which could impact their chances of taking back the White House and the Senate majority. It appears that Trump took their warnings seriously by not choosing to endorse a national ban. 

The former president has long argued that the Supreme Court’s decision gave pro-life advocates “tremendous power to negotiate” policies that he hoped would “make both sides happy” and bring the country together. However, abortion remains one of the most polarizing issues in American politics, and pro-life advocates were hoping for more help from Trump. 

Marjorie Dannenfelser — president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, one of the largest pro-life groups in the nation — said she was disappointed to hear that Trump was no longer pushing for a national limit on abortion. 

“We are deeply disappointed in President Trump’s position,” said Dannenfelser. “Saying the issue is ‘back to the states’ cedes the national debate to the Democrats who are working relentlessly to enact legislation mandating abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy.”

The incident, which took place on January 20, 2023, following the March for Life rally in Washington D.C., involved a dozen students from Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic School in Greenville, South Carolina, and their chaperones. The students were touring the museum while wearing beanies with “Rosary PRO-LIFE” written on them. However, National Archives guards told the students they needed to either cover or remove their beanies or leave the museum.

According to the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented the students in the lawsuit, museum staff not only made fun of the students and “yelled expletives” at them, but also kicked them out “with glee,” while others wearing hats with all sorts of messages weren’t bothered at all.

“It’s absolutely outrageous, it’s unconstitutional discrimination, and the ACLJ is fighting back,” said Jordan Sekulow, an attorney and executive director of the ACLJ. “This was a clear-cut First Amendment violation, not only of their freedom of speech but of religion as well. The federal government simply cannot ban speech with which it or its employees disagree.”

In response to the lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs, the Smithsonian Institution, which oversees the National Air and Space Museum, entered into a consent decree, acknowledging the mishandling of the situation. The agreement stipulates that the museum must reaffirm its policy allowing visitors to wear clothing with messages, including religious and political speech. Additionally, the Smithsonian not only agreed to pay $50,000 to the plaintiffs but also offered them a private tour of the National Air and Space Museum along with a video apology from museum officials.

This settlement comes on the heels of a similar agreement reached by the ACLJ in December with the National Archives and Records Administration over a comparable incident involving visitors wearing pro-life attire.

The Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research group, says an estimated 1,026,690 abortions were performed in 2023. That’s a 10% increase from 2020, the last year for which comprehensive estimates are available.

Experts predicted the number of abortions would decline following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022, but the new report shows that the number is rising. With abortion now restricted or banned in 21 states, how is that possible?

160,000 people crossed state lines last year to obtain an abortion in a state with no restrictions. And the populations in those states also got abortions at a higher rate than previously. But the majority of abortions came through prescribed medication — commonly mifepristone and misoprostol — which can be easily obtained online. The use of abortion pills increased by 60% since 2022, and has become the most common way for women to terminate their pregnancies as it has become easily accessible and cheaper than surgical abortions, even in states with abortion bans.

However, that could change very soon.

This Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear a case brought by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine challenging laws that have expanded access to mifepristone. Those policies, issued in recent years by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have allowed the pills to be prescribed online, mailed to patients and dispensed at physical pharmacies. The case could restrict access to the abortion pill around the country, including to women living in states even without abortion bans.

The number of abortions in the United States peaked in 1990 at 1.6 million and over the following 30 years, the number declined, falling to 885,000 in 2017. In 2019 and 2020, however, that trend began to reverse, with the number of abortions rising to 930,160 in 2020, and now, 1,026,690 in 2023. The last time there were nearly that many abortions was back in 2011, which saw an estimated 1,058,490 abortions.

The move comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton targeting the site’s age-verification practices. Visitors attempting to access the adult content site are met with a statement from Aylo Global Entertainment (formally MindGeek), the site’s owners, explaining the reasoning for the block.

The legal dispute stems from a recent ruling by Texas officials to enforce a new law mandating age-verification systems on pornographic websites. This law faced opposition from Pornhub and other adult entertainment sites, who argued it was unconstitutional. Pornhub still moved forward with a basic age-verification system, but the Texas Attorney General’s office doesn’t think it’s system was doing enough.

Although — everybody breathe — that’s very, very unlikely to happen.

Congress has been floating the idea of banning or at the very least heavily restricting TikTok for years over concerns of privacy and security data. The core concern is that ByteDance, TikTok’s owner, is a Chinese corporation that could potentially be manipulated by the Chinese government to share user information.

The proposed law received a 50-0 approval vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee on March 7, just two days after the bill was introduced. That’s a quick turnaround for a new bill, but that’s likely because U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials gave a classified briefing to lawmakers urging them to fast-track the measure.

The bill would require ByteDance to sell its U.S. subsidiary within six months of the law taking effect. Additionally, it grants the president power to prohibit foreign adversary-owned social media platforms from accessing U.S. users unless they break off from their overseas owners. These restrictions would apply to apps with over 1 million yearly users. For reference, TikTok has roughly 170 million American users.

The legislation is not intended to create a total ban on TikTok, as supporters have clarified. The goal would be a forced divestiture by ByteDance due to concerns that Chinese government officials have access to Americans’ data and could use that information to persuade public opinion. Several U.S. corporations have been rumored to be potential buyers, primarily Microsoft.

However, TikTok has repeatedly denied the claims of user data being shared with the Chinese government. Last year, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testified before Congress in a meme-able hearing defending his company’s policies.

Despite TikTok’s protests, House lawmakers could vote on the bill as early as today, and experts expect it to pass with at least a two-thirds majority. The bill would then move on to the Senate, where it’s already gained support.

“I’m very concerned about foreign adversaries’ exploitation of Americans’ sensitive data and their attempts to build backdoors in our information communication technology and services supply chains,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell, chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. “These are national security threats and it is good [that] members in both chambers are taking them seriously. I will be talking to my Senate and House colleagues to try to find a path forward that is constitutional and protects civil liberties.”

The DOJ has determined that no SBC leaders will be charged with criminal offenses. The decision has been met with surprise by many and disappointment from abuse survivors and their allies who were hopeful that the DOJ would be able to hold leaders from the nation’s largest Christian denomination accountable.

“On February 29, 2024, counsel for the SBC Executive Committee was informed that the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York concluded its investigation into the EC (executive committee) with no further action to be taken,” said SBC Executive Committee interim president/CEO Jonathan Howe. “While we are grateful for closure on this particular matter, we recognize that sexual abuse reform efforts must continue to be implemented across the Convention. We remain steadfast in our commitment to assist churches in preventing and responding well to sexual abuse in the SBC.”

Tebow was part of a panel at the “Voice for the Voiceless” hearing on Wednesday morning on Capitol Hill. The former football star opened up his statement by explaining the work the Tim Tebow Foundation does with children in need around the world.

“[The Tim Tebow Foundation] exists to bring faith, hope and love to those needing a brighter day in their darkest hour of need,” Tebow said. “To sum it up, we strive to fight for people who can’t fight for themselves.”

He then called on lawmakers to pass a bill that would create a “rescue team” to protect thousands of children who are victims of sexual abuse around the world. Tebow said that this team needed to not only have adequate manpower but also the necessary funding, resources and technology to rescue and protect vulnerable children.

“I’ve had the privilege to play for a lot of sports in my life, and almost all of them we’ve had incredible resources to give us a better chance at winning a game. Something that ultimately — as much as we care about it — doesn’t matter,” he said. “Why would we not give as much, if not more, resources to the frontline heroes that are going after the most vulnerable boys and girls on the planet?”

Tebow later shared his full speech on X saying that he was grateful for the opportunity to speak and advocate for children facing injustice around the world.

Viewer Discretion Advised: “Voice for the Voiceless” House Judiciary Committee Hearing Testimony on behalf of child sexual abuse victims

Last night, I got a message from a girl who has been rescued and she said, “thank you so much for speaking up for us”…and it was… pic.twitter.com/HabteqT1tQ

— Tim Tebow (@TimTebow) March 6, 2024

 “Identifying and rescuing these children is so much more than policy,” Tebow wrote in another post on X. “Policy is important, but our focus has to stay on people. They deserve our best because God set the example and gave His very best, His son Jesus. ”

Reiner came on as a producer after director Dan Partland completed the film, offering assistance to distribute it to a wider audience. Reiner explained that he wanted to be part of the documentary because of his personal interest in the subject matter.

“First of all, Jesus was a Jewish person. And when I went through the roughest time of my life, the dark time of the soul, what I came away with was the core idea of what Jesus taught — which is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That stuck with me. And when I look at the Christian nationalist movement, it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with that,” Reiner told Young.

In the film, Partland interviews conservative Christian leaders like Christianity Today editor-in-chief Russell Moore and VeggieTales creator Phil Vischer about what Christian nationalism is (and what it isn’t) and how it’s been able to rise over the last several decades. Reiner summarizes the history of Christian nationalism by clarifying it began with race:

“The problem [Christian nationalists] had was initially they tried to do it using race. They’d say, ‘You shouldn’t have black people and white people going to the same school.’ Well, that’s kind of ugly. It’s hard to create a movement based on racism. So they had a big problem there. And it wasn’t until Roe v. Wade came along that they said, ‘Ah, we can latch onto this and make this a fundraising opportunity.’ But when you look at the Christian nationalist movement, it’s virtually all white people, and so the racist element cannot be overlooked.”

Reiner also says that Christian nationalist leaders have continued to grow the movement today by “co-opting Jesus.”

“You can justify anything if you say you’re doing it in the name of Jesus and the name of God. But as Russell Moore points out [in the film], that’s not what Jesus taught. He didn’t talk about using violence to get what you want. I mean, it’s all about persuading through teaching and through the Gospel, not through violence. It’s unfortunate, but this movement has co-opted Jesus and used it as a weapon, physically using it as a weapon,” Reiner said.

Reiner hopes the documentary shows that Christian nationalism is damaging our society in more ways than one. He just hopes they listen to what Christian leaders have to say.

“Not only is this movement is a danger to democracy, but it’s a danger to Christianity itself. We try to lay that out and show what ultimately could happen.

“I mean, that’s why we have the people in the film that we do,” he continued. “It’s not me saying these things. These are respected Christian leaders saying these things. They’re not going to listen to me. They think I’m a ‘Hollywood libtard’ or something. But that’s why we have people who they can respect saying those things. This is something they believe.”

You can also listen to the full conversation with Reiner on NPR here.

Rideshare Drivers United (RDU), a driver-led organization based in Los Angeles with over 5,000 members, will turn off apps like Uber, Lyft and DoorDash on Wednesday, Feb. 14. RDU says drivers “won’t stop fighting until we’ve won the fair pay and dignity we all deserve.”

And they’re not the only rideshare workers going on strike. Thousands of Uber and Lyft drivers have shared they will refuse rides to and from airports between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. in 10 U.S. cities on Wednesday, Feb. 14 while on strike.

“Uber, Lyft, and delivery drivers are TIRED of being mistreated by the app companies,” wrote Justice for App Workers, which represents about 130,000 drivers and delivery workers, in a blog post. “Across the country, in Austin, Chicago, Hartford, Miami, Newark, Orlando, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Rhode Island and Tampa, we’re not taking rides to or from any airport on February 14.”

Rideshare workers are the latest employees to strike for better wages. Last year, workers across a variety of industries — from autoworkers to Hollywood writers and actors — went on strike to demand fairer pay and safety protections. As the cost of living rises across the board, it’s become increasingly clear that employees want companies and organizations to know they aren’t comfortable being mistreated and cheated out of their hard-earned wages.

For years, rideshare drivers, who are considered independent contractors, have accused the companies of taking disproportionately high amounts as commissions. The cost of an Uber or Lyft ride skyrocketed throughout the pandemic, but workers did not receive a proportional share of the spoils. A report from the UCLA Labor Center found that Uber and Lyft took an even larger share of drivers’ profits as fares increased over the last several years. Between February 2019 and April 2022, the average driver pay increased by 31%, even though the passenger fare increased by 50%.

Reports also found that rideshare workers experienced an 8% decline in gross earnings per hour last year.

“A year into algorithmic pricing, drivers have seen an incredible decrease of our pay… whatever calculations and algorithms they’re using, it’s absolutely useless,” said Nicole Moore, president of the RDU union.

In addition to the 12 foster homes, the facility will also have two studio apartments to help kids transition into independent living and a 7,000 square foot community center.

“Imagine the absolute pain and the trauma of losing your parents or being torn from your parents, and then losing your brothers and sisters on top of that. That’s no way to treat kids. And so, we will be the hub for that. I hope that this village will be the first of many, and I hope that people, Californians and Angelenos, know to come join us in opening our eyes to what’s happening right under our noses. These are our children, and we must help our children,” Bale said.

Bale has been involved in a variety of nonprofits that advocate for better care for foster children since the birth of his daughter, Emmeline, in 2005.

“I found myself trying to imagine what it would be like if we weren’t around. At the same time, I was doing all-night searches for what was going on in LA proper and where we could help,” he said.

“I was stunned and mad to learn that we have more foster kids here than anywhere else in the country. I was also kicking myself for not knowing that before so I thought, ‘Well, this is it. Let’s focus on this.’ My wife and I decided that we were going to do everything we could in our power to change that,” he continued.

The village, located 60 miles north of Los Angeles, will be the first of its kind in the state. Currently, there are 60,000 foster care children living in California.

Bale’s nonprofit organization Together California is overseeing the development, which has an estimated cost of $22 million and will be completed in 2025.

Lamont announced on Friday that Connecticut would be the first state to take action and alleviate the financial stress many residents face when it comes to medical bills.

To understand how this would work, we need to understand a little bit about how medical debt works in America: Around 50 percent of Americans have at least some medical debt, according to the most recent figures. About half of that is owned by collection agencies, who buy up medical debt for pennies on the dollar and then turn collecting it for a profit.

Connecticut’s plans would leverage $6.5 million from the American Rescue Plan Act funds the state has received to wipe out the medical debt held by an estimated 250,000 residents, impacting roughly 7% of the state.

“This is not something they did where they were spending too much money,” Lamont told Good Morning America. “This is because they got hit with a medical emergency, and they should not have to suffer twice: first for the illness, then with the debt.”

To qualify, the household’s medical debt must equal 5% or more of their annual income, or if their annual income is under 400% of the federal poverty line. On average, that’s about $125,000 a year for a family of four.

Nationally, roughly 50% of Americans households have medical debt, owing at least $1,000. In Connecticut, roughly 0ne in 10 residents has medical debt. Lamont said the debt reduction plan would help release the financial burden for struggling families.

“I think it’s really important that people have a sense that they can start building wealth of their own,” he said. “We’re making that easier for people to do — and the best way to start is eliminate the debt you’ve got.”

Major cities like Philadelphia and New York have also announced plans to eliminate medical debt, but those plans are still in process. One group who has been able to cancel a lot of medical debt already? Churches. Around the country, churches haves gathered resources to pay off the medical debt of millions.

Take St. Bede’s Episcopal Church in Santa Fe, New Mexico, led by Reverend M. Catherine Volland, for example. St. Bede’s collected $15,000 to send to RIP Medical Debt, an organization dedicated to eliminate medical debt for all Americans, which amounted to $1.5 million in medical debt — erasing all the available medical debt not just in Santa Fe, but in the entire state of New Mexico and even some parts of Arizona.

“I see Jesus getting pretty nitty gritty with people. Including their material needs. I’m sure he knew he wasn’t changing the fundamental system of poverty and corrupt taxation and all that he encountered. He didn’t wipe out all prejudice. But he confronted it where he saw it, when he saw it and used the opportunities he was given to respond to that. I think we have an obligation to do the same thing,” Volland said.

Five major tech company executives were grilled at the hearing: Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Snap CEO Evan Spiegel, X (formerly Twitter) CEO Linda Yaccarino, TikTok CEO Shou Chew and Discord CEO Jason Citron. Lawmakers accused each executive of facilitating child sexual abuse online, suggesting the companies are partly to blame for the deaths of children who have suffered from bullying and predatory users.

One out of every two U.S. adults are “cost-burdened” each month over paying pay rent, according to a new report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. As rents spiked during the pandemic, 50% of U.S. renters began paying nearly a third of their income on rent and utilities alone. And nearly half of those people had to spend more than 50% of their income.

Since 2001, the average cost of rent has risen by 21% (now $1,372), while the median annual income for renters has risen only 2%.

While some might hear that and argue that people should simply live in a more cost-friendly place, that isn’t always an option.

“So you might not be living in as good of a neighborhood,” said Whitney Airgood-Obrycki, a senior research associate with the center and the report’s lead author. “You might be commuting farther. You might be sacrificing the quality of your school system. And often what we’re seeing is that even when people are attempting to make these trade-offs, they still end up paying too much for housing.”

The affordability epidemic is also leading to widespread physical and mental health problems. According to the study, severely cost-burdened renter s spent 39% less on food and 42% less on healthcare than their unburdened counterparts.

It’s no coincidence this report comes as the U.S. hit a record-high homelessness rate last year. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development reported that the homelessness crisis had reached a level not seen since the 2008 financial crisis.

“Unfortunately, the [report] confirms what we have been saying for years: that the rent is too high for a growing number of Americans and that far too many people are just one missed paycheck or health crisis away from becoming homeless,” wrote the National Homelessness Law Center. “As poverty increases, COVID-era funding and eviction protections sunset, and wages are still too low, it makes sense that homelessness has gone up. Housing is simply out of reach for far too many of us.”

Still, the last decade or so has left him profoundly disappointed in Christian leadership. He has seen churches torn apart over political disagreement. Christian friends have turned from a lifetime of pursuing faithfulness to choosing political expediency, and pastors have used their influence to excuse the inexcusable. All of this has left him somewhat disenchanted.

He shared with me in an email, “A friend of mine, a person of the Christian faith, recently wrote to me, saying this: ‘Christianity is supposed to work—as in produce more transformed Christlike people. Why doesn’t it in case after case?’ People of faith need to grapple openly and honestly with this question. Potemkin village Christianity serves no one.”

My friend continued, “I’m certainly not arguing, then, that faith isn’t making a profound difference in the lives of Christians. But I do think we need to honestly grapple with the gap between what followers of Jesus profess and how we live—a gap that will always exist, but that is right now, at least in America, significantly larger than it should be. What should be a crevice is, in far too many cases, a canyon.”

What we must consider—what Dallas Willard asked us to consider decades ago—is that the failures of Christians are not in spite of the gospel that is being preached but because of it. Such futility is the natural result of gospels of sin management, which are invitations to take the right positions but are not themselves invitations to transformation into the likeness of Christ through interactive relationship with Christ himself. The kind of person you are is, at best, a secondary issue for these gospels.

Willard referred to this as the “Great Omission.” This “gap between what followers of Jesus profess and how we live” (as my friend put it in his email message)—what Willard called the “Great Disparity”—is rooted in the Great Omission. Though it is not what Jesus taught, “the governing assumption today, among professing Christians, is that we can be ‘Christians’ forever and never become disciples.”

To extend Willard’s argument, the failures of Christians’ political witness are not coincidental to what Christians have heard about Christianity and taken it to be; instead, they flow directly from the plain implications of what they have heard.

We will understand popular expressions of Christianity in politics and public life much better if we understand the gospel that is popular among many Christians. If salvation results from one’s mental assent to several lines of doctrine—including, and primarily, that Jesus is the Divine Fixer, the Eschatological Widget—then it should surprise no one that to have a “Christian politics,” in some quarters, essentially amounts to mental assent to a few axiomatic political positions.

I have lived and worked at this intersection of faith and politics my entire adult life. It took me so long to connect these dots. What is the popular conception of what it means to be a Christian? A Christian is someone who goes to church, who provides mental assent to a few key lines of doctrine. What does it mean to have a Christian politics?

For many Christians, and for much of the public, it has meant holding a particular position on one or two key issues. That’s it. You can advance those positions in the most destructive way possible, through the most deceitful means imaginable, but that would be irrelevant to any decision regarding whether that form of politics was meaningfully Christian. It’s the view of the gospel that allows for and is reflected by the politics.

If you have a theology that suggests you can be the worst kind of person and make it to heaven as long as you have a moment of mental assent to certain statements, then you can have an approach to politics that is full of anger, fear, and hatred as long as you hold the right positions on a handful of issues. You can go about your politics by deceit, manipulation, and dehumanization and call it Christian, as long as you’re willing to say yes when you’re expected to say yes, and no when you’re expected to say no. The “gospel” and the politics are not disconnected. These things are related. They go together.

Of course, the gospels of sin management are not the gospel, any more than a politics of self-interest and antagonism is a Christian politics.

The right and the left both try to reduce Christianity to an affirmation of their politics. This is not new. People have sought to use Jesus as a vehicle for their politics for a long time; we see it in the Gospels, and we see it today. And yet two thousand years after Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected, his life still saturates our time. The just critiques of Christians are answered entirely by the life and witness of Christ himself.

Jesus is not a fixer; he is Lord. He’s not a crisis manager; he is the way and the truth and the life (John 14:6). Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne, and he is King (Psalm 89:14).

Taken from The Spirit of Our Politics: Spiritual Formation and the Renovation of Public Life by Michael Wear. Copyright © January 2024 by Zondervan. Used by permission of Zondervan, www.zondervan.com

“I was a part of the problem,” DeFord said in his opening remarks. “I am here now, standing as a man that wants to be a part of the solution.”

DeFord testified in front of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs as Sen. Tim Scott continued to push for the passage of his bill, the Fentanyl Eradication and Narcotics Deterrence (FEND) Off Fentanyl Act.

“I brought my community down,” DeFrord said. “I hurt people. I was the uneducated man in the kitchen playing chemist with drugs I knew absolutely nothing about, just like these drug dealers are doing right now when they’re mixing every drug on the market with fentanyl and they’re killing the people we love.

“I’ve attended more funerals than I care to share with y’all,” he continued. “I could sit here and cry for days about the caskets I’ve carried of people I love dearly, deeply in my soul. Good people, not just drug addicts. Uncles, friends, cousins, normal people.”

This isn’t the first time the rapper-turned-country singer has opened up about his drug history. In the Hulu documentary Save Me, DeFord spoke openly about his struggle with addiction and experience dealing drugs. He also shared that he had lost his right to vote and had difficulty buying a house due to his criminal record.

In addition to DeFord, the president of the Fraternal Order of Police, Patrick Yoes, and former DEA agent Christopher J. Urben also testified in front of the committee.

The FEND Off Fentanyl Act was unanimously passed by the Senate Banking Committee last June but was blocked from being included in the National Defense Authorization Act, along with other financial legislation, by last December in an effort to include Rep. Patrick McHenry’s cryptocurrency legislation, which also did not make it into the final version of the act.

DeFord, who is now sober, is an outspoken advocate for drug rehabilitation centers and supports them by performing charity shows and local jails and rehab facilities while on tour.

But, as he closed in his testimony, addiction still impacts his life today. He shared that his teenage daughter’s mother still struggles with drug addiction.

“Every single day, I have to wonder if me and my wife, if today will be the day that I have to tell my daughter that her mother became a part of the national statistic,” he said.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 110,000 people died from a drug overdose in 2022  The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that six out of 10 fentanyl-laced fake pills contain a fatal dose of fentanyl.

Lawmakers will continue to discuss the bill, although there has been no forward movement in the House nor any reports regarding the bill’s future.

The lawsuit, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, targets Grand Canyon Education Inc (GCE), its CEO and the university. The FTC alleges the university misled prospective doctoral students about program costs and requirements and engaged in deceptive and abusive telemarketing practices.

According to the FTC, the university, despite its nonprofit claims, has been operated to benefit GCE and its shareholders, with 60% of its revenue going to GCE. Regulatory filings describe the university as a “partner” of GCE.

Officials for the Arizona-based university denied the FTC’s “unsubstantiated allegations” and promised to refute them.

“Given the major problems that exist in higher education… it is baffling that the federal government has chosen to target a Christian university that is addressing those issues in very positive ways,” the university said in a statement.

This is the second government lawsuit GCU is facing in a matter of weeks. In November, the U.S. Department of Education fined the university $37.7 million for misrepresenting the costs of its doctoral programs. A report from the found that fewer than two percent of the school’s doctoral program graduates completed their program within the advertised cost, and almost 78% took five or more continuation courses.

A new survey from Preply found that one in four Gen Z Americans have expressed a desire to live outside the U.S. As of 2020, nearly three million people born in the U.S. were living in countless different countries, and no other country has sent as many emigrants to as many places.

The reasons fueling this urge to emigrate are as diverse as the respondents themselves. While high living costs and the political climate in the U.S. are significant factors, it’s the deeper longing for social programs, like universal healthcare, that have Gen Z considering a move. Additionally, 59 percent of respondents said that gun violence in the U.S. played a major role in their decision-making.

A representative from Preply explained that the possibility of moving has never been easier thanks to remote work.

“With the explosion of remote work, Gen Z and Millennials are looking for ways to have the best of both worlds,” the representative said. “They want to earn American salaries, which are on the high end of the international scale, while enjoying the social safety net provided by some countries in Europe, Asia and beyond.”

Gen Z has their sites set on places all around the world. The United Kingdom, with its cultural similarities and language familiarity, tops the list, closely followed by Canada, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand. European countries are also on the radar, suggesting that young Americans are willing to overcome language challenges. Beyond the Western world, Gen Z is looking at places predominantly in Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Brazil and the Philippines.

This trend isn’t just about short-term adventures. A considerable number of the surveyed group expressed a desire to settle permanently abroad, with many considering starting families in their new countries. This aspiration persists despite most young Americans not personally knowing anyone who has emigrated in the past five years. On social media, however, it’s easy to find a community of ex-pats.

Of course, saying you want to move and actually doing it are two different things. But as more and more young adults make the move abroad, America’s future is left in an unpredictable place.

The fine, the largest of its kind ever issued by the U.S. Education Department, comes after an investigation that found the university had deceived more than 7,500 current and former students regarding the cost of its doctoral programs. The Education Department revealed that while Grand Canyon University claimed its doctoral programs would cost between $40,000 and $49,000, less than two percent of graduates completed their programs within this range. Most students paid an additional $10,000 to $12,000, often due to “continuation courses” needed for dissertation requirements.

“Today, we are holding GCU accountable for its actions, protecting students and taxpayers, and upholding the integrity of the federal student aid programs,” said Richard Cordray, chief operating officer for Federal Student Aid, an office in the Education Department.

The university, which enrolls about 20,000 students on its Phoenix campus and roughly 80,000 in online programs, denied the allegations, referring to them as “lies and deceptive statements” in a five-page statement.

“Grand Canyon University categorically denies every accusation in the Department of Education’s statement and will take all measures necessary to defend itself from these false accusations,” the school wrote.

Grand Canyon University also pointed to its court-upheld cost disclosures during a separate lawsuit and approval by its accreditor. The university alleges that the fine is part of a “disturbing pattern” by the Education Department and accuses the agency of an “agenda-driven motivation to bring harm to the university.”

This development comes amid a broader push by the Biden administration for accountability among U.S. universities. The Education Department recently finalized a new regulation that could cut federal funding to for-profit college programs that leave graduates unable to repay loans. It also plans to provide more information about outcomes from all colleges to students and families.

GCU has 20 days to appeal the fine. Additionally, new conditions have been imposed on the school to continue receiving federal funding. The university is barred from making “substantial misrepresentations” about the cost of doctoral programs and must report any other investigations or lawsuits. Furthermore, it is required to send a notice to current doctoral students informing them how to submit a complaint to the Education Department.

It’s the deadliest massacre so far this year, and the worst since El Paso in 2019. It’s also the 565th mass shooting in the U.S. in 2023.

According to the Gun Violence Archive, 566 Americans have died because of a mass shooting this year. On average, 1.9 mass shootings — defined as any time four or more people are shot or killed, not including the perpetrator — have occurred this year, marking 2023 as the deadliest year on record for mass shootings in the U.S.

A report from the Kaiser Family Foundation earlier this year found that nearly one in five adults in the U.S. say they know someone who was killed by a gun, including death by suicide. To date, 35,287 people have died from gun-related deaths.

Mass shooting survivor and author Taylor Schumann spoke with RELEVANT about a third way forward for America, a way led by the Church that advocates for gun safety.

“Too often, this conversation sends people to the furthest ends of the political arena, which is understandable since politics is largely how we accomplish things in the United States and how we act on our beliefs,” she says. “But if anyone should be advocating for protecting lives and limiting human suffering, it’s the Church.

“My hope really is that we wouldn’t have to rely so heavily on legislative action but that we would see more action at individual and community levels,” she continued. “I would love to see more people decide the safety of their neighbor is worth more than their guns.”

The initiative has even begun to move beyond churches and faith-based organizations. Individuals, educators and people of color in local communities are taking it upon themselves to organize banned book reading sessions and other educational initiatives. Additionally, Thomas shared that groups in other states have reached out asking for access to their curriculum.

“Once this toolkit went out, we also had churches that are led by white faith leaders and Muslims register to teach Black history,” Thomas said. “What stands out is that these states are just as concerned, because many times they know that whatever takes place in Florida, eventually it’s going to hit our states as well.”

The verdict comes after years of legal battles between Davis and two same-sex couples. The lawsuit accused Davis, the former Rowan County clerk, of violating their constitutional rights by denying them marriage licenses. The district court held Davis personally responsible in both cases, but damages were only granted in one.

In the case Ermold v. Davis, the jury awarded $50,000 to each plaintiff, David Ermold and David Moore, while no damages were awarded in the case Yates v. Davis. A federal judge had previously ruled that Davis had violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Reacting to the verdict, Joe Buckles, co-counsel for Ermold and Moore, expressed elation, stating that his clients felt “completely vindicated” by the jury’s decision.

“The Supreme Court says that my clients have a constitutional right to marry under the 14th Amendment,” Buckles asserted, “but this case isn’t really about [Davis’s] religion. The case isn’t really about our clients’ right to marry. The case is about a government official that just refused to do her job. It’s a pretty simple case.”

Buckles went on to say that the lack of damages for the second couple, James Yates and Will Smith, was a “terrible injustice,” emphasizing that their constitutional rights were also violated.

The legal saga began in 2015 after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Davis, citing her religious beliefs as a member of the Apostolic Church, refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Eventually, a deputy clerk granted the couples’ requests for licenses, and Davis spent five days in jail for contempt of court. She was later defeated in her bid for re-election.

Mat Staver, an attorney for Davis, expressed plans to appeal the decision.

“We will argue religious accommodation under the First Amendment and other state and federal laws,” Staver said. “We will also argue that Obergefell v. Hodges was wrongly decided and should be overturned.”

It’s worth noting that the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Davis’s lawyers in 2020, indicating the potential legal challenges that lie ahead in this ongoing and contentious battle at the intersection of religious freedom and LGBTQ+ rights.

In the sermon, Graham addressed the realities and mysteries of evil, but also God’s capacity for love, mercy, comfort and compassion. 

“My prayer today is that we will feel the loving arms of God wrapped around us and that as we trust in Him we will know in our hearts that He will never forsake us,” he said.

Today, 22 years later, the sermon still rings true. You can listen to Graham’s sermon here, or read it in its entirety below. 

While case numbers are significantly lower than in previous years, experts are concerned about a recent uptick of cases show the viral virus is back with a vengeance. They’re also concerned the true extent of infections are being underreported.

Several key indicators are pointing towards a rise in COVID-19 cases. Hospital admissions have nearly doubled in the past month, and test positivity rates have tripled in two months, according to federal surveillance data. And with flu season kicking up again soon, health officials are once again reminding the public to be vigilant with their health.

“There is more transmission out there than what the surveillance data indicates,” warns Janet Hamilton, executive director of the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists.

Rapid home tests and a decreasing public interest in testing have complicated the ability to accurately gauge current case counts. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ceased reporting aggregate COVID-19 case counts months ago, acknowledging that the data no longer represented the true extent of infections.

The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which provided valuable COVID-19 case rate estimates and trend projections from 2020 to 2022, had to suspend its modeling due to the inadequacy of available data. Ali Mokdad, a professor at the university, explained the challenges in making predictions as the margin of error grew too large.

Hospitalization metrics were initially considered a reliable substitute for tracking transmission, but evolving testing practices and federal guidance have made historical data less useful. Hospital admissions for COVID-19, although lower than last year, have seen recent increases, but they still may not reflect overall transmission accurately.

“With every respiratory disease season — whether it’s COVID, whether it’s influenza, whether it’s RSV — those increases can impact different individuals in different ways, and there are always severe outcomes associated with respiratory disease season,” Hamilton said. “Now is the time for us to be practicing good respiratory etiquette. Now is the time for us to remind ourselves to think about our own individual health status and those individuals that we may be around.”

Just weeks after the Supreme Court denied President Biden’s plan for student loan forgiveness, The Generation Lab polled young Americans to get their opinion on the decision. Sixty-two percent of Gen Z disagreed with the decision and only 17 percent agreed with SCOTUS.

Now, according to a new poll, a majority of respondents assigned blame for the lack of student debt forgiveness to the Supreme Court and the Republican Party. Specifically, 47 percent held the Supreme Court responsible, while 38 percent pointed fingers at Republicans. On the other hand, 10 percent attributed blame to President Biden, and five percent held Democrats accountable.

It is worth noting that public confidence in the Supreme Court has reached alarmingly low levels in recent months.

The scale of the issue is immense, with tens of millions of borrowers in the United States collectively owing over $1 trillion in student loan debt. After several years of COVID-related payment pauses, federal student loan repayments are set to resume in October. Those burdened with student loan debt tend to be younger individuals with lower incomes, already struggling with inflation and high housing costs. The additional monthly payment will undoubtedly add to their financial strain.

The decision stems from crucial improvements made to the income-driven repayment plans within the student loan system. Under these plans, borrowers are eligible to have any remaining debt canceled by the government after making consistent payments for either 20 or 25 years, depending on the timing of their loans and the type of repayment plan they have chosen.

However, the Biden administration identified a significant oversight in the previous system. It became evident that certain payments, which should have contributed to borrowers’ progress toward debt-free status, were not being properly accounted for.

“For far too long, borrowers fell through the cracks of a broken system that failed to keep accurate track of their progress towards forgiveness,” said Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona.

To ensure that deserving borrowers are not denied the opportunity for forgiveness, the Biden administration revised its approach. The administration now includes payments made by borrowers who had temporarily paused their payments through deferments and forbearances, as well as those who had made partial or late payments.

“By fixing past administrative failures, we are ensuring everyone gets the forgiveness they deserve, just as we have done for public servants, students who were cheated by their colleges, and borrowers with permanent disabilities, including veterans,” Cardona said.

While this debt forgiveness represents a victory for borrowers, it is important to acknowledge that it is relief to which they were rightfully entitled.

“Make no mistake — over 804,000 people are receiving relief with this action because of 804,000 failures — and this is only the tip of the iceberg,” said Persis Yu, the deputy executive director at the Student Borrower Protection Center. “Working people have been made collateral damage by a dysfunctional student loan system.”

This announcement follows closely on the heels of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down President Joe Biden’s comprehensive student loan forgiveness plan. The original plan aimed to provide relief to 37 million individuals burdened by student debt.

In the coming days, the Department of Education will begin notifying eligible borrowers of their newfound debt forgiveness.

An analysis of data from 20 of the largest U.S. cities reveals a 37.6 percent surge in homelessness among families with children, with over 72,700 individuals affected as of January 2023. New York witnessed a two-thirds spike, while Chicago, the District of Columbia, and Fort Worth, Texas, also experienced significant increases.

These findings, based on data collected from cities conducting counts of individuals in shelters or on the streets, paint a grim national scenario.

Kathy Johnson, executive director of Oak City Cares, a North Carolina-based nonprofit aiding individuals experiencing homelessness, highlighted the precarious financial situations of many Americans.

“There were many, many, many people that were already just barely making it,” she said. “And then when inflation hit and the economy changed, those people who were just on the edge teetered over.”

More and more families are facing a growing crisis. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, an estimated 161,000 Americans in families with children experienced homelessness in 2022. While these figures marked the lowest since 2007, experts warn that accurate counts were challenging during the pandemic. The Department of Education adopted a broader scope, which includes individuals living in motels or with relatives due to a lack of housing, and reported that approximately 1.1 million children were homeless during the pandemic.

The growing number of homeless families could have long-term implications for the development and well-being of all American families, too. Each person experiencing chronic homelessness costs taxpayers almost $36,000 annually, requiring additional resources for every new individual who becomes homeless.

In an attempt to break this cycle, the Biden administration introduced a plan last year to reduce overall homelessness in the U.S. by one-fourth by 2025. The plan includes expanding access to housing vouchers, simplifying the application process for government assistance programs and other initiatives.

Terence Lester, author of When We Stand: The Power of Seeking Justice Together, spoke with RELEVANT about how the Church can better address the rising homelessness crisis.

“Just because a person doesn’t have an address does not mean that they’re not your neighbor,” he said. “When Jesus says, ‘Love your neighbor,’ he’s also talking about people who are experiencing homelessness.

“I think what we have to do, as believers, is see people who are living on the streets the same way you would see someone sitting next to you in church holding a cup of coffee,” he continued. “God doesn’t love the person next to you in a church that drove there anymore than the person who had to sleep behind a building. And if we are really going to be about loving our neighbors, that also includes people without an address.”

The plan has mostly been overshadowed by President Biden’s now-failed proposal for mass student loan cancellation. But following the Supreme Court’s recent decision, the Biden administration has shifted focus to the SAVE Plan, arguing it’s “the most affordable repayment plan ever.”

The SAVE Plan is an income-driven repayment plan that would offer lenient repayment terms, including no interest accumulation if borrowers make regular payments, reduced monthly payments — some even as low as $0 — and debt cancellation within as little as 10 years.

There’s still a lot for the Biden administration to figure out, but for now, here’s what you need to know about the SAVE Plan:

What is an income-driven repayment plan?

The U.S. Education Department offers various plans for repaying federal student loans. One option is the standard plan, which requires borrowers to pay a fixed monthly amount to repay their debt within 10 years. However, if borrowers have difficulty meeting this amount, they can enroll in income-driven repayment plans that offer lower monthly payments based on income and family size. If a borrower’s earnings are low enough, their payment can be reduced to $0, and any remaining debt can be erased after 20 or 25 years.

How is Biden’s plan different?

As part of his debt relief plan, President Biden announced the creation of a new income-driven repayment plan, the SAVE Plan, which aims to lower payments even further. The plan is intended to replace existing income-driven plans.

Under the SAVE Plan, more people will be eligible for $0 payments. Borrowers will not have to make payments if they earn less than 225 percent of the federal poverty line, compared to the current cutoff of 150 percent of the poverty line. Another change prevents interest from accruing as long as borrowers make their monthly payments. Once borrowers cover their adjusted monthly payment, any remaining interest will be waived.

Starting July 2024, more changes will take effect, such as capping payments on undergraduate loans at five percent of discretionary income, down from the current 10 percent. For borrowers with graduate and undergraduate loans, payments will range from five percent to 10 percent, depending on the original loan balance. These changes could reduce monthly payments in half for millions of Americans.

Additionally, from July 2024, borrowers with initial balances of $12,000 or less will have their loans canceled after 10 years of payments. Each additional $1,000 borrowed beyond that will require an extra year of payments before cancellation.

How can you apply?

The Education Department will notify borrowers when the new application process launches later this summer. Borrowers currently enrolled in an existing plan known as REPAYE will be automatically moved into the SAVE Plan. Borrowers can also sign up by contacting their loan servicers directly.

Is this even legal?

The legality of the SAVE Plan remains uncertain, as it has not been taken up by a federal court. Rather than creating a new payment plan from scratch, the Biden administration proposed changes to an existing plan and solidified them through a negotiated rule-making process, allowing the Education Department to develop federal regulations without congressional approval. While this process is commonly used by administrations of both political parties, critics question whether the new plan exceeds the scope of the law.

According to a new study from Religion in Public, Christians who consider themselves to be “biblical literalists” and believers who agree with Christian nationalism ideology are “more likely” than the general population to believe in conspiracy theories.

Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized the court’s precedent, stating that “Congress speak clearly before a department secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy.” This verdict upholds the temporary hold placed on the plan by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in October, effectively blocking its implementation.

The program, estimated to cost over $400 billion, intended to provide eligible borrowers with the opportunity to cancel up to $20,000 in debt. Approximately 43 million Americans would have been eligible for participation.

The ruling places immediate pressure on the Biden administration to identify alternative avenues to forgive student debt, ones that can potentially withstand legal challenges. A representative for Biden shared the president plans to announce new actions to protect student loan borrowers in the wake of the ruling.

“While we strongly disagree with the court, we prepared for this scenario,” the source said. “The president will make clear he’s not done fighting yet.”

Student loan repayment is set to resume at the end of August after being paused during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the first payments will not be due until October.

Justice Samuel Alito authored the unanimous opinion in favor of Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian who had encountered difficulties in obtaining Sundays off to observe his Sabbath. Groff, a former U.S. Postal Service employee, faced a scheduling conflict when the Postal Service initiated weekend package deliveries in collaboration with Amazon.

The main issue of the case centered around accommodating religious practices while considering the burden on colleagues and organizational operations. Groff’s legal representation sought the Court’s intervention to overturn a 1977 precedent that facilitated employers’ ability to deny similar requests. Rather than completely overturning the precedent, the Court chose to send a message to lower courts, encouraging them to interpret the 46-year-old ruling more favorably towards employees.

This ruling carries implications beyond Groff’s specific case, potentially influencing situations where workplace rules clash with religious practices, including matters like religious attire. Some expressed concerns that the decision might extend to religious conduct at work, granting employees greater latitude to express personal beliefs that might differ from those upheld by their employers or coworkers.

Previously, both a U.S. District Court and the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit had ruled in favor of the Postal Service, highlighting the complexity of the legal debate.

Groff, who had dedicated years to missionary work in Africa and Asia, sought a career that would accommodate his Sabbath observance. Initially, his supervisors exempted him from working on Sundays as long as he covered other shifts. However, the task of finding volunteers to fill those Sunday shifts proved challenging, and by 2018, Groff had already missed 24 of them, resulting in escalating disciplinary actions.

Reflecting on his experience, Groff, a 45-year-old Pennsylvanian, shared the toll it took on him, revealing, “I lived under a cloud of thinking any day I could report to work… and then be told that I was terminated.”

In 2019, he ultimately resigned from the Postal Service, having endured two years of uncertainty and stress.

This Supreme Court ruling, while not entirely transformative in scope, serves as an important marker in the ongoing dialogue surrounding religious freedoms and workplace accommodation. Advocates for religious freedom have shared the decision demonstrates the Court’s intention to encourage more generous interpretations of existing precedents, which could potentially shaping the future treatment of similar cases in lower courts.

Surprisingly, a group of influential Southern Baptist pastors from Tennessee penned a letter in support of Gov. Lee’s proposed gun reform law. However, their endorsement faced immediate backlash from members of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).

The pastors expressed their support for the law as a means to “strengthen our state’s order of protection laws to protect the broader population from those who are a danger to themselves or others.” They commended Gov. Lee’s approach, stating that it safeguards citizens’ constitutional rights while also offering protection to potential victims of dangerous individuals. To bolster their stance, the pastors cited scripture and resolutions from the SBC.

However, the letter sparked controversy among many Baptists, particularly those who staunchly support Second Amendment rights. The issue of gun control in the United States has long been a fiercely debated topic, exacerbated by the frequent occurrence of tragic shooting incidents. Nearly halfway through 2023, gun violence has claimed the lives of 19,532 individuals, with an additional 16,500 people injured. So far, 2023 has had the highest number of mass shootings in American history.

In light of the statistics, it is evident that change is urgently needed. However, amidst the prevailing rhetoric about gun reform, is there a third conversation that should be taking place? One that seeks to find common ground and practical solutions? Is it possible for Americans to engage in a peaceful and productive dialogue about gun reform?

The existing debate on gun control in the United States has become polarized, presenting a false dichotomy between staunch support for the unrestricted right to bear arms and advocating for an absolute ban on firearms. But does this binary approach truly represent the more nuanced views held by many Americans?

Author Brené Brown captures the plight of those who find themselves in the middle ground, stating, “I exist in that lonely space between all guns and no guns — a space that [feels] defined by criticism and judgment.”

There are individuals who grew up in households with firearms, appreciating the rich history of sportsmanship and personal freedom, while also recognizing the need for responsible gun policy reform. They believe that the conversation on gun control should transcend simplistic slogans and encompass a comprehensive and thoughtful evaluation of existing policies.

The conversation on gun control in the United States must transcend the current divisive rhetoric.

A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center revealed that 53 percent of Americans are receptive to stricter gun laws, even among gun owners. This demonstrates a recognition within this group of the necessity for sensible regulations, such as universal background checks and higher age requirements.

Taylor Schumann, a survivor of the April 2013 shooting at a college in Christiansburg, Virginia and author of When Thoughts and Prayers Aren’t Enough: A Shooting Survivor’s Journey into the Realities of Gun Violence, suggests that a third conversation on gun reform is already underway.

“A third conversation is already happening, we’re just not hearing about it,” she said. “I talk to people all the time about the conversations they’re having with family members and friends where they realize they’re not actually that far apart on the issue, or they find some unexpected common ground — maybe on Red Flag Laws or expanded background checks or closing a loophole.”

On an individual level, people seem willing to engage in nuanced conversations about reform. However, when the media enters the picture, these discussions often crumble.

“Unfortunately, we don’t hear about these conversations, and we’re not encouraged to have them, by the voices we listen to in the news or in politics,” Schumann laments. “We are largely told by the news media how extreme the other side is, how far apart we are on issues, how we can never find common ground. This serves ratings and keeps our politicians in office. But it also keeps us firmly in our political camp and believing the worst about those on the other side.”

Moving the conversation forward on gun control is no easy task, but it is crucial to acknowledge the emotionally charged nature of the discussion and approach it with a genuine interest in understanding everyone’s perspectives. Active listening should be prioritized, ensuring that the conversation remains focused on identifying common ground and achieving the shared goal of saving lives.

When engaging in conversations about gun control, it is essential to begin from a place of agreement. Recognize that both parties share the desire to reduce the loss of life due to gun violence. This common objective can serve as a foundation for exploring potential solutions and finding common ground.

Schumann points out that research indicates Americans are open to change. She highlights a poll conducted by Fox News in April, which found that 87 percent of voters favored requiring criminal background checks for all gun buyers, while 81 percent supported raising the legal age to purchase firearms to 21. Additionally, 80 percent of voters supported allowing the police to disarm individuals deemed a danger to themselves or others, and 77 percent supported a 30-day waiting period for all gun purchases.

It is worth acknowledging that changing someone’s stance on gun control may not occur in a single conversation. However, by challenging extreme views and sowing seeds of alternative perspectives, individuals can contribute to a positive shift over time.

Christians have a unique role to play in the conversation surrounding gun reform. The Church should be at the forefront, providing wisdom, clarity and solace to those impacted by gun violence. Unfortunately, the Church has often remained silent or failed to address this contentious issue adequately.

Schumann hopes that the Church will champion the value and dignity of individuals within the gun control debate and recognize the opportunity for personal sacrifice.

“Too often, this conversation sends people to the furthest ends of the political arena, which is understandable since politics is largely how we accomplish things in the United States and how we act on our beliefs,” she says. “But if anyone should be advocating for protecting lives and limiting human suffering, it’s the Church.”

Schumann envisions churches and community organizations sponsoring gun buyback programs or facilitating safe opportunities for people to relinquish their firearms voluntarily. She envisions individuals deciding that preserving lives and reducing gun violence outweigh personal attachment to guns, even without legal compulsion. While legislation is desirable, she firmly believes that meaningful work can still be accomplished even without its immediate enactment.

“If anyone should be advocating for protecting lives and limiting human suffering, it’s the Church.” – Taylor Schumann

Though the issue of gun control reform may appear overwhelming, there is reason for hope. Progress has already been achieved in some areas, with states implementing red flag laws, extending background check periods and enacting assault weapons bans. Grassroots initiatives and community-led efforts, such as gun buyback programs, also have the potential to make a substantial impact.

Schumann’s hope lies in the ongoing commitment of individuals, not just institutions, to advocate for change.

“My hope really is that we wouldn’t have to rely so heavily on legislative action but that we would see more action at individual and community levels,” she asserts. “I would love to see more people decide the safety of their neighbor is worth more than their guns.”

The conversation on gun control in the United States must transcend the current divisive rhetoric. While the path to change may be challenging, individuals and institutions, including the Church, have a critical role to play in bringing about constructive reform. By engaging in conversations with wisdom, compassion, and a focus on preserving lives, Americans can move toward a future that combines peace and productive gun reform.

The department initiated an investigation into Taqueria Garibaldi after receiving reports of potential labor law violations, particularly regarding the denial of overtime pay to workers. The DOL discovered several violations, including the restaurant’s unlawful practice of paying managers using funds from the employee tip pool. Moreover, it was revealed that the establishment had resorted to threats of “retaliation and adverse immigration consequences” to dissuade workers from cooperating with the investigation.

One employee also provided testimony in federal court detailing how the restaurant brought in a priest during work hours to speak with employees. This individual, whose authenticity as a clergy member remains uncertain to the DOL, allegedly undertook the task of coaxing confessions from employees to “get the sins out” of their workplace. The alleged priest probed workers about potential theft, tardiness, acts of harm towards management or “any bad intentions” harbored against the establishment.

“Under oath, an employee of Taqueria Garibaldi explained how the restaurant offered a supposed priest to hear their workplace ‘sins’ while other employees reported that a manager falsely claimed that immigration issues would be raised by the department’s investigation,” said Marc Pilotin, the regional solicitor of labor in San Francisco. “This employer’s despicable attempts to retaliate against employees were intended to silence workers, obstruct an investigation and prevent the recovery of unpaid wages.”

As a result of their violations of labor law, the restaurant owners reached a settlement with the DOL. They agreed to pay a total of $140,000 in back wages and liquidated damages to the 35 affected employees, in addition to an extra $5,000 to the DOL due to the willful nature of their transgressions.

Even during my radio days, on Christmas, Memorial Day, New Year’s Day or Thanksgiving, someone would say to me as they ran out the door, “Happy holidays! Enjoy the long weekend!”

And while it’s not likely it occurs to them, a long weekend for others has always meant very little for me.

On whatever holiday is in question, my alarm will still go off at 3 a.m. I will still drag myself out of bed, yawn halfway through my shift, and look forward to my lunch break.

I’m not necessarily sad about it. After all, this does mean I’m employed. But it also means I’ll be scrolling through photos of celebratory home-cooked meals until my workday ends while my friends in other career fields are sleeping in, on a boat with wine coolers or unwrapping gifts with family.

I don’t bother to say all of this to whomever is racing to their car at the end of the day. I simply offer back an equally cheerful, “Happy holidays! You too!” … and I always mean it.

But between you and I, there’s a special joy I feel on days I do have off. I relax a little more that night knowing that when the morning comes, I too will participate in hitting the snooze button, lounging around with my dog or stopping by a barbecue.

For centuries, Black and Brown people in the United States have attested to the reality that there are two existing Americas: one for whites and a more restrictive, oppressive system for our country’s Black citizens. That means every Fourth of July, when the nation celebrates its day of independence, your Black American friends with ancestors once bound by chains might not as thrilled as you are.

To put it plainly, it can be a conflicting day for us.

For us, history has made it clear that America’s commitment to her patriotism and blind allegiance to the red, white and blue, have made her downright hateful toward skin colors of a darker hue.

And as Black men and women, each year, that familiar push and pull of wanting to belong in the home you created, accepting that you may never be, and finally resolving that you no longer want to is quite an emotional dance.

Still, we go to the cookout anyway.

So while 2020’s acknowledgement of Juneteenth as a national holiday is a just small step forward, it is, nevertheless, a step.

June 19, 1865, the emancipation of enslaved Africans, African Americans and Black people in the United States of America, was quite literally a day of Jubilee. And no one should have a bigger appreciation for deliverance from bondage than the Body of Christ.

Black, white or other….  Why wouldn’t you want to celebrate?

Romans 12:15 tells us that we, as believers, are to not just mourn with those who mourn but also to rejoice with those who rejoice. So if a few years ago, you found yourself weeping over the murders of George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery, but this year find yourself taking an “us vs. them” position regarding the federal holiday, I’d urge you to reconsider. Anyone who claims to love the Jesus of the Bible should be able to identify with the feeling of freedom and the joy of acceptance.

Especially since celebrating is exactly what Heaven did when your own chains were broken.