The Story of All Stories

First Look: The Catholic Storybook Bible Families Have Been Waiting For

Bible

Books

Catholic

Children

Christianity

US-POLITICS-TRUMP-KIRK-SHOOTING

Christian Faith Was On Full Display At Charlie Kirk’s Memorial And Leftists Are Confused

Charlie Kirk

Democrats

Don Lemon

Leftists

Legacy Media

Liberals

Matt Walsh

memorial

Opinion

The Atlantic

Turning Point USA

The following is an edited transcript of a speech delivered by Michael Knowles at “This Is The Turning Point with Special Guest Michael Knowles” held at the University of Minnesota on Monday, September 22, 2025.
* * *
This event was originally supposed to be a conversation between Charlie and me. Now it will be a conversation about Charlie — and what his assassination means for our country. The enemies of civilization — the assassin as well as the people who excused and cheered him on — thought that they could stop Charlie Kirk’s movement. In reality, they could not even stop his speaking tour.
I would like to begin with a prayer. Charlie had a great affinity for St. Michael the Archangel. And I think the St. Michael prayer speaks especially to our moment.
<blockquote>St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, thrust into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.</blockquote>
Twelve days ago, a ruined soul assassinated one of the brightest figures of our generation. And when I say “bright,” I don’t just mean Charlie’s rhetorical skills, which surpassed those of just about everyone in public life. I don’t just mean his political genius, which led him, at just 18 years-old, to found the most significant cultural institution on the American Right; which took him to the stage of the Republican National Convention by age 22; and which brought most of the United States government, including the president, vice president, and secretary of state, to his memorial service. I’m not talking about any of his accomplishments — be they in broadcasting, publishing, coalition building, or any of the other things that Charlie mastered.
Charlie’s brightness came, not primarily from his professional accomplishments, but from his character. You didn’t have to be a personal friend of his to know it. You could see it in everything he did. There was simply a light and a levity to the man. And it was constant, even when he was stressed. Even when he was arguing. Even when he suffered setbacks. And that light and that levity stemmed from one fact: Charlie’s Savior lives.
We’re mourning Charlie right now, and it’s right to mourn Charlie. It’s right to grieve. I have no use for the happy-clappy kind of modern religion that tells us we can’t be sad when our friends die simply because we have faith in their salvation.
Death is bad. Murder is evil. People who commit murder need to be punished. People who celebrate murder need to be punished too. Death reminds us that something has gone wrong. Death was not part of the original plan. Jesus wept at the death of his friend just moments before He raised him from the dead.
We can know “that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose,” while still recognizing the difference between good and evil. We can entrust Charlie’s soul to Our Lord Jesus Christ, as Charlie always entrusted himself, while still knowing that his assassin took something from us that he didn’t have to take.
What the assassin took was not even Charlie. Charlie belongs to God, as do we all. What the assassin took from us more precisely was what we imagined Charlie’s future to be. That’s part of what makes death so shocking: the realization that our plans are not in fact guaranteed. “Man plans, and God laughs.”
“But he was going to do this.” “She was going to do that.” “We were going to speak at the University of Minnesota together.” We weren’t, actually. We do not have ultimate control over those things. Everyone who knew Charlie knew he would be president one day. But “would” is a conditional verb; “would” depends upon “ifs” that are out of our control. Charlie would have been president. But he won’t be.
In the wake of Charlie’s death, many people are presuming to declare what he would have believed about this or that issue. Not what he did believe, mind you. But what he would have believed, what he would have said if he had lived just a little bit longer.
This kind of talk is as unseemly as it is absurd. “It is appointed for men to die once, and after that the judgment.” With the exception of his beloved wife and the people very closest to him, those who would chime in for Charlie today are appropriating an authority that does not belong to them. It’s a usurpation. At best, it’s a waste of time. And one thing that Charlie never did was waste time.
He accomplished more in his 31 years than most people could accomplish in many lifetimes. His most public accomplishments were political. His most important were religious. He wanted to be remembered for his faith. He wanted to help as many souls to Heaven as he could. If you want to honor Charlie, go to church. Read the Bible. Pray. And do it now. Don’t wait. Now might be your only chance.
<div id="attachment_975885" style="width: 912px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-975885" class="size-large wp-image-975885" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-2236356067-902x576.jpg" alt="MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA - SEPTEMBER 22: Attendees hold up posters of Charlie Kirk during the &quot;American Comeback Tour&quot; event at Northrop Auditorium on the University of Minnesota campus on September 22, 2025 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The event was hosted by political commentator Michael Knowles after the assassination of Charlie Kirk earlier this month. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)" width="902" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-2236356067-902x576.jpg 902w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-2236356067-300x192.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-2236356067-768x491.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-2236356067.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 902px) 100vw, 902px" />Stephen Maturen/Getty Images</div>
Many people are doing just that. I saw it myself last Sunday. You will not be surprised to learn that I attend a rather traditional church. Smells and bells and suits and ties. One thing that means is that it’s easy to tell when someone new shows up. Someone who just looked for the nearest church because he felt a sudden desire to be close to God. Someone whose “Sunday best” is usually a t-shirt and jeans.
I saw a lot of t-shirts at church last Sunday. And I was thrilled to see those t-shirts. (Next week, however, they should put on a jacket.) But I was thrilled to see those t-shirts then. Because it meant that people who had left the church were returning. People who perhaps had never been to church were showing up for the first time. And they were showing up because of Charlie.
I was one of the hundreds of thousands of people who attended Charlie’s memorial. When you count those who streamed it, I was one of over one hundred million people who watched it live. It was a remarkable event in many ways. But two things stood out in particular.
First, Charlie’s widow, Erika, gave one of the most powerful speeches I’ve ever heard. I was sitting with some of the toughest politicians in the world. I don’t think there was a dry eye in the house. In just one of several arresting moments in her speech, Erika forgave the man who murdered her husband. Because Christ on the cross asked his Father to forgive his killers — because we all ask God to forgive us as we forgive those who trespass against us. At a time when half the country, it seems, minimizes, excuses, and even celebrates political violence, Erika Kirk gave us a glimpse of Calvary.
But the second most striking part of the memorial was that the leadership of our federal government spent four hours proclaiming the Gospel to the entire world. This should not have been surprising. We’re a country founded by people who called themselves Pilgrims. Our country was settled to be “a model of Christian charity.” Our government was established on the premise that our Creator endows us with rights. Our national anthem declares, “Conquer we must, when our cause it is just, and this be our motto: in God is our trust.” Seeing our national leaders proclaim the Gospel should not have been surprising. But it was. Because we hadn’t seen it in a long time. Many of us had never seen it in our lifetimes.
The memorial was perfectly Charlie: on the one hand, it was about eternity — about the truths that transcend all ages and places; on the other hand, it was eminently political — temporal, local, particular. There is no contradiction between the two. Because we’re both of those things. We’re souls, which are eternal; and we’re bodies, which are temporal.
People tend to fall into one of two errors on this subject today. They either think that politics is everything — more important than family, more important than morality, so important that we murder people over disagreements. Or they think that politics is nothing — that we should ignore policy fights and debates and keep our pure and precious hands from being sullied by the muck of practical politics. Charlie understood that both errors miss the mark. That we need to keep our eyes on eternal things — that we’re never quite at home in this world because we’re pilgrims on our way to the heavenly Jerusalem — but also that we’re political creatures in time and space. Which means that we have to do things. Which means that our faith will give a certain shape to the political community, which exists for the common good.
So what should we do now? We should forgive our enemies’ trespasses, and we should prevent our enemies from trespassing against us in the future.
Some people seem to misunderstand Christian forgiveness. They think it’s somehow contrary to criminal justice — that it means letting criminals off the hook, that it means anarchy. On the contrary, Christian forgiveness is about recognizing that vengeance belongs to the Lord, who will repay, while justice belongs to the civil authority, which does not bear the sword in vain. Erika Kirk forgave her husband’s killer, and the state of Utah will inject poison into that killer’s veins until he’s dead. There is no contradiction between these two things. 
Christian forgiveness does not demand that we allow the cruel to rape the earth. It demands that we love our enemies. And sometimes love is tough. In our personal lives, love means praying for those who persecute us. In politics, love usually means punishing the guilty, for both the protection of the innocent as well as for the betterment of the guilty. No one benefits from crime, decay, and disorder.
<div id="attachment_975889" style="width: 879px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-975889" class="size-large wp-image-975889" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-2236356069-869x576.jpg" alt="MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA - SEPTEMBER 22: Political commentator Michael Knowles points to an empty chair on stage during the &quot;American Comeback Tour&quot; event at Northrop Auditorium on the University of Minnesota campus on September 22, 2025 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The event was hosted by Knowles after the assassination of Charlie Kirk earlier this month. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)" width="869" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-2236356069-869x576.jpg 869w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-2236356069-300x199.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-2236356069-768x509.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-2236356069.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 869px) 100vw, 869px" />Stephen Maturen/Getty Images</div>
We cherish the marketplace of ideas in America. In the wake of Charlie’s assassination, many are inclined merely to redouble our devotion to the “marketplace of ideas.” But this instinct misses a crucial step. We had a marketplace of ideas. The Left shot it up. If we wish to restore the healthy exchange of ideas, we need to refortify the marketplace.
Marketplaces of all kinds require rules, confidence, and common media of exchange. They require order. Liberty requires order. You can’t be undisciplined and free. You can’t be ignorant and free. That’s why we don&#8217;t let toddlers vote. 
What we must do now is reassert order. We must insist upon the acceptance of basic truths and moral goods, not as the asymptotic goal of endless debate but as the axiomatic foundation without which debate cannot occur. C.S. Lewis called these principles “the Tao.” Others call them the natural law or the first principles of practical reason. If you’ve ever studied algebra, you know that you must begin with certain axioms — premises such as a = a and if a=b then b=a. These axioms are themselves unprovable. But without assuming them, you can’t prove anything else. The same is true of politics and morality. We can’t quite prove that we should live in an ordered society, but without assuming so, we can’t prove anything else.
If our society is to function, we must foreclose certain antisocial behaviors and suicidal ideologies. We must stop, to borrow a phrase from Chesterton, &#8220;the thought that stops thought.&#8221; Practically, this means we must stigmatize certain evil ideas and behaviors, and we must ostracize people who insist upon them. More practically, this means that people who persist in such disorder should lose their social standing. In certain cases, they should lose their jobs. You can’t maintain a hospital if the nurses seek to murder half the patients. You can’t operate a school if the teachers wish death upon their students’ parents. You can’t run a restaurant if the customers expect the kitchen staff to poison them. 
There must be consequences to heal this national trauma and to re-establish a healthy politics. Those consequences require clarity of vision, courage in our convictions, and an extraordinary amount of God’s grace. I believe it can be done. You all who have come out here tonight, despite the threats from the people who would destroy our political community, have shown that you believe it can be done. The man we honor tonight gave his life in the confident hope that it can be done. 
We must never despair. We must never surrender to the forces that seek our destruction. And we must work tirelessly to ensure that this moment truly becomes a turning point for America.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="This Is The Turning Point | Special Guest Host Michael Knowles" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zFTeMeExCDs?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Turning Point USA’s “American Comeback Tour” Continues In Minnesota After Kirk Assassination

Charlie’s Brightness Came From His Character. Because His Savior Lives.

American Universities

Conservatives

Faith

Freedom of Speech

Minnesota

Jesus Christ always spoke and acted out of love, but He never sugar-coated the truth. His words, beliefs, and actions offended so many people that His enemies ultimately executed Him because of them. And He warned his followers, “If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first” (John 15:18).
That warning must have been tough for His disciples to hear. It’s tough for us to hear now.
Yet, we’ve seen that special hatred reserved for people of faith at work in the recent attack on Catholic children and teachers in Minnesota and the assassination of Charlie Kirk in Utah.
This brand of hatred is oddly impersonal. It’s aimed at truth itself — maybe, at Truth Himself — and all who dare to speak the truth to people who “preferred darkness to light” (John 3:19).
How did our culture get to this place?
Not so long ago, men and women of courage, integrity, and firmly held religious convictions drew praise and admiration. Today, they are labeled “haters” who must be silenced, stopped, even killed — just for believing truth exists outside of what you and I think. For believing truth is rooted in God, objective, and binding for all peoples for all time. For daring to defend religious views on human gender and sexuality or the dignity of unborn children.
To those who have bought into the lie that we can and should “live our own truth,” we who hold these religious convictions are the problem. But it is not religious conviction that is harming society; it is the lack of it. Our culture has never been more secular, and it has never faced so many problems. Why can’t we be honest and admit that pushing God to the margins has been an absolute disaster?
We see this in the collapse of family life, the breakdown of marriage, children being raised without fathers and mothers, and the epidemic of loneliness that leaves so many people isolated and despairing.
At the same time, there has never been a greater acceptance and celebration of lifestyles that run contrary to faith. Yet, instead of producing the promised peace or joy, they make the problems facing young people — anxiety, depression, and despair — far worse. And remarkably, the faithless double down and blame these issues on religion.
Our darkness will never turn to light until we accept the fact that these struggles are fundamentally and profoundly spiritual rather than political. The more we reject God, the more our culture’s anger, confusion, and despair will deepen. We don’t need less of God — we need more.
If the world were not so gripped by darkness, we might see more clearly that what we are doing is not working. Humanity has lost its way, but Christ came to rescue us because of His deep love. Still, many prefer darkness. The Gospel unmasks us and calls us to change. In the end, we must choose: to step into the light or to cling to the shadows.
Immaculée Ilibagiza, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide, chose the light.
I met with Immaculée the day after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, and though neither of us knew him personally, we spoke sadly of his loss as a defender of the truth.
We also spoke at length about her life’s tragedy: in 1994, after 91 harrowing days in hiding, Immaculée emerged to learn her entire family, except for one brother, had been brutally murdered along with nearly one million of her friends, neighbors, and countrymen. But, by God’s grace, she chose forgiveness and love as her path forward through the sorrow, anger, and unspeakable loss.
Today, Immaculée shares her story as a means of helping others overcome hatred with love through conversion of heart. She radiates the light of Christ, and her life’s story is a witness to the beauty of the truth.
May we, like her, take hope in the promise of the Gospel: “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (John 1:5). May this same light shine once again, breaking through our shadows and darkness, bringing God’s peace, presence, and love to our country and our world.
Father Dave Pivonka, TOR, is President of Franciscan University of Steubenville.
<div>
<div id="post-body-text">
<div class="ep1tdco0 css-fgibv1">
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
</div>
</div>
</div>

Crucifix on the wall

The Light Shines In The Darkness

Catholic Church

Priest

This summer marked the end of an era in American Christianity. Within weeks of each other, pastor John MacArthur and psychologist James Dobson, two of the most influential evangelical leaders of the past half-century, passed away. MacArthur died on July 14 at the age of 86, followed by his friend Dobson on August 21 at 89. Their distinct but complementary approaches to faith and culture reshaped churches, families, and politics in profound ways.
Both men launched their ministries into the national spotlight in 1977, debuting radio programs at a time when evangelical broadcasting was entering a golden age. MacArthur’s verse-by-verse exposition of Scripture with &#8220;Grace to You&#8221; and Dobson’s biblical counsel on marriage and parenting with &#8220;Focus on the Family&#8221; would eventually reach tens of millions of households across the globe.
Troy Miller, president of the National Religious Broadcasters, told The Daily Wire that both men not only mastered radio but also foresaw the digital transition. “They were pioneers in adopting MP3s, moving into podcasts, and building digital platforms,” Miller said. “Grace to You and Focus on the Family became models for how to keep Christian teaching at the center of new technologies. And part of the legacy that these two men are going to leave was their insistence on being quality communicators, whatever the medium. Both of them worked very hard at their communication skills, whether it be preaching, speaking at conferences, or on the radio. They set the bar.”
<h3>Two Vocations, One Foundation</h3>
Although their ministries often intersected, MacArthur and Dobson took distinct paths to engaging culture. While the two men held the same positions on life, marriage, and sexuality, MacArthur avoided joining political coalitions, famously declining to sign the Manhattan Declaration, a 2009 statement that affirmed the sanctity of life and traditional marriage, because of his doctrinal differences with some of the statement’s authors.
Dobson, in contrast, leaned into politics. Not only was he one of the Manhattan Declaration’s most prominent signatories, in 1995, he also founded the Family Research Council, a Washington-based policy group that quickly became a central voice in the religious right.
Miller said the difference came down to vocation, not conviction. “John MacArthur understood he was a pastor,” he said. “That was his primary calling in life. And as a shepherd, his deepest desire was for people to understand the Word of God better. His expository preaching and teaching, his commentaries, his books were all meant to bring people closer to God. Dr. Dobson understood he was a psychologist. So he was concerned about culture and where culture was headed as a psychologist. They took these two different approaches, but behind both of them was a biblical foundation.”
Grace to You executive director Phil Johnson, who worked closely with MacArthur for more than 40 years, echoed that assessment. “John was always clear that he wasn’t opposed to political involvement by Christians and that there are Christians who are called to all sorts of vocations, including politics.” 
Dobson used his political vocation to tremendous effect.
Political science professor Hunter Baker, who first met Dobson while working as a religious liberty lobbyist, pointed out that by the late 1990s, the radio host had begun to eclipse the influence of the Moral Majority’s Jerry Falwell and the Christian Coalition’s Pat Robertson, in part, due to his academic credentials.
“Robertson and Falwell were essentially televangelists, and they had their influence. But then comes James Dobson. And a lot of people don&#8217;t remember this, but Dobson had an appointment at the USC Medical School as a child psychologist. He was there for 14 years in a very prestigious sort of position.” That credibility allowed Dobson to gain a hearing with audiences that would be less likely to tune into Robertson’s 700 Club or Falwell’s Old-Time Gospel Hour.
After he grew Focus on the Family into a cultural juggernaut, his mobilization of his Christian listeners helped secure the Republican Party’s transformation into a staunchly pro-life party.
“People want to think the Republican Party has always been this great pro-life party,” Baker said, “but Ronald Reagan was really the first one to decisively move in that direction. Yet his advisors were constantly wanting him to take pro-life rhetoric out of his speeches. And so that&#8217;s the Republican Party that Dobson was dealing with in the 90s. And in the late 1990s, Dobson, in his frustration, said, ‘I&#8217;m going to leave this party and I&#8217;m going to take as many people with me as I can.’ That was a threat that could not be ignored.”
<div id="attachment_969125" style="width: 898px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-969125" class="size-large wp-image-969125" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-74058688-888x576.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON - MAY 03: Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family (L), shakes hands with U.S. President George W. Bush (R) as Dobson's wife, Shirley Dobson, looks on during the National Day of Prayer ceremony at the White House May 3, 2007 in Washington, DC. The program included prayers and meditations from Christian and Jewish leaders and a performance by the US Army Chorus. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)" width="888" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-74058688-888x576.jpg 888w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-74058688-300x195.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-74058688-768x498.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-74058688.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 888px) 100vw, 888px" />Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images</div>
After Dobson took his stand, Baker said, the GOP was forced to commit to the sanctity of life as a key issue. “I would argue that was really decisive. In 2008, even though he was the tremendously popular former mayor of New York City and viewed as a hero of 9/11, Rudy Giuliani got nowhere in that Republican primary process. Why? Because he would not become pro-life in order to run. Then, in 2012, Mitt Romney, who had previously been pro-choice, ran as a pro-life Republican. And I really put all of that at the feet of James Dobson more than anybody else.”
In 2016, Dobson would endorse Donald Trump at a time when few Christian leaders were willing to, helping to shore up Trump’s evangelical support that was vital to winning the election.
<h3>Standing Firm in Cultural Storms</h3>
Though MacArthur resisted joining formal political movements, when politics encroached on the church, he, too, did not hesitate to take a stand.
In 2018, when social justice and critical theory were infiltrating churches and ministries, MacArthur, just as he’d done when he publicly opposed segregation in the 1960s, spoke out. At the time, many nationally known pastors were <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/black-lives-matter-southern-baptist">promoting</a> Black Lives Matter and its <a href="https://x.com/JonathanLeeman/status/1269646035095375874">mission</a>. MacArthur, in contrast, <a href="https://statementonsocialjustice.com/">joined a statement</a> against the Marxist ideology the movement is based on, explicitly rejecting “any teaching that encourages racial groups to view themselves as privileged oppressors or entitled victims of oppression.”
<div id="attachment_138416" style="width: 650px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-138416" class="size-full wp-image-138416" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/08/IMG_1038.jpg" alt="John MacArthur" width="640" height="480" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/08/IMG_1038.jpg 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/08/IMG_1038-300x225.jpg 300w" sizes=" (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" />Courtesy John MacArthur</div>
During the COVID-19 pandemic, he <a href="https://www.gracechurch.org/news/posts/2254">openly defied</a> California’s restrictions on in-person worship, telling his congregation, “Whatever this virus is, it does not overpower First Amendment rights.” One of his final public acts came in 2022 when he sent a <a href="https://www.gty.org/blogs/B220928/an-open-letter-to-governor-newsom">scathing letter</a> to Governor Gavin Newsom addressing his use of Scripture to promote abortion:
<blockquote>[Y]ou revealed to the entire nation how thoroughly rebellious against God you are when you sponsored billboards across America promoting the slaughter of children, whom He creates in the womb (Psalm 139:13–16; Isaiah 45:9–12). You further compounded the wickedness of that murderous campaign with a reprehensible act of gross blasphemy, quoting the very words of Jesus from Mark 12:31 as if you could somehow twist His meaning and arrogate His name in favor of butchering unborn infants. You used the name and the words of Christ to promote the credo of Molech (Leviticus 20:1–5). It would be hard to imagine a greater sacrilege… My concern, Governor Newsom, is that your own soul lies in grave, eternal peril.</blockquote>
Johnson said both stances were consistent with MacArthur’s lifelong approach. “He believed the church must keep its focus on the gospel. And the letter to Newsom is a classic example of that because though he&#8217;s addressing a political leader, like John the Baptist did, with a very strong &#8230; gospel appeal.”
<h3>Generational Impact</h3>
Perhaps the clearest measure of MacArthur and Dobson’s legacies lies in the generations they shaped.
MacArthur’s influence can be seen in pulpits across the country. Thousands of pastors trained at the school he founded, The Master’s Seminary, or influenced by his preaching, now carry forward his model of expository preaching. Johnson shared that in his hometown of Tulsa, he once struggled to identify churches that offered sound, biblical preaching. Today, he said, he can point to many who trace their roots to MacArthur’s ministry. “All of them are connected somehow to John MacArthur. And that&#8217;s just one city. I think the whole country has benefited from the men who&#8217;ve been sent out from Master’s Seminary and men who&#8217;ve been influenced by people who&#8217;ve been influenced by John MacArthur.”
Thirty-two-year-old Nashville pastor, Jonny Ardavanis, is one such man. He recalled MacArthur’s advice when asked how to “pick your battles.” MacArthur’s answer was simple: “I pick every battle where gospel clarity and biblical authority are at stake.” Ardavanis said that principle continues to guide his ministry, and he believes the many comparisons to Charles Spurgeon that poured out on social media at news of MacArthur’s death were apt.
“Spurgeon is known as the prince of preachers, and John MacArthur is known for championing the authority and the sufficiency and the inerrancy of God&#8217;s word. That&#8217;s one of the things that John MacArthur really pushed on to the next generation of preachers—open up the Word of God and let it speak. It&#8217;s living and active…Both fought off the liberal drift of their day. Spurgeon was known for the downgrade controversy, where, at the time, the union was drifting in regards to the inerrancy and authority of God&#8217;s word. He stood staunch against that. MacArthur was known for the lordship debate, saying ‘Hey, you can&#8217;t call Jesus your savior without calling him your Lord,’ meaning that it was a rejection of cheap grace. And so both were known for preaching, but for standing firm on issues of doctrinal clarity.”
For Dobson, too, controversy was the cost of conviction, with critics frequently accusing him of turning from family counseling to the culture war. But Baker rejects that assessment. “People say Dobson spoiled his legacy by getting political,” he said, “but what if the issue had been slavery or segregation? We wouldn’t fault someone for standing up against those. Dobson saw abortion in that same category—a fundamental issue of justice.”
As Phil Johnson put it, “[MacArthur and Dobson] were both trying to stand astride the progress of history and say, ‘Wait a minute.’ They saw that a lot of what passed for progress was actually destructive, and they weren’t afraid to fight it.”
<div id="attachment_969131" style="width: 833px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-969131" class="size-large wp-image-969131" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-56542928-823x576.jpg" alt="PHILADELPHIA - JANUARY 8: Dr. James C. Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, gestures while speaking at the Justice Sunday III rally on January 8, 2006 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Sponsored by the Family Research Council, the rally was held one day before the start of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. (Photo by Jeff Fusco/Getty Images)" width="823" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-56542928-823x576.jpg 823w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-56542928-300x210.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-56542928-768x538.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/GettyImages-56542928.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 823px) 100vw, 823px" />Jeff Fusco/Getty Images</div>
<h3>A Shared Legacy</h3>
Since their deaths, many of MacArthur and Dobson’s listeners have expressed a measure of fear over what will happen to American Christianity now that the men they viewed as lions of the faith have gone. But Johnson feels that’s a failure to remember what both men taught.
“I understand,” he said, “because it seems like a string of men who we respect and trust, whose voices we want to hear have died. Yet I comfort myself with Christ&#8217;s words that he&#8217;s going to build his church and the gates of hell are not going to prevail against it. So he&#8217;ll raise up new voices and new people with new courage, people who actually are standing on the shoulders of these men. We lament the loss of their voices, but we also understand that all of them believed in the sovereignty of God, that they didn&#8217;t die by mistake, and that their time is in God&#8217;s hands and their shoes will be filled by someone who maybe we don&#8217;t even know yet that the Lord will raise up.”
Their voices may now be silent, but the pastors filling pulpits trained under MacArthur and the activists inspired by Dobson testify that their influence endures.

MixCollage-05-Sep-2025-09-55-AM-3515

Lions Of The Faith: The Legacies Of John MacArthur And James Dobson

The Legacies Of John MacArthur And James Dobson: Giants Of The Faith

Church

Focus on the Family

James Dobson

John MacArthur

Obituaries

Pro-Life Movement

Religious Liberty

Republican Party

Antisemitism is nothing new. It is an ancient evil, spanning from Haman to Hitler, and now manifesting in Hamas and Hezbollah. This is not just political ideology or a disturbing cultural trend, antisemitism is the primary objective from Hell.
After the Holocaust, the world promised, “Never again.” Yet here we are. The October 7 terrorist attacks against Israel, surge in antisemitic rhetoric, violence targeting Jews and supporters of Israel all reveal an alarming truth: today’s complacency is tomorrow’s captivity.
When antisemitism rises, it doesn&#8217;t stop with the Jewish people. Hatred comes first for the Jews, then for everyone else. In denying the image of God in the Jewish people, antisemitism assaults the Judeo-Chrstian values that undergird peace and prosperity everywhere. That’s why Christians must stand up — against antisemitism and with Israel — now. We need to build a firewall against antisemitism or today’s generation will continue to spiral into moral confusion and spiritual blindness. 
Antisemitism is not just about politics. It’s about truth and the foundation of human flourishing. From Genesis to Revelation, there is no ambiguity whatsoever that there is a Divine purpose for the Jewish people. God’s Covenant with the Jews has not been nullified. Even in the New Covenant through Christ, there is a plan for the Jewish people in Israel.
That’s why I push back against replacement theology, the lie that the Church has replaced Israel in God’s divine plan. The apostle Paul makes the truth clear in Romans: God’s promises to the Jewish people still stand. The Church ought to reject replacement theology and, instead, embrace its calling to bless and stand with Israel.
The tide of antisemitism rises with violence and spiritual crises in our communities. It is a diabolical — truly demonic — attempt to erase the image of God from the Jewish people, undermining morality and humanity everywhere. We must be spiritually vigilant. This means prayer, public engagement and prophetic activism.
Christians must raise their voices. Pray to God, but also call upon your pastors, church communities and elected officials. Call out cowardice disguised as political neutrality. Confront the lies propagated online. Of the 100,000 evangelical churches in America, how many pastors spoke up after October 7? How many feared losing followers or political favor? Silence in the face of evil is complicity, and I call on all Christians to rise up and stand in support of Israel.
The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (IFCJ) is one ministry leading the way. For years, the IFCJ has united Christians and Jews through shared values and compassion, providing aid for Holocaust survivors, helping persecuted Jews immigrate to Israel and strengthening the holy bonds among Christians and Jews.
After October 7, the IFCJ launched the Flags of Fellowship project. The unifying initiative raises Israeli flags alongside Christian banners in churches across America. The public declaration is simple and critical: we will not be silent and we will not stand idly by.
I’ve met with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Arab Christians and both Jewish and non-Jewish citizens of Israel. The tiny Jewish state is home to the freest Arabs and Christians in the region. It is the only nation in the region where minority communities — Christians, Muslims, Druze and others — can participate fully in society and serve in the government. Israel is not the villain of the Middle East. The portrayal of Israel as an oppressor is not just wrong; it’s a calculated, diabolical lie. Don’t swallow the lie. Speak up for the truth.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=summer&amp;utm_content=editorialsummersale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">End of Summer Sale &#8211; Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Every believer can take action. We must. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Speak truth when lies spread. Contact your representatives in Congress. Preach truth from the pulpit, post it on social media and proclaim it in your daily life.
As believers, we are engaged in spiritual warfare, but we have the truth and we must practice prayerful vigilance. Remember Romans 1:16: “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation.” God calls us to thwart evil in all its forms, including that of antisemitism.
We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past and let evil persist. We need to engage in bearing witness, in reaching out to the Jewish community. We must not echo the complacency that destroyed Germany in the late 1930’s and led to the systematic murder of millions of people.
When hatred rises again — which it will — let us use our voices to conquer it. Silence is not an option. Silence is antithetical to the Christian faith. Locking arms with the Jewish people, let us stand together, defend truth and proclaim God’s love. For such a time as this, we are called to stand together and speak up.
* * *
Pastor Samuel Rodriguez is the lead pastor of New Season, one of America&#8217;s most influential megachurches, and president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (NHCLC), which represents millions of Christians worldwide. Rodriguez has advised three U.S. Presidents and is the first Latino to participate in multiple presidential inauguration ceremonies. He is also a best-selling author of 12 books and serves as producer of 7 faith-based films including &#8220;Breakthrough,&#8221; &#8220;Flamin&#8217; Hot,&#8221; and &#8220;Dream King.&#8221;
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Side by side spires with cross and star of david

Silence Is Not An Option: Why Christians Must Stand Against Antisemitism

Anti-Semitism

Christians

Israel

Jews

The following excerpt is taken from the new book &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/War-Science-Thirty-Nine-Scientists-Scientific/dp/B0DWLP2VTZ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=22E4UEYSZLK9L&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.7OpVlvjzAMkKLRoafpVC5BbfjWiiv_d1HNPN1kmFXABtw90xnU8oHEEAF-C1mFSw.m6gzq7MX5HeMeyZUsEzNWkKLTJiFGUtfa6NHjZv0eDw&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=the+war+on+science+lawrence+krauss&amp;qid=1754574679&amp;sprefix=the+war+on+sc%2Caps%2C111&amp;sr=8-1">The War On Science</a>,&#8221; edited by Lawrence M. Krauss (Post Hill Press, 2025), with contributions from Jordan B. Peterson, Niall Ferguson, Richard Dawkins, Gad Saad, and many more. 
* * *
<h3>The Archetypal Fate Of The Universities</h3>
The institutions of higher education in the West are administratively top-heavy, in precisely the manner allowing that very administration to prey upon the future earnings of the students they hypothetically serve. Furthermore, the faculty itself leans very heavily in the radical direction despite being the dubious beneficiaries of administrative expansion. Student-to-faculty ratios have increased dramatically. The status and autonomy of the faculty have been very badly compromised. None of this seems to have made the professors and researchers any more forthcoming in their resistance or any more skeptical about the self-righteous “progressive” ideals they advocate. Finally, the students themselves have been infantilized, as well as taught outright that progressive radicalism is identical to virtue. It is, therefore, very difficult to imagine anything approximating an across-the-board improvement in behavior at the universities, in consequence. There are no imaginable circumstances under which the extant Ivy League institutions, for example, would be likely to dispense with the 80 percent of administrative staff and a somewhat lesser but still high proportion of the faculty that would have to disappear for any real change in orientation to occur. 
There have been recent initiatives, most famously in the states of Texas and Florida, to push back against the diversity, inclusivity, and equity bureaucracy-mob, but a simple name change is no trouble for the serpentine Machiavellians of the radical fringe to manage. This means that the same old corrupt players can just change their ideational camouflage, and at the surface level, just as they did when the revelations of Communist excess became too self-evident to deny in the 1970s, and Marxism metastasized into the intersectional oppression idiocy of today. It is, therefore, highly possible that the academy in the West is rotting because it is, in fact, dead and cannot be revived in anything resembling its current form. In that case, the flame will have to be kept burning at new institutions, whether in the classic bricks-and-mortar and in-person guise, if that proves possible (and I doubt it), or electronically, if the major changes in the conceptualization of education and the technology necessary to offer mass higher learning prove capable of delivering on their obvious but by no means certain promise.
<div id="attachment_958091" style="width: 394px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/War-Science-Thirty-Nine-Scientists-Scientific/dp/B0DWLP2VTZ/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.uHHyjHn4r9-5D55ze0R9Gk-xy5AIFtAEK7qQ4oR-WpQLi51rBu79jgtR88ZY5U4VgKNq4guJpjpfz4JBsu0CN4ZKfzsmHlY2xOTX5ypfus0dPolpFU3YLRuD1JycE93FkmrEi8sJQT_-K9sN8c2aXpVu9KANTbLiCQ7kDTygeqz7Oh8iBp7BWNSPZkoE6i9QqlYnHbmAMe8OQScq8S7oi0FoZ5cX6CV4hwRSurj_rO8.zNhWL4XZiBpgI8rDMadnYyGjqoUHGwS4_vcJYlypv18&amp;qid=1754575409&amp;sr=1-1"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-958091" class="wp-image-958091 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/MixCollage-07-Aug-2025-09-35-AM-9729-384x576.jpg" alt="Credit: Post Hill Press" width="384" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/MixCollage-07-Aug-2025-09-35-AM-9729-384x576.jpg 384w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/MixCollage-07-Aug-2025-09-35-AM-9729-200x300.jpg 200w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/MixCollage-07-Aug-2025-09-35-AM-9729-768x1152.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/MixCollage-07-Aug-2025-09-35-AM-9729-1024x1536.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/MixCollage-07-Aug-2025-09-35-AM-9729-1365x2048.jpg 1365w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/MixCollage-07-Aug-2025-09-35-AM-9729-1360x2040.jpg 1360w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/MixCollage-07-Aug-2025-09-35-AM-9729-scaled.jpg 1707w" sizes=" (max-width: 384px) 100vw, 384px" /></a>Credit: Post Hill Press</div>
Is there a way out personally, psychologically, or conceptually? Or, more specifically, what is presently incumbent upon those who are currently or will in the future be engaged in the university teaching or research enterprise? We can turn, once again, to the Enuma Elish account to elucidate the archetypal pattern. It is always in the very darkest hour that the redeeming hero emerges. Deliverance comes to the faithless murderer-children of chaos and order in the story in question in the hero-form of Marduk, the Mesopotamian savior-son-of-God. After Cain and Abel, we are presented with the cataclysm of the flood, as well as the erection of the Tower of Babel, the totalitarian edifice which is a structure of value with the wrong value at its pinnacle. Those are the twin fates of the descendants of Cain, the parasites who will not sacrifice properly and who undermine what even they themselves most truly value and depend upon. What are these fates? The descent of the world into the primordial waters of chaos that reigned before the beginning; alternatively, the worship of the false idols of the Luciferian intellect that likewise produce disunity and confusion — in the latter case, the eventual inability of those who aim wrong to even understand or utter the same words. “What is a woman?” — indeed. What is the way forward in the biblical narrative — perhaps running parallel to the Mesopotamian story? 
Careless pride eternally comes before a fall, but the humility that is its medicament is the attention that leaves nothing out of its purview and can, therefore, perceive the proper course forward. We could consider the account of Jonah, the everyman alerted by his conscience to speak the words of truth that set society straight. He flees, initially, from the requirement — who wants to risk standing against the mob? — but upon encountering the abysmal consequences of maintaining silence when there is something that demands to be said, he reconsiders his cowardice, turns his voice over to the control of the divine, and redeems the corrupt city of his enemies. What is the moral of such stories for the timorous, ideology-addled professors of today — or for those who enable them through their silence or even “allyship”? What might be done by forthright and faithful believers in the redeeming quality of truth and sacrifice when the walls we relied on to protect us have been breached and the barbarians have entered the gates? And have they? Here’s a telling data point: it is none other than the despicable Michel Foucault, darling of the Luciferian radicals, who is by some accounts the most cited “scholar” in the world.
What might be done, indeed? We professors, scholars, and researchers could open the eyes and the mouths God has given us instead of continuing to take each of the thousands of small steps backward that have enabled the devouring ideologues at our institutions. We could forthrightly note the chaos that looms and identify and hold to account its purveyors and acolytes. We could do the duty required of us by the people who have charged the inhabitants of the academy with the responsibility of preserving and seeking the truth, and we could call out the frauds, hucksters, Machiavellians, and outright charlatan-psychopaths of the faux disciplines and idiot theories of oppressor and victim. We could, by so doing, speak the words of truthful magic that redeem the fragmented world and position the foundation back in its place. Alternatively, we could remain frozen in the corner like the petrified rabbits we have far too often revealed ourselves to be and let the parasitical rabble attain their temporary and inevitably self and society-destroying “victory.” What did the great Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn say so effectively in his all-out and eventually successful assault on the predatory tyrants and parasites of the envious and ideology-possessed radical world? ONE WORD OF TRUTH SHALL OUTWEIGH THE WHOLE WORLD. The protected professoriate pays for the opportunity and protection historically granted by the community to the academic endeavor with the vow to protect what is true, beautiful, and good. If we once again found the courage to be the standard-bearers of such value, the mad and ideological mob would be rapidly defeated. 
Will we do what needs to be done? We have failed so far, and it would take a mad bit of optimism to suggest that the course could be reversed. Nonetheless, the situation is far from hopeless. Here is another bit of traditional mythology to consider with regard to such a situation. When Abraham is informed by God of the latter’s decision to destroy the sinful cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, the great prophet objects, making the case that wholesale destruction is no temperate and proper response to the sins even of the many (Genesis 18: 22–33). God agrees to spare the threatened cities if even fifty righteous people might still be found dwelling within their walls. Abraham persists in his objections, even after receiving such consideration from God, bargaining the divine down to forty-five, then forty, then thirty, then twenty — then ten. What does this strange story indicate? Nothing less than this: an entire polity, and all of its denizens, can be saved even from an impending, dire, and deserved fate if even a tiny number of its inhabitants remain willing to risk the great adventure of the truth.
The moral of the story for the current denizens of the academies of higher education? It would not take a great number of professors, researchers, and students even now to speak and turn the tide. The moral, even more specifically, even more personally? It is incumbent on each and every one of us engaged in such enterprise to risk being one of the redeeming ten. We should remember, too, when considering such things: it is indeed a risk to see what is in front of our eyes and to say what needs to be said. It is also true, however, that willful blindness and failure to speak when there is something to say are ventures with perils of their own. The ten in question may find themselves in trouble when they speak, but they are simultaneously saving themselves and all those around them from the invisible hand of doom, threatening the future. This is an existential fact, alluded to in the great story of Jonah. It is not by mere chance that the fleeing prophet finds himself drowning when he holds his tongue after being commanded to speak — and then, worse, devoured by the beast of the abyss. There is indeed a descent into hell that threatens, both psychologically and socially, when conscience is ignored. It is the wisdom of the ages that the risk of seeing and speaking, all things considered, is much less than the risk of hiding and silence. There may be a price that is to be paid for the former — but the price of the latter is both soul and society. The true spirit of the academy is the prophetic voice that redeems. We abandon that at our great peril and to the detriment of all that depends on education itself. 
See, therefore, and speak — or pay the inevitable price.
* * *
This excerpt is published by permission of Post Hill Press. “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/War-Science-Thirty-Nine-Scientists-Scientific/dp/B0DWLP2VTZ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=22E4UEYSZLK9L&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.7OpVlvjzAMkKLRoafpVC5BbfjWiiv_d1HNPN1kmFXABtw90xnU8oHEEAF-C1mFSw.m6gzq7MX5HeMeyZUsEzNWkKLTJiFGUtfa6NHjZv0eDw&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=the+war+on+science+lawrence+krauss&amp;qid=1754574679&amp;sprefix=the+war+on+sc%2Caps%2C111&amp;sr=8-1">The War on Science: Thirty-Nine Renowned Scientists and Scholars Speak Out About Current Threats to Free Speech, Open Inquiry, and the Scientific Process</a>,” edited by Lawrence M. Krauss. (Post Hill Press, July 2025).
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-role-of-the-holy-spirit-distinguishing-between-your-will-and-gods-will" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. Jordan B. Peterson</a> is a clinical psychologist and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto. From 1993 to 1998 he served as assistant and then associate professor of psychology at Harvard. He is the international bestselling author of “Maps of Meaning,” “12 Rules For Life,” “Beyond Order.” Be sure to order his newest book, “We Who Wrestle with God” (Portfolio/Penguin).
Lawrence M. Krauss is an internationally renowned theoretical physicist, bestselling author, and acclaimed lecturer. A passionate advocate for science and reason, and the public understanding of science, he is the author of twelve popular books, including the international bestsellers &#8220;The Physics of Star Trek, A Universe from Nothing,&#8221; and his most recent book, &#8220;The Edge of Knowledge.&#8221; He received his PhD from MIT and then moved to the Harvard Society of Fellows. He is currently President of The Origins Project Foundation, Chair of the Board of the Free Speech Union, Canada, and host of The Origins Podcast.

Jordan Peterson

The Academy In The West Is Dead. Speak Anyway.

College

Communism

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Marxism

Woke Culture

John Thomas Scopes On Trial

A Century Ago, The ‘Scopes Monkey Trial’ Shook The Nation. The Stakes Are Just As High Today.

Academia

ACLU

American History

Charles Darwin

Education

Religion

Science

Tennessee

New York Yankees all-star Aaron Judge this week discussed his faith in God, when asked about money and fame.
Judge was <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DMG2BgGg2QU/">asked</a> on Monday by a CBN Sports reporter, &#8220;What would you say to someone who thinks fame and fortune is the answer to all their problems?&#8221;
Judge responded by pointing his fans to Jesus. &#8220;Our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ. He’s given me this platform, this ability,&#8221; Judge said. &#8220;The fame, getting the chance to do this is great and all, but it’s not fulfilling as much as the relationship I have with Him.&#8221;
<div class="ad-container desktop ad-h-50 ad-w-300">
<div id="desktop-desk-ad-lb2" class="ad gam" data-iu="lb2" data-ad-lz="1" data-ad-init="1" data-google-query-id="CMb04qO-xI4DFXYETwgdpAw1Og" data-ad-slot-rendered="1" data-rendered-size="1x1">&#8220;That&#8217;s what I would tell anybody: just build a relationship with Him, and that’ll solve all your problems,&#8221; the 33-year-old added.</div>
<div data-iu="lb2" data-ad-lz="1" data-ad-init="1" data-google-query-id="CMb04qO-xI4DFXYETwgdpAw1Og" data-ad-slot-rendered="1" data-rendered-size="1x1"></div>
<blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMG2BgGg2QU/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14">
<div style="padding: 16px;">
&nbsp;
<div style="flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div>
<div style="flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div>
<div style="height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div>
<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div>
<div style="flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px;"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent;"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px;"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div>
</div>
&nbsp;
<a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMG2BgGg2QU/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by CBN Sports (@cbnsports_)</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
During the MLB All-Star Game on Monday, Judge showcased a bat that featured his daughter’s name, Nora, and a Bible verse reference.
&#8220;For we live by faith, not by sight,&#8221; the verse, 2 Corinthians 5:7, reads. Judge&#8217;s bat says, &#8220;Faith, not sight.&#8221;
<div id="attachment_948589" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-948589" class="wp-image-948589 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2224529063-864x576.jpg" alt="The bat of Aaron Judge #99 of the New York Yankees before the Workout during MLB All-Star Week at Truist Park on July 14, 2025 in Atlanta, Georgia." width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2224529063-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2224529063-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2224529063-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2224529063.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />New York Yankees/Getty Images</div>
Judge has been open about his Christian faith his whole career. The ball player&#8217;s social media <a href="https://x.com/thejudge44?lang=en">bio</a> reads in part, &#8220;Christian. Faith, Family, then Baseball.&#8221;
The athlete has spoken specifically about his adoptive parents and how their love informs his faith, as well.
&#8220;The position I was in, being adopted by my parents &#8212; for them to pick me, choose me, to put me in their lives, it&#8217;s incredible,&#8221; Judge, who was adopted when he was a one-year-old, <a href="https://sportsspectrum.com/sport/baseball/2025/05/01/yankees-aaron-judge-blistering-start-faith-foundation/">said</a> last year. &#8220;Having His blessings, keeping the faith through good times and bad times, knowing He&#8217;s always with me, that&#8217;s definitely helped me get to this position.&#8221;
<iframe loading="lazy" style="border: none; overflow: hidden;" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?height=476&amp;href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Freel%2F561052863241503%2F&amp;show_text=true&amp;width=267&amp;t=0" width="267" height="591" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Judge learned he was adopted at age ten. “I knew I didn’t look like them,” he <a href="https://www.northjersey.com/story/sports/columnists/bob-klapisch/2017/06/23/klapisch-aaron-judge-never-forgot-his-roots/420872001/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> NorthJersey.com in 2024. “I finally said, ‘Okay, what’s going on?’ And that’s when they told me.&#8221;
&#8220;I was fine with that, they were the only parents I ever knew,&#8221; he added. &#8220;It actually wasn’t a big deal.”
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dodgers-ace-clayton-kershaw-adds-bible-reference-to-rainbow-hat-for-pride-night">Dodgers Ace Clayton Kershaw Adds Bible Reference To Rainbow Hat For Pride Night</a>
</div>

Aaron Judge

Yankees All-Star Aaron Judge Asked About Fortune And Fame, Directs Fans To Jesus

Major League Baseball

New York Yankees

Sports

U.S.

​​I want to offer condolences to the family and all of the followers of John MacArthur, the Southern California preacher, who died on Monday at the age of 86. He was someone I would venture to say was my friend.
John MacArthur was an amazing human being. He had millions and millions of followers in the Christian community.
In its obituary, Christianity Today <a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/2025/07/died-john-macarthur-study-bible-expository-preaching-controversy/">wrote</a>:
<blockquote>MacArthur said the most important mark of his ministry was that he explained the Bible with the Bible, not cluttering up sermons with personal stories, commentary on current events, or appeals to emotion, but teaching timeless truth. The longtime pastor of Grace Community Church said a good sermon should still be good 50 years after it is preached. “It isn’t time-stamped by any kind of cultural events or personal events,” MacArthur said. “It’s not about me. And it transcends not only time, but it transcends culture.”
He published the MacArthur Study Bible in 1997, with 20,000 notes on specific verses, as well as an index of important doctrines, introductions to each book of the Bible, and suggested Bible-reading plans. It sold 2 million copies in 22 years. His New Testament commentary—a series that Moody Publishers put out in 34 volumes over 31 years—also sold more than 1 million copies.</blockquote>
Of all the people I have known in this sphere — and I have known quite a few — MacArthur was absolutely staunch in his defense of the Bible. He never shied away from the messages of the New Testament, and that made him controversial. 
And that was a good thing. 
In the first interview I did with him, a lengthy interview, he spent 30 minutes of the interview talking to me about why I ought to convert to Christianity.
As a Jew, not only was that not insulting, it was absolutely useful.
Why?
Because he was saying what he believed, and I think that was a good thing. 
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2238-democrats-abandon-barack-obama?elementPosition=1&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
The reason I considered him a friend is because he&#8217;s somebody who cared about my eternal life.
We could have disagreements on what would happen with regard to heaven or hell, or whether the New Testament was true or not, depending on whether you&#8217;re a Christian or a Jew. 
But I was never upset by the fact that he believed I ought to convert to Christianity, because, of course, many Christians believe that I ought to convert to Christianity. That is not an insult, because it shows they care about my spiritual welfare. 
We may disagree about how to attain that spiritual welfare, but it&#8217;s because he was able to say hard truths as he saw them to people like me that he was also able to say hard truths to everybody about Biblical values.
And that meant he was never shy about Biblical values, which is absolutely useful in a time when moral relativism runs rampant. 
Last year, he was on the show, and he said:
<blockquote>I would just say this in a general sense: Read the Bible. Just read the Bible. It has the ring of truth. It defends itself. It&#8217;s like a lion. You don&#8217;t defend it. You don&#8217;t defend a lion. You open the cage and let it out. That&#8217;ll be okay. And the Scripture is like that. &#8230; Even morally, there&#8217;s something in the heart of people that resonates with biblical morality. Obviously, their sinfulness fights it.
But the law of God is written in every human heart. That&#8217;s part of being created in the image of God. And you can fight that law. You can resist that law. You can violate that law. But that law is there. That is part of being created in God&#8217;s image. And I think if your heart is open to the truth, you go to the Word of God. And I&#8217;ve seen this now for all these years I&#8217;ve been in ministry. The ring of Biblical truth is so powerful to a person who honestly reads the Scripture.</blockquote>
I think that message is deeply necessary. In a time when so many have fallen into moral relativism, have fallen down a bunch of rabbit holes looking to fill the God-shaped hole in their heart.
I think that his work is going to be read for generations.
The nice thing about the Jewish view of the afterlife is that in Judaism, if you&#8217;re not Jewish and you fulfill seven basic rules, the Noachide laws, which include items such as no blasphemy, no adultery, and no murder, among other things, you have a spot in heaven.
So it doesn&#8217;t conflict at all with my faith to say that John MacArthur is with God right now. That is something he always longed for.
His uncompromising fealty to Biblical values as he saw them meant that he was also able to walk into political frays without fear.
Way back when, he shellacked a young San Francisco mayor named Gavin Newsom regarding same-sex marriage <a href="https://x.com/JCRyle/status/1879524136218992685">on CNN</a>. Gavin Newsom was playing at being a pastor, saying loftily, “I&#8217;m a practicing Catholic. I got married in the church two-plus years. I don&#8217;t see what we&#8217;re doing in terms of advancing the bond of love and monogamy and extending that to families, families of same sex, in any way, shape or form takes away anything from the church or the sanctity of the union that my wife and I have.”
MacArthur replied. “I would just like to ask the mayor: As a practical, practicing Catholic, do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?”
“Yeah,” Newsom answered. “Look, pastor, I&#8217;m not going to get in a theological debate with you.”
“It&#8217;s not a theological debate,” MacArthur said. “That&#8217;s just a straight question. Do you believe the Bible is the authoritative word of God?”
“Yeah, I, I, with respect, I guess I do,” Newsom answered.
“The Bible says when God created man, he said, ‘One man, one woman, cleave together for life.’ That&#8217;s a family,” MacArthur said bluntly.
MacArthur had that kind of clarity.
(You could see Gavin Newsom smirking, blustering, “I&#8217;m a practicing Catholic and I&#8217;ve been married for two years,” to lead off that particular clip. He was at that point married to Kimberly Guilfoyle, whom he would later cheat on.)
When you have a moral grounding in Biblical values, which John MacArthur did, it gives you the courage to walk in like a lion.
That is something John MacArthur did his entire life.

MixCollage-15-Jul-2025-02-51-PM-6761

A Tribute To John MacArthur, A Lion Who Was My Friend

Ben Shapiro

Jewish

Judaism

This month, America commemorates the 100th anniversary of a landmark cultural event that taught us about the dangers of censorship. July of 1925 witnessed the “Scopes Monkey Trial,” where a Dayton, Tennessee, public school teacher was put on trial for violating a state law that prohibited teaching human evolution.
The teaching of scientific ideas should never be banned, much less criminalized. We like to think of censorship as something from the dark ages of the past, before our modern enlightened era vanquished intellectual intolerance. But 100 years after Scopes, we have what the late Supreme Court Justice Scalia once called “Scopes-in-reverse,” where scientists and scholars face reprisals if they challenge neo-Darwinian evolution.
For about 20 years I’ve been collecting examples of academic speech codes that prevent faculty from discussing scientific alternatives to Darwin. For example:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Back in 2005, Cornell’s interim president devoted a State of the University Address <a href="https://president.cornell.edu/the-presidency/archives/rawlings/20051021-state-of-the-university-address/">to denounce</a> &#8220;intelligent design (ID),&#8221; arguing that it has no place in science classrooms. &#8220;The answer is that intelligent design is not valid as science, that is, it has no ability to develop new knowledge through hypothesis testing&#8230;&#8221;</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Also in 2005, the president of the University of Idaho instituted a campus-wide <a href="https://evolutionnews.org/2008/10/banned_book_week_and_intellige_2/">speech-code</a>, where “evolution” was “the only curriculum that is appropriate” for science classes. This was done in retaliation against biology professor Scott Minnich, who had just testified in favor of intelligent design at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial — a case which ultimately banned ID from public schools in Dover, PA.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Jerry Coyne, a University of Chicago evolutionary biologist and atheist blogger, <a href="https://evolutionnews.org/2011/03/jerry_coyne/">once wrote</a> that “adherence to ID…should be absolute grounds for not hiring a science professor.” In 2013, Coyne attacked Eric Hedin, a physics professor at Ball State University (BSU), for briefly teaching about ID in an honors seminar. BSU’s president then caved, and issued a speech code declaring that “intelligent design is not appropriate content for science courses.”</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">In 2020, two Norwegian scientists published <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071">a paper</a> in Journal of Theoretical Biology citing the work of leading ID theorists and arguing for “a Design Science.” Facing pressure, the journal’s editors then issued <a href="https://retractionwatch.com/2020/10/15/editors-say-they-wont-retract-intelligent-design-paper-despite-subject-being-not-in-any-way-a-suitable-topic-for-their-journal/">a disclaimer</a> addressing no substantive arguments in the paper but implementing another speech code, announcing: “intelligent design is not in any way a suitable topic for the Journal of Theoretical Biology.”</li>
</ul>
Perhaps the most ironic recent example of evolutionary censorship will take place this month at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, not far down the road from Dayton, as it celebrates a “<a href="https://www.vanderbilt.edu/evolution/scopes-symposium/">Scopes ‘Monkey’ Trial Centennial Symposium</a>.” Co-organized by <a href="https://www.vanderbilt.edu/evolution/">Vanderbilt’s Evolutionary Studies Institute</a> and the National Center for Science Education, the symposium includes many credible speakers from science, philosophy, and law. Intelligent design is on the schedule, and there is an entire session devoted to the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. Yet exactly zero pro-ID scientists or scholars are slated for the symposium.
In February, and again in May, I emailed the organizers of the Scopes Symposium, offering to provide names of credible pro-ID scientists who would be open to participating in their event. No one even replied.
The irony is palpable: a symposium that is supposed to be remembering the dangers of censorship regarding evolution is itself practicing censorship regarding evolution.
An even worse irony is that Vanderbilt’s website hosts an official <a href="https://www.vanderbilt.edu/dialogue-vanderbilt/free-expression/">“Dialogue Vanderbilt” / “Commitment to Free Expression”</a> page which boasts of the university’s supposed commitment to “bringing together people of differing viewpoints for a common purpose.” The page continues:
<blockquote>Transformative education, pathbreaking research and the timeless search for truth all require a wide variety of viewpoints, the uninhibited exchange of ideas, the persistent challenging of conventional wisdom, and courageous and vigorous debate.
A university that dutifully transmits canonical knowledge, but is not at the same time alive with diverse perspectives, probing critique and the practice of query and argument, is a university in name only.</blockquote>
The page then lauds the importance of “institutional neutrality,” quoting former Vanderbilt Chancellor Alexander Heard stating: “A university&#8217;s obligation is not to protect students from ideas, but rather to expose them to ideas, and to help make them capable of handling and, hopefully, having ideas.”
The one-sided Scopes Symposium completely rejects these ideals, aiming to “protect” students from non-Darwinian viewpoints — directly violating the Chancellor Heard’s warning. By Vanderbilt’s own standards, apparently it is “a university in name only.”
A century ago, religious fundamentalists excluded evolution from education. Yet today, evolution advocates do the same to intelligent design. Vanderbilt’s Scopes symposium is just the latest reminder that in our modern era of “Scopes-in-reverse,” the power dynamic has shifted 180 degrees, but the problem of censorship still remains.
* * *
Casey Luskin holds a PhD in Geology from the University of Johannesburg and a law degree from the University of San Diego. He is Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute and co-author of the book &#8220;Science and Human Origins.&#8221;
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

William Jennings Bryan At Scopes Trial

A Century After The Scopes Trial, Censorship Still Thrives In Evolution Debate

Debate

Supreme Court

trial

Vanderbilt University

The following is an adapted monologue from <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1765-after-big-wins-trump-s-head-on-mount-rushmore?elementPosition=3&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=The+Michael+Knowles+Show&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Carousel">The Michael Knowles Show</a>.
* * *
There were horrific storms and massive floods in Texas this past weekend. So far, over 100 people are confirmed dead, and that number is almost certainly going to rise. Many people are still confirmed missing, including dozens of girls from a Christian summer camp. Just absolutely horrific. We all pray for everyone, for the family, for the dead, and for the rescue efforts.
One thing we should not do, however, is react in the way that prominent people on the Left have been reacting. Their reactions are repulsive and nauseating. But they get to a real problem at the heart of liberalism.
Here’s just one example. <a href="https://x.com/KyleKulinski/status/1941856657069252610">Kyle Kulinsky</a>, a fairly well known Internet person on the Left, writes:
<blockquote>With the flooding in Texas and all of those precious little girls dying it&#8217;s important to remember this was 100% preventable. Elon and Trump slashed the national weather service and massively reduced the number of weather balloons in the country, destroying our ability to accurately forecast severe weather events. I&#8217;ve personally experienced forecasts being way off multiple times already. They have blood on their hands and they should be arrested for the deaths of those little girls.</blockquote>
Listen to the sanctimony, the self-righteousness from this guy: “&#8230;all of those precious little girls dying,” “They have blood on their hands.”
None of this is true. This was not “100% preventable.” Elon and Trump slashing the National Weather Service? As Michael Shellenberger <a href="https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1941616444724346983?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet">points out</a>, the National Weather Service got this right. The issue was not the National Weather Service. There do seem to have been errors in sending out alarms at the state level, but there&#8217;s no evidence that the National Weather Service failed at all. There&#8217;s also no evidence that suddenly, just now, in the first year of the second Trump term, the meteorologists are getting forecasts wrong. Obviously, that has happened so frequently that it&#8217;s a punch line for as long as there have been meteorologists.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-michael-knowles-show">WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show</a></h3>
We also know this isn&#8217;t true — that it’s not attributable to any supposed “cuts” made during the second Trump term — because of Hurricane Harvey. The confirmed death toll so far in this awful storm is now 100. Hurricane Harvey killed at least 68 people in 2017 — many years before the supposed cuts to the National Weather Service by Trump and Elon. What would the Left and Kyle Kulinsky blame that on?
Let’s go back further. Tropical Storm Allison <a href="https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/news/weather/severe/this-day-in-weather-history-june-5-2001-tropical-storm-allison">killed</a> 41 people in 2001, long before anyone really considered President Trump a serious presidential candidate.
Well, let&#8217;s go back even further than that, because the other thing that people are going to blame this on is climate change or global warming. How about the Galveston Hurricane? The storm surges and floods from that storm killed between 6,000 and 12,000 people in 1900, long before any global warming — “climate change” — and long before Trump, and long before any of the things the Left is going to blame this natural disaster on.
Plenty of people on the Left have reacted the same way as Kyle Kulinsky.
This reaction entails a lot of vice. You have to have a lot of personal vice and sin to have this kind of reaction. But ultimately, ideologically, it&#8217;s about a denial of original sin.
The tragedy has to be preventable because the world can&#8217;t be fallen, because there can&#8217;t be any such thing as original sin, because there can&#8217;t be any limits on human potential. We must be able to control everything. We must be able to prevent every bad thing. We must be able to perfect society. It must be true. That is the premise of liberalism.
But it&#8217;s not true because it is a fallen world. And you couldn&#8217;t have prevented any of these things. Not in 1900, not in 2001, not just this past week. Bad things just happen sometimes. And bad things happen to good people. It’s called theodicy. Great thinkers have dealt with this problem for millennia, but modern people — modern liberals in particular — cannot deal with that because there cannot be such a thing as original sin.
‘Bad things can&#8217;t just happen,’ they say. ‘We must be able to stop it. We are human beings. We have the potential to totally control the world. We can make ourselves into gods.’
That&#8217;s the theory, and it’s false.
When you ask liberals what would you have done to prevent the flood? They will say things like, “I would have funded the National Weather Service.”
There&#8217;s no problem with the National Weather Service. 
They might say, “I would have had more carbon tax credits. I would have had more electric vehicles.”
But nothing they’ve proposed will stop natural disasters. They wouldn’t have stopped Hurricane Harvey, they wouldn’t have stopped Tropical Storm Allison or the Galveston Hurricane or any of the others. There has been flooding. There have been natural disasters. There has been evil and sin and death in the world since Adam and Eve were booted out of the Garden.
Yes, there are things we can obviously do to protect ourselves, to try to cope, and to comfort people who deal with the suffering that life entails. But this ain&#8217;t it.
What it comes down to is a fundamental error in modern ideology — in liberalism, most notably: the hubris, the pride to say, “We can prevent evil. We can just totally stop it. We can perfect the world. We can save the world.” That&#8217;s the error.
These people certainly can&#8217;t. None of us can. There is one person who can save the world. And He has.

Menu