I recently participated in a book project that has attracted a good deal of attention. I was invited to join with Doug Wilson, Joe Rigney, Russ Reno, and Paul Miller in a project entitled, Five Views on Christian Nationalism. I thought the issues at stake are genuinely important and urgent, and I thought the “five views” approach could be fruitful. Joe Rigney, who was both contributor and editor, is fellow in theology at New St. Andrews College in Idaho, where Doug Wilson is pastor of Christ Church. Rusty Reno is editor of the journal First Things, and he regularly engages these issues. Similarly, Paul Miller, professor of the practice of public affairs at Georgetown University, has already contributed helpfully to this discussion.

The discussions were fruitful, and I hope the book will be helpful to Christians trying to think through these issues. The setup for the book was a bit awkward for me, since it asked the contributors to respond to a hypothetical future scenario in which the United States has failed and small regional nations have emerged. In one of these nations, evangelical Protestants comprise about 75% of the population. The U.S. Constitution no longer operates. What order should be put in its place?

I have never responded to any similar context, and one effect of a hypothetical is that a writer is allowed some freedom to address issues that otherwise might be conscribed by the present order of things. I am not built to address hypotheticals like this. I have been asked some really direct questions. I am thankful for the questions, and I will try to be equally direct in response.

My main concern in the project was to argue for some form of constitutional acknowledgment that its claims about human dignity, human rights, and the rule of law exist on a foundation more solid than thin air or a majority vote at your local law school. I have been concerned with this issue for many years. Years ago, I addressed in one of my books, The Gathering Storm, what was known in some political circles as the “Böckenforde Dilemma.” Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenforde was a German legal scholar and jurist who framed one of the central questions of our times: “Does the free, secularized state exist on the basis of normative presuppositions that it itself cannot guarantee?”

His argument was that modern secularized European societies were making moral and legal assertions that had been grounded in a Christian culture and are now hanging in thin air. I think Böckenforde was profoundly right. Liberal governments are making claims about human dignity that their own secular worldview subverts. Similarly, I was fascinated by the debate that took place in the early years of this century within the European Union. That debate centered in whether a constitution for the union should acknowledge Christianity as being of historic importance to European values. The idea of such an acknowledgement was popular among many leaders, but figures such as Jacques Chirac, the former president of France, bitterly opposed even the mere acknowledgment that Christianity was in any way foundational to Europe today. Once again, the radical secularism of the French Revolution reared its head. In any event, the constitution failed to be enacted, but Chirac had won his victory anyway. The concept of acknowledgement was really helpful, however, since it was not in any way a personal profession of faith, but simply an acknowledgement that the values of European civilization had been birthed, nourished, and shaped by the Christian tradition—later expanded, quite helpfully I think, to acknowledge the historic influence of Judaism as well. How else can you explain the Western notions of human dignity and human rights?

In any event, the Declaration of Independence includes just such an acknowledgement with references to the fact that human beings are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Sadly, the Constitution includes no such language, and no such acknowledgement. I would not claim that such an acknowledgement, taken alone, would resolve our problems or prevent all judicial activism, but I do think it would help. Current antipathy to any ontological grounding of claims to human dignity and human rights and the rule of law has been evident for decades. Just consider, for example, the outrage poured out against Justice Clarence Thomas in his confirmation hearings in 1991, just for stating belief in the natural law.

My purpose is to make clear that, as a Baptist, I would never want to coerce religious belief—period. The concept of acknowledgment would not bar Thomas Jefferson or any other president from the White House, since it is not a test of personal religious beliefs.

I stand by my argument on acknowledgement, though it is at this point in history, in the real world, not a matter of political possibility. It is, I think, a fruitful tool for thinking through the issue.

In the project, we were also asked to answer questions based on this hypothetical. A short section asked about the possibility of blasphemy laws. In the book, based in a hypothetical situation, I argued for blasphemy laws to be effectively redefined in the context of constitutional acknowledgement. On this score, to state the matter plainly, I think I blew it.

In the first place, I should not have attempted to use an old word in a new context (memo to the editor). In the larger sense, I should have just stated that doctrinal and theological judgments are matters for the believing church and left the government out of it. It is a complex and complicated question when seen in the span of Christian history and constitutional development. But Baptists have been on the wrong side of the lash and the law throughout our history and have learned to separate the roles of church government. I was not calling for conventional blasphemy laws, and I have never advocated or supported any such legislation. I have supported religious liberty for all citizens energetically and forcefully. Needless to say, I fully support our current constitutional order. That is not in question.

My dear friend, Dr. Richard Land, whose colleagueship I hold dear, took me to task on the issue of blasphemy laws, even within a hypothetical scenario. He made the point that, in this age, gospel Christians are most at risk of being punished under such laws at the hands of aggressive secularists. The Baptist Faith & Message, our Southern Baptist Convention confession of faith, effectively answers the question: “The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind.” I am gladly regulated by the confession of faith, and agree with its clear assertion. Confessional accountability is a basic principle of my life. I make that statement publicly and gladly and from the heart. I have made clear the dangers of anti-blasphemy legislation. That means that I must be thankful for those who have raised hard questions. God bless you all.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on September 14, 2026.

The post Acknowledgement and blasphemy: Sometimes, critics have a good point appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

I spoke this week to a massive audience of college students, and I realized that these young people were not yet born when America experienced the terror of 9/11. To them, 9/11 is an important date in history, like Dec. 7, 1941 or July 4, 1776. They do know that 9/11 changed the course of history, but the date remains remote, accessible in time through what Abraham Lincoln called the “mystic chords of memory.”

For those who are older, the day can never be forgotten: the sight of the airliners flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, smoke rising from the Pentagon, and then the towers burning and twisting and falling—all of it shown on television screens over and over again. Americans were shocked and quickly declared that the world would never look the same again.

Were they right? Did 9/11 change the course of history, or was it merely a temporary obsession, filled with unspeakable horror?

In truth, the murderous reality of 9/11 did reveal important lessons—even vital lines of truth—that must not be forgotten. We dare not forget what we learned that day.

First, we were awakened to the reality that evil exists in the world, that is it real, and that it starts in the human heart. For decades, postmodern academics had dismissed the reality of moral evil, arguing that the idea was merely socially constructed. People in power used the word evil to categorize behavior they did not like. That was the social constructivist argument, and it had been gaining ground in academic circles for a long time. The moral realities of 9/11 revealed the horrible but necessary truth that moral evil is real, deadly, and infectious. The Islamic terrorists who developed the terror plan and carried it out so murderously attended flight schools and learned just enough to control an airliner and put it on a collision course with a skyscraper. The plan was to kill as many Americans as possible in a way that was as visible as possible with the greatest global effect that was possible. It was coldly calculated and carried out.

Bush did not lead well when he refused to face the reality that Islam clearly calls for a war for Islamic dominance.

Second, we learned that religious ideologies associated with Islam justify Holy War in the name of their religion. We were reminded that Muhammad was himself a warrior, and that the Quran divides the entire world into the World of Islam, under submission to Islam, and the World of War, where the battle for Islamic dominance is still to be fought by the warriors of Islam. President George W. Bush led well as he rallied the nation in the shock of the 9/11 aftermath and addressed the deadly threats. But he did not lead well when he refused to face the reality that Islam clearly calls for a war for Islamic dominance. From the start, the 9/11 attacks were deeply theological, but the dominant political class in the United States largely refused to see the theological challenges clearly.

Third, we learned that Americans could still come together in a sense of national unity. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, a clear commitment to national unity appeared, along with a common sense of what it means to be an American. Since the attacks, that sense of national identity, purpose, and unity appears to have weakened—perhaps to an extent even greater than just before the attacks happened. A look back at the language used and the arguments made at the time underlines the distance between the patriotism visible on 9/11 and the lack of patriotism visible in so many quarters of America now. The political left largely denies patriotism as a virtue and the political right sometimes appears to turn patriotism into empty slogans. Without a proper and honest patriotism, a nation cannot long survive.

Lastly, we learned yet again that American churches will fill with people in the aftermath of national disaster of this scale. It happened in December of 1941, and it happened again in September of 2001. But, sadly enough, the process of secularization and the loss of substantial Christian commitment continued after 9/11. It is not clear that 9/11 left any lasting spiritual impact on the American people.

A 25th anniversary demands attention, and the anniversary of 9/11 demands serious moral reflection. Sadly, the anniversary also underlines massive questions about America’s role in the world, about the war on terror, and about the stark moral realities of our times. We must pray that it does not take another 9/11 to get this nation’s attention. And Christians know to pray. May God bless, guide, and protect the United States of America.

The post Telling the truth about 9/11: After 25 years, the stark realities loom even more ominously appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

She decried the sexualization of women but once got hired as a Playboy bunny in an effort to profile Hugh Hefner and his movement. In the 1970s, President Richard M. Nixon considered Steinem an enemy and a cultural subversive while President Barack Obama awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2013. Hillary Clinton considered Steinem to be a heroic role model for young women of her generation, while the growing movement of conservative Americans, along with conservative women leaders such as Phyllis Schlafly, considered Steinem to be atop the public enemies list.

Gloria Steinem was born on March 25, 1934, and her childhood was marked by frequent dislocation and difficulty. She would eventually graduate from Smith College and then head to New York City for what she hoped would be a career in journalism. She would soon emerge as one of the most significant and influential leaders in Second Wave Feminism and the comprehensive women’s rights movement that exploded onto the national scene in the 1960s and 1970s.

First Wave Feminism arose as the effort to secure the right for women to vote. What became known as Second Wave Feminism arrived with much more comprehensive ambitions. The first feminists demanded the vote. The next wave of feminists, led by women like Gloria Steinem, wanted to transform the entire civilization.

That modern feminist movement concentrated much of its energies in calling for full equality for women, which was often combined with other radical movements such as the sexual revolution and the moral liberationists. Gloria Steinem and her fellow feminist activists demanded sexual liberation as well as the liberation of women. For decades, Steinem argued that women do not need romantic relationships with men, that marriage is inherently oppressive, that sexuality should be fluid and free from traditional moral scruples, and that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Later in life, Steinem did get married. Evidently, at that point the fish needed a bicycle.

Steinem was not like many of her feminist colleagues. She decried sexism but was not against sexuality. She was witty and sometimes humorous. She could be angry and assertive, but she also presented a more media-savvy attitude than many of her fellow feminist leaders. She called herself an “entrepreneur of social change” and she intended to lead a revolution against what she decried as patriarchy and discrimination against women.

More than anything else, Steinem is identified with Ms. magazine, which emerged first in 1971 but gained national attention when it became a regular publication the following year. Steinem and her magazine revealed the unfolding contours and increasingly radical demands of the feminist movement. Ms. not only supported the Equal Rights Amendment but would also become an early advocate for the full inclusion of lesbians and gay men within society. Predictably, Steinem was not an early enthusiast for the transgender movement. After all, as one feminist leader quipped, the women’s rights movement was all about the rights of females. As we now know, that resistance did not last long. The logic of the feminist movement would be taken up by what became known as the LGBTQ movement, and the feminist leadership had to join the bandwagon. About sex in general, Steinem had said that “a liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after.”

By any measure, Gloria Steinem was one of the most powerful individuals of her time, and she was an energetic architect of social transformation. Again, for most of her life, she was aggressively against marriage and what was decried as a comprehensively discriminatory culture, but at the end phase of her life she claimed credit for influencing the liberalization of the entire society, including marriage. The earlier Steinem had even decried marriage as “the model for slavery in this country,” and she argued that a married woman becomes a “semi-nonperson.” As noted, she did eventually get married. On the other hand, she said that her decision not to have children had led to no regrets. In her words, “not for a millisecond.”

It is interesting to note that in the last few days two very different women, Gloria Steinem and Dolly Parton, each highly influential in the culture, had both declared the fact that they were not mothers as central and essential to their careers and public roles.

With other feminists of her era, Steinem was a vociferous advocate for legal abortion, a major focus of Ms. Magazine. Later in life, she revealed that she had undergone a secret abortion in Britain in 1957.

By the end of her long life, there may have been few secrets left for Gloria Steinem. Like other feminists, she declared the personal to be the political. By any measure, she was one of the most significant figures of her time, one of the most influential feminists of her epoch, and one of the most energetic architects of cultural revolution. She will be lauded and celebrated by the cultural left, but her life should remind cultural conservatives of what we are up against. Steinem’s fellow radicals are certain that time is on their side. At the very least, the life and influence of Gloria Steinem must remind us of the massive cultural challenge we are now up against.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on September 4, 2026.

The post She was out to change the world, and she said so: The death of feminist leader Gloria Steinem reminds us of what is at stake appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

The latest proof comes with a cover story package published by The Economist, one of the most authoritative and influential news sources of our times. Published in London, The Economist has long been known for combining enthusiasm for free market economics with socially liberal policies when it comes to moral and cultural issues. The magazine has vast influence on both sides of the Atlantic.

In recent days, The Economist has broken new ground with an entire package of articles and analyses pushing the idea of “designer-ish babies.” That’s precisely how the magazine advances its own editorial position. “Having transformed human life,” the editorial begins, “Silicon Valley is now coming for birth.” As the package of articles is introduced, the magazine admits that much of what is now promised in reproductive technologies raises huge ethical issues. Nevertheless, the magazine doesn’t want readers to struggle with those big ethical issues, for, as is so often the case, it reveals a technological determinism that will simply wash all those nagging moral concerns into the cultural wastebasket. Just get with the program and start designing those babies.

Well, designing babies in what sense? The Economist’s considerable package of articles and essays mostly covers the issue of genetic screening. Companies such as Nucleus, Orchid, and Herasight now offer services that are based in highly developed forms of genetic screening. Using IVF technology, human embryos are produced, analyzed, screened, further analyzed, sorted, and ultimately analyzed in order to rank a single embryo by detected genetic risks or, more likely, a group of embryos sorted by relative “quality.”

Let’s be clear. At this point there is no real mechanism for producing a “perfect designer baby.” The “services” enthusiastically (and expensively) offered by these firms are negative rather than positive, though this is often missed. They cannot “fix” most issues raised by such embryological analysis, but they can claim to sort embryos by risk for detected genetic traits and combination patterns.

“Sex is for fun; embryo screening is for babies,” claims Noor Siddiqui of Orchid, who is an unabashed champion for her firm’s services.

The Economist does seem to realize that the technology they are championing is radical. “The burgeoning industry aspires to reshape the way humans are made.” Right. That’s all. The magazine’s main article in the package just puts that sentence in a paragraph that celebrates a $50,000 “screening service” that can look for deadly genetic diseases or serious conditions like risk for diabetes, but also claims to be able to sort for maximum “height, intelligence, and longevity.” They then add, “Nucleus adds hair and eye color to the mix.”

Leading concerns relate to intelligence and aptitudes and just about anything a prospective parent, treating a human baby as a consumer product, might imagine. Siddiqui and other champions of the new genetic technologies admit that some traits are genetically complex and (for now) impossible to predict. But, they promise, they are working on those screens as well.

As is so often the case, the argument for redefining human reproduction is made as a quality argument. The Economist appears unready, for now, to rush for a call for comprehensive embryo screening for all embryos or for all possible conditions, but even in the bold print, the magazine calls for couples to be allowed “to select embryos on the basis of both disease resistance and IQ.” Pause here for a moment and recognize that disease resistance and IQ have just been explicitly put together as acceptable screens. The moral issues here are staggering, but you wouldn’t know it from the magazine. There are minimal statements of moral concern, but they are generally just dismissed.

When a magazine like The Economist comes right out and says that couples ought to be able to screen embryos for IQ, we are entering uncharted moral territory. What is an acceptable IQ? An IQ good enough one day to write for The Economist, or maybe just enough to read and subscribe? This is scary stuff. The magazine cites a study that claimed something like a 1 and 7 point margin on IQ. But, as the article claims, genetic data will improve and “scores will improve.”

A host of massive moral issues explode with this development. At the center of it all is the moral problem of eugenics, the argument for rating human beings by genetic “quality.” The Nazis were infamous for their eugenic vision, but one of the early slogans of the birth control movement was racist as well: “More from the fit, less from the unfit.” You might be tempted to think that the eugenic temptation died a scandalous death after the Nazis, but you would be wrong. Now it comes packaged as a parent’s moral duty to avoid having a child with an unacceptable IQ—not to mention all the rest.

The technologies championed today are mostly about negative eugenics, sorting embryos by perceived “quality.” What comes next, “positive eugenics,” will promise to deliver the designer baby exactly as ordered.

The moral issues just pile on. Though the magazine cites “couples,” the modern technologies and services that range from IVF to surrogacy also reveal that there is no justification for talking about “couples” at all. Married heterosexual couples may use the technologies, but a homosexual couple, or a single rich individual, or a company for that matter, can gain access to the technology.

With this argument from The Economist, a major moral boundary has been torn down. Christians must know that we cannot redefine human reproduction and wrench it from its creation order design without grave consequences. The magazine is confident of victory for the designer baby industry. After all, as the magazine notes, people have come to accept IVF, which is basic to the designer baby technologies, and “only zealots” now want it banned.

Christians had better respond to this new challenge with biblical conviction and moral gravity. Otherwise, the seduction of the new technologies will pull Christian couples into the same way of thinking. I honestly fear that such a seduction is already spreading. God help us.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on August 26, 2026.

The post The age of the designer baby arrives: The moral and theological issues are now monumental and unavoidable appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Tellingly, the mainstream media are underplaying the story. They know the candidates identified with the Democratic Socialists of America, now winning major elections and primaries as Democrats, have signed on to a radical program of revolution. All they want you to know is that the resurgent left within the Democratic Party is riding high and winning big, especially among young voters. They are not telling Americans the real story.

The real story is that Marxist movements never really disappeared. In the United States, they could also never really win. The fall of the Soviet Union and the discrediting of communism was, we were promised, the dawn of a new day and, as one major thinker declared, “The End of History.” But the radical political left in the United States now sees itself as the wave of the future, and they intend to take over and use the Democratic Party as their (temporary) means of political advance.

The radical left in the United States had a hard time in the 1950s, with the true evil of Joseph Stalin’s regime in the U.S.S.R. and Mao’s revolution in China becoming clear. In the democratic West, the next decade saw the rise of a “New Left,” largely driven by Marxist ideology as interpreted by Western academics. Meanwhile, European Marxists had transformed themselves into what they called “Democratic Socialism,” which promised a radical Marxist vision that would emerge, not from violent revolution, but through the electoral process. The revolution would be voted into power.

In the United States, that approach came into organizational form through the leadership of Michael Harrington, who helped to draw together an older Marxist tradition with the New Left and its young activists. Formally, the new Democratic Socialists of America came into being in 1982. Little has been heard from them since, until recently. New York City now has an openly DSA mayor, Zohran Mamdani. Washington, D.C., is about to elect another. Sen. Bernie Sanders openly identifies with democratic socialist positions, and members of Congress like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are formal members of the DSA. Candidates identified with the DSA are defeating established Democratic incumbents and running for broke, even in states like Michigan and Wisconsin. As DSA leadership now sees it, this is their great opportunity, and they are running hard.

The mainstream media have taken note, and they have often honestly reported the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. They can hardly miss it. At the same time, they have not drawn much attention to the DSA and its political aims. To the credit of the DSA party, they don’t hide behind a screen of smoke. They assert their aims clearly. As I said, brace yourselves.

According to their main platform, published as “Our Program,” the DSA promises a full revolution, Marxist style. They call for “ending capitalist oligarchy and creating a real democracy.” Just remind yourselves that “capitalist oligarchy” means private property. Addressing readers who will vote in the 2026 midterms, the document states: “Some of these demands may be won under the current system, but we know complete victory will require building a new society from the ground up.”

What would that mean? Well, buckle your political seat belts. They want to eliminate the police, empty the jails, socialize medical care and housing, and eventually take their revolution throughout the entire society. Their platform calls for “queer liberation” and and end to “patriarchal restrictions on abortion, childbirth, and childraising, gender expression and transition, marriage, and divorce.” They demand the full abolishment of the police and the prison system. They call for U.S. leaders to face internationally conducted criminal trials for human rights abuses. ICE is to be eliminated and borders are to be thrown open.

As for the nation’s constitutional system, nothing less than a new revolution will do. “Abolish the Electoral College,” they demand. With remarkable succinctness, they then make this astounding set of demands: “Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.” They also demand the elimination of the Senate. As former DSA member Jake Altman summarizes, “The socialist candidates being swept into power want to dismantle American life. It’s all there in their new platform.” Yes, it’s all there. In truth, there’s a lot more.

Does the Democratic Party have a clue? Among DSA members, there is the common acknowledgement—made openly—that they are simply using the Democratic Party as a mechanism for gaining power. In truth, they hate the Democrats, or at the very least they hate most famous Democrats. Honestly, I cannot even use the language some of the current DSA candidates use to describe former President Joe Biden. Let’s just say they don’t like him, and they don’t like sell-outs like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama either. DSA sites and major figures openly speak of their disgust with most Democrats.

So why are they now using the Democratic Party for their aims? Because they openly recognize America’s two-party system, and they see the Democrats as old, out date, out of touch, and ripe for the taking. There is candid discussion about how long they may have to run as Democrats. They publicly call for the firing of Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries as soon as they can pull it off. They plan to push within the Democratic Party until that party breaks, and a new socialist age begins.

On the DSA site, an article entitled “Towards a Presidential Platform” states, “we’ll sweep to power using presidential politics to help trigger an avalanche of working class struggle, and rip up the old rulebook.”

That “old rulebook,” I remind you, is usually called the Constitution of the United States of America. Comrades, you have been warned.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on July 28, 2026.

The post Comrades, here comes the revolution: The Democratic Socialists want to gut the Constitution, empty the jails, erase the borders, eliminate the Senate, fire the president, and press for a full revolution. Does the Democratic Party have a clue? appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Well, here is a debate that’s worth having: Was the American experiment blessed by God and guided by divine providence? The very mention of divine providence is enough to make modern secularists fume, but references to divine providence were central to just about every formative American moment. One of those moments crystalizes the issue.

Could it have been a mere coincidence that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, two of the most central characters in the American revolution, deeply involved in the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, both died on the 50th anniversary of July 4, 1776? Americans at that time were astounded—and modern Americans should pause to think. Here were two of the most central figures in American history—once friends, then enemies, then friends again—whose personal contributions to American independence were beyond question. They had served together, at times eagerly and at times awkwardly. They represented opposing polarities in the American mind of the revolutionary generation. Adams was the Yankee realist, committed to the revolution but concerned about limiting revolutionary ardor. Jefferson was the Virginia idealist, more radical than Adams but also more optimistic about human nature.

By July of 1776, the revolution was well underway and George Washington was already leading in active military conflict. The Battle of Bunker Hill had been fought more than a year earlier, and the Second Continental Congress had gathered to make a public declaration of their independence from Britain and to make a statement of liberty for the ages. Adams was central to that project, but he was aware of the fact that bringing the southern states into a strengthened compact would be more likely if Jefferson, a Virginian, was known to be the main author. As we now know, the basic structure of Jefferson’s original draft became the Declaration of Independence, though many editorial changes were made (usually for the better).

As untold millions of American schoolchildren were taught, Jefferson was the main author of the Declaration, but the authors of American liberty represented a much larger group of visionary patriots, now willing to put their signatures on the document and their lives very much on the line. As Dr. Benjamin Rush soberly observed, the signers were almost silent as they “were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress, to subscribe what was believed by many at the time to be our own death warrants.”

Fast forward a decade or so to the ratification of the Constitution and the formation of national government and realize that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were by then political antagonists and, at least in some ways, bitter adversaries. In 1796, they ran against one another for the presidency and the right to succeed President George Washington—a formidable political challenge under any circumstance. Adams won and, by the rules of that time, Jefferson became his vice president. It was an awkward situation, to say the least. Things didn’t become more peaceful when the two faced off again in the 1800 election, when Jefferson was elected president and John Adams was retired to Massachusetts.

That might have been the end of their relationship, but for intervention by Dr. Rush, who thought the nation would be strengthened and both men blessed by a restoration of their relationship. Even recently, they had been involved in controversy over the authorship of the Declaration of Independence and subsequent developments. They remained very different, and both remained, each in his own way, quite difficult at times.

But their relationship was reborn into something quite remarkable. The Yankee and the Virginian became friends again, exchanging letters and clearly concerned for one another. Then they both died, on the same day, which happened to be the 50th anniversary of July 4, 1776. Once this fact was understood, the nation was astounded.

The reestablishment of their friendship, with all the continuing disagreements, was a gift to the nation. Each constantly seemed to think of the other. On his death bed, Jefferson mustered the strength to ask, “This is the Fourth?” before closing his eyes and crossing the bar. Far away in Massachusetts, John Adams knew he was dying. “Thomas Jefferson survives” were his last words. As we now know, Adams was wrong. Jefferson had died just hours earlier.

Modern Americans cannot enter into the mental world of July 4, 1826, but, at the very least, we must understand the shock of discovering that these two famous revolutionaries, friends and then enemies and then friends again, both having served as presidents of the United States, should die on the same day—and that the day would be none other than the 50th anniversary of American independence.

It was Daniel Webster who found the right words: “It cannot but seem striking and extraordinary, that these two should live to see the fiftieth year from the date of that act, that they should complete that year, and that then, on the day which has fast linked for ever their own fame with their country’s glory, the heavens should open to receive them both at once.”

Webster’s following words are also worth our attention: “No two men now live, fellow-citizen, perhaps it may be doubted whether any two men have ever lived in one age, who, more than those we now commemorate, have impressed on mankind their own opinions more deeply into the opinions of others, or given a more lasting direction to the current of human thought. No age will come in which it will cease to be seen and felt, on either continent, that a mighty step, a great advance, not only in American affairs, but in human affairs, was made on the 4th of July, 1776.”

Even at the time, Americans were confronted with two and only two alternative explanations for what had just happened. Either the deaths of the two patriots on the same day, exactly 50 years after the Declaration, was a mere coincidence, or it was a clear display of God’s providence. There are only two alternatives, then and now.

To put the matter bluntly, the vast majority of Americans alive at the time saw the deaths of Adams and Jefferson as a sign of God’s providence in the American experience. Interestingly, neither Jefferson nor Adams was a conventional Christian. Both were theologically heterodox, and both believed in some form of divine providence. Jefferson was more eager to claim divine providence for the young nation, while Adams was concerned about the danger of national arrogance.

As a good many Americans observed at the time, when it came to that debate between Adams and Jefferson, on their mutual death day, the very anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson effectively won the argument.

Interestingly, modern Americans are faced with the same question of God’s providence in American life. One modern historian, looking at this very event, sees danger. Jim Rasenberger argues that the idea of God’s providence in American history and destiny is “one of its most dangerous.” It’s an old debate, but the observance of July 4, 2026, the 250th anniversary of the American experience, is also the bicentennial of July 4, 1826, when the old patriots, Jefferson and Adams both died.

Christians firmly believe in God’s providence, but that is joined in biblical theology by the assurance of God’s judgment. When it comes to the revolutionary generation, there are some big moral issues to consider. As for the secular mind, there is no providence, just coincidence, and no divine judgment, just unceasing moral conflict.

This has to be a good and healthy opportunity for today’s Americans to understand anew what is at stake. It’s all either coincidence or providence. What is your answer?

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on July 6, 2026.

The post The battle over divine providence: So, is God part of the American story or not? appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

As Kirk argued, “To protest against the existence of order is to protest against well-being, justice, freedom, and prosperity.” The good things that come as American promises must rest on something solid and cannot survive on their own. The American order, and the American achievement of ordered liberty, were established upon an order of truth, principle, virtue, reason, morality, and self-government. Those who founded this nation understood this order full well, and they understood the fragility of the nation if the foundation of American order were to be subverted, forgotten, or even weakened.

The tradition of American order reaches back to Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome, directed and inspired by prophets and teachers and statesmen. Americans are the inheritors of an unprecedented experiment in ordered liberty that has now reached 250 years, but faces unprecedented challenges.

Modern Americans often misinterpret, not only Independence Day, but independence itself. The way many Americans tell the story claims that Americans sought to break with Britain and King George III through some act of national exuberance or libertarian utopianism. The founders of the nation did, as a matter of fact, declare a break with Britain. But the break they declared was not the undoing of one civilization and the founding of something breathtakingly new. The American dream of independence came only out of the frustration colonial Americans had experienced while trying to get the British king to offer relief from unfair taxation, imposed by Parliament.

Eventually, the Americans came to see themselves as a new nation, and they came to that conclusion only after, in their view, King George III had abdicated his rightful role on their behalf. At the same time, the new Americans were determined to improve upon the British political system and to create a new political order of the ages.

And yet, the American order is more rightly seen as a natural improvement on the British order. Eventually, the new order would eclipse the old. Even before July 4, 1776, some statesmen in Britain had come to the conclusion that American independence was inevitable. For one thing, America could (and did) become a transcontinental nation, possessing what appeared to be limitless abundance, resources, and strategic strength. Even at the time, Britain was an island nation that could support only a fraction of the population and power America could achieve. Though its independence was hard won, and the new nation faced unprecedented challenges, this new order seemed to be driven by limitless promise.

Now, 250 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the American order faces new challenges. At this point, the great danger to the American order is not external, though hostile powers do threaten. The real danger to the American order comes from within. The danger of decadence looms large and the arrogance of overreach, so tempting to great powers, is always close at hand.

But the greatest danger to American order is not produced by our fractious politics. No, this danger has produced our political perils. The greatest danger to the American order is the subversion of order itself. We are living in an age of unparalleled moral peril. Furthermore, we are living in a time of radical moral experimentation and a clash of toxic ideologies. Add to these perils the truth that many Americans living today do not even value order or acknowledge truth. Millions of Americans seem to believe that we can destroy America’s ordered liberty and replace it with disordered liberty—which is precisely what many people living today want and demand.

As Kirk noted, “To live within a just order is to live within a pattern that has beauty. The individual finds purpose within an order, and security—whether it is the order of the soul or the order of the community. Without order, indeed the life of man is poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

Those are stern and necessary words of warning. American liberty will not survive if it is severed from truth, principle, morality, and respect. Those were virtues that came to life in the Declaration of Independence and, just a few years later, in the Constitution. For the vast majority of Americans of the founding era, those virtues were deeply and explicitly rooted in the Christian faith. The rights claimed by the Americans were those endowed by our Creator. They were not merely the creation of political theorists backed up with a colonial militia.

This Fourth of July, we must pray and work for a new national commitment to the distinctively American achievement of ordered liberty. If such a recovery happens, it will come only as a result of the retrieval of American principles that rest upon truth. The 250th anniversary of America’s foundational act, the signing of the Declaration of Independence, should bring this nation great joy, prompt earnest prayer, and inspire national recommitment. America’s Christians should be at the forefront of efforts to achieve this recovery, for we must understand how rare it is that such a nation should even exist, much less exist for a quarter of a millennium.

Happy Independence Day—and may God bless and preserve the United States of America. May the glory of America’s ordered liberty be lasting, and not a fading glory.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on July 3, 2026.

The post The glory of American order: This 4th of July, the nation desperately needs a rebirth of ordered liberty appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Until now, that is. Buckingham Palace has announced that King Charles III will redefine his own constitutional role and will shift from serving as Defender of the Faith to a role in which he will “protect the space for faith within the multi-faith nation.” The shift from “Defender of the Faith” to “Protector of Space for Faith” is clumsy beyond reason. It represents an abject rejection of the throne titles and what they stand for. Oddly enough, but made necessary by his monarchial mandate, King Charles will remain supreme governor of the Church of England. So, Britain will have a supreme governor of the state church who wants to broaden his embrace to include all major religions, New Age nonsense, and just about anything you can package as a form of religious faith.

We were warned. Charles told us of his plans long before he assumed the throne. Decades ago, he was already talking such drivel. In a now infamous interview with journalist Jonathan Dimbleby, released in 1994, Charles revealed his intention to shift from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith. The removal of “the” was proposed as a way to be more inclusive, more representative of modern Britain’s multiculturalism, and more universalistic. As Charles explained, he wanted to defend all faiths in virtually all forms, which he saw as basically one reality refracted through various lenses. Charles is also radically committed to his own eccentric form of ecological and holistic teachings and practices often described as New Age. He admitted the influence of Sir Laurens van der Post, one of the best-known gurus in Britain.

Most people who knew of the interview will probably remember his admission of committing adultery when married to Princess Diana. That got the headlines, not the New Age nonsense.

Queen Elizabeth II was quite serious about her Christian commitment and she respected the leadership of the Church of England, even as the state church constantly lurched from one theological controversy to the next. Interestingly, King Charles did accept the Defender of the Faith title at his coronation on March 6, 2023. Perhaps he did so out of respect for his mother, for the monarchy, or for public opinion. He certainly did not fear the Anglican bishops, many of whom hold to their own, let’s just say, unconventional theological beliefs. As the Telegraph reported: “The Prince caused controversy within the Anglican church when he floated the idea several years ago of becoming Defender of the Faiths in an attempt to embrace the other religions in Britain. In a compromise he has now opted for Defender of Faith which he hopes will unite the different strands of society, and their beliefs, at his Coronation.” The king appears to have changed his mind. Again.

The British people are now being told that Prince William is basically an agnostic. Who knows what comes after King Charles? We don’t even know all that will happen under the reign of Charles.

The bigger issue is what all this means for the present and the future. The Church of England is in a free fall, with weekly attendance falling to less than two percent of the nation’s population. The church now has a woman serving as Archbishop of Canterbury. The secularization of the nation has reached epic proportions, even as Islam and other faiths grow in presence and influence. Authentic Christianity, with congregations and ministers faithful to the gospel, does exist, but the believing church bears witness within an increasingly hostile culture. The headwinds are strong.

About the time the palace made this announcement, it also announced that King Charles and Queen Camilla would not live in Buckingham Palace, even after a horribly expensive renovation. Tellingly, that attracted more headlines than the monarchy’s proposed changes from Defender of the Faith.

Several years ago, I was invited to be part of a small group of Christian leaders summoned to meet with Prince Charles to discuss a book he had written in favor of ecology and his mystical worldview. I can assure you that the meeting was interesting and the conversation was fascinating. Having experienced that conversation, I can assure you that this move has been a long time coming.

All this raises a most interesting question: Where is King Henry VIII when you need him? For all his many faults, I am quite confident that Henry would know what to do in this situation. King Charles intends to defend faiths, but not the faith “once for all delivered to the saints.”

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on July 30, 2026.

The post Britain’s post-modern, post-Christian monarchy: Buckingham Palace announces that King Charles III will redefine what “Defender of the Faith” means appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

That pretty much summarizes the situation, but the denomination still had money and social status. Arguably, the Episcopal tradition stood at the top of the denominational status pyramid for something like 200 years of American history. Even a brief glance at the church’s history in the United States reveals a denomination that once was absolutely supreme in financial power and unchallenged in cultural power. Just go to New York City and see the massive and elegant Episcopal parish churches, the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, and Trinity Church in the heart of historic Manhattan. See St. John’s Church on Lafayette Square, where U.S. presidents appear for inaugural services. Look at the statistics ranking the Episcopal Church in terms of Ivy League tradition, representation in Congress, residence in the White House, and family wealth.

The Episcopal Church was created out of the emergency situation created by the American Revolution. Let’s just say that identification as the Church of England presented a pretty powerful challenge as the colonists declared independence and went to war against King George III, who included among his royal titles “Supreme Governor of the Church of England.” The Anglican tradition would continue after the revolution, but was recast in the new nation as The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. They worked out a plan for a succession of bishops and set to work building America’s elite Protestant culture.

The Washington Post has observed that The Episcopal Church had dominated elite culture through much of the nation’s history: “Half of America’s founders were Episcopalians, the American counterpoint to the Church of England. More U.S. presidents have been Episcopalian than any other faith group, and until recent decades the denomination was shorthand of crème de la crème of American society.”

But theological liberalism began to spread in the denomination by the early decades of the 20th century, and it was largely driven by shifts among the intellectual and cultural elites. Like the Church of England itself, the Episcopalians could pull off the attempt to look conservative (with the Book of Common Prayer, robes, choirs, and stunningly beautiful churches) and at the same time shift in a decidedly liberal direction. Over the last several decades, the Episcopalians had joined the sexual revolution, ordained women as priests, moved toward the full blessing of the LGBTQ spectrum, and embraced radical theology.

The Episcopal Church ordained women as priests in the 1970s, consecrated its first woman bishop in 1989, and consecrated an openly homosexual man, Rev. Gene Robinson, as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003. Its clergy marched steadily leftward and its left wing, driven by various forms of Marxism, liberal theology, critical theory, and social activism, increasingly dominated. Even in the early years of the 21st century, there were still conservative clergy and evangelical believers within the church, but the move toward enthusiastic embrace of the entire LGBTQ agenda forced a conservative exodus, largely to newly formed Anglican groups in North America.

Since the 1970s, The Episcopal Church’s membership rolls have been plummeting. We are talking about absolute collapse. That’s why sociologist Wade Clark Roof predicted extinction more than 30 years ago. Roof broadened his prediction of doom to most of the established denominations of liberal Protestantism, but the Episcopalians were at the top of the charts.

As of this year, the denomination has lost well over half of its historic membership in the 1960s, numbering some 1.5 million on the rolls today. But the problem is even worse when the aging of members and clergy is taken into consideration.

In recent days, the church has announced plans to sell its Manhattan headquarters, formally known as the Episcopal Church Center. A press release from the Episcopal News Service indicated that the sale of the church’s 63-year-old headquarters building, located at a prestigious New York City address, might be in order. As far back as the 1970s, the denomination had considered the sale of the facility. Now, the church’s presiding bishop has announced the intention to sell the building, if the real estate will bring an adequate price. The church’s leadership indicated that they would be open to co-development proposals and other options. It is also clear that any specific proposal to sell the facility will be hotly debated and, if financially adequate, might still trip ideological and social justice tripwires within the denomination.

In any event, the announcement of the intention to sell the denomination’s headquarters is deeply revealing. The story has to include the displacement of The Episcopal Church in American culture. The church of presidents has moved so steadily to the left that it has become a parable of postmodern Christianity—what’s left when the gospel is sidelined and the Holy Scriptures are undermined.

Even as this news story broke, a series of unrelated articles in the media considered what would happen to abandoned church buildings in American cities. Mayors and others are looking to abandoned churches for repurposing as social centers or subsidized housing. The hard fact is that even healthy denominations may decide to sell real estate—even a venerable headquarters building. But it’s a very different thing when denomination collapse is on the horizon. That’s the parable visible in this announcement from The Episcopal Church. In that sense, the sale of a building is the least of its problems.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on July 23, 2026.

The post The Episcopalian heads for extinction: Denominational collapse is announced with plan to sell NYC headquarters appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Sadly, this is serious, and the subversion goes well beyond motherhood. The legislature has already passed the legislation, and it is now before New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who faces one of those moments that determine whether civilization stands or falls. That’s no exaggeration.

As the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal notes, the effort is part of legislation intended to “purge gendered language from state family law.” Just ponder that for a moment. The natural family is predicated upon the fundamental truth that God made human beings as male and female, assigned marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and assigned the task of being fruitful and multiplying and filling the earth with children to that married couple. Henceforth, the male parent is the father and the female parent is the mother. This pattern has been assumed and unconfused throughout most of human history. Until now, that is.

The moral revolutionaries and gender ideologues are determined to subvert creation order, and the subversion of language is one of their central strategies. They have worked hard to redefine marriage, going so far as to demand the legalization of what they call same-sex marriage. They also want to subvert parenthood, which actually becomes quite necessary if same-sex couples, who cannot produce a child, nevertheless demand children and legal recognition as parents.

The advent of IVF and surrogate motherhood (combined into a vast commercial industry, by the way) allows same-sex couples and single individuals to “have” a baby without actually having a baby in the natural sense. But, wouldn’t you know it, the language just doesn’t cooperate.

Just a few weeks ago, Americans celebrated Mother’s Day. Even in our morally confused age, the vast majority of Americans still know what a mother is. Father’s Day now looms before us, and most Americans also know what a father is. For good reason, family law assumes that distinction. As a matter of fact, a good portion of family law exists to identify mothers and fathers and to assign their respective duties and roles. The language of mother and father is absolutely central and essential to that civilizational project.

Nevertheless, New York’s state legislature wants to redefine mothers as “gestating parents” and fathers as “non-gestating parents.” Clearly, they want to subvert the entire order of nature with a new ideological order intended to deny the fact that the gestating parent is a mother and the non-gestating parent is a father.

But wait just a minute. The subversion is actually even greater than first imagined, since if you have a baby born to one woman in what New York recognizes as a same-sex marriage, the other woman would become the “non-gestating parent.” Thus, the category of “non-gestating parent” would quickly include both fathers (forgive the use of that archaic word for a moment) and the non-gestating woman married, presumably, to a gestating woman (or something like that). In the case of a male same-sex couple, both would be “non-gestating” though one of them at least could have donated the semen. Perhaps New York will have to define a “sperm-donative parent,” who, even at this point in modern technology, still must be a biological male, and thus, brace for it, a man.

The legislation also calls for the replacement of “putative father” in paternity cases with “alleged parent.” An article in the Advocate, a national LGBTQ publication, describes the legislation as a bill “that would make the state’s child custody laws gender neutral.” Gender neutral? The proposed language is downright Orwellian.

The Advocate also reported that a document from New York’s Family Court Advisory and Rules Committee recommended that the state “substitute existing gendered terminology in the state’s family court law with gender neutral terms.” A draft of the report claimed that ideas about parenthood “have shifted dramatically in recent years” The report continued: “The committee is proposing a measure to fill this gap and to modernize New York’s statutory structure.”

So, words like mother and father would disappear entirely. We can presume that the state will still try to locate “alleged parents” for child support. With mothers and fathers gone, all that is left is the gestating parents and non-gestating parents, but that distinction cannot bear the legal weight. Gender-neutral pronouns will be mandated, which will mean that the state will be concerned with finding neglectful non-gestating parents while acting as if it does not know that the gestating parent is a woman or that the non-gestating parent is a man. The transgender ideology is central to this entire project, for these are the people now telling us that women can have prostate glands and men can menstruate.

Bless their hearts, New York’s Catholic bishops released a statement accusing the legislators of action that “will further muddy what is true and good.” They are right of course, but they seem to miss the point that muddying and subverting what is good and true is the central goal of the entire project. The goal of this insanity is nothing less than the collapse of truth, creation order, marriage, morality, and civilization itself. Verbicide is the next step, but it’s not where this ends.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on June 13, 2026.

The post Mass verbicide in New York: State legislature moves to replace mother and father with “gestating parent” and “non-gestating parent” appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Last week, Christopher Rufo and Jonathan Choe of the Manhattan Institute ran a report with this headline: “California provides sex-change procedures to homeless illegal aliens,” published in City Journal. The report looked like satire. Rufo and Choe stated: “We discovered not only that the shelters were housing illegal immigrants but also that they were apparently housing a population of male-to-female ‘transgender’ illegal aliens, who had hoped to obtain ‘gender-affirming care.’ And, to our shock, state and local governments are providing it.”

Providing it … as in paying for it. So, get the word out. If you are in another country and you want a sex-change operation, just illegally work your way across the American border, get to California, declare yourself homeless, demand that California taxpayers pay for your treatments and “male-to-female” surgery—and be sure to pack your makeup.

Rufo and Choe had heard from a whistleblower who reported that San Francisco was housing illegal immigrants in homeless shelters. They checked it out and discovered the sex-change angle. Apparently, the issue was visible and the stories came flowing. As Rufo and Choe reported from San Francisco, “Among the shelter’s residents was a group of Hondurans who identified as transgender.”

You don’t actually have to read much more of the report to get the full picture. It is no accident that “a group of Hondurans who identified as transgender” ended up in the same San Francisco homeless facility, and at least some of them admitted their illegal status. The point was clear enough. They were coming to California for free transgender treatments, free rent, and other benefits, all paid for by California taxpayers.

The report quoted “Lyca” and “Alondra,” both of whom “identified as transgender women.” Lyca told Rufo and Choe that he was an illegal immigrant, that the shelter didn’t even ask, and that the homeless illegal immigrants were offered full coverage under California’s Medi-Cal program. This “full scope” coverage includes what is defined as “gender affirming care” and transgender procedures. Lyca reported he had received hormone treatments, and the City Journal team colorfully explained, he “bore the physical signs of doing so.” Another housed at the facility revealed having received both hormone treatments and breast implants. Speaking of the latter, this man explained, “Even though you’re undocumented, you can get them.” I’ll leave it at that.

Some of the illegal immigrants were awaiting so-called “bottom surgery.” As Christopher Rufo posted on social media: “California is giving free sex-change procedures to homeless illegal aliens. Our team went into the shelters and discovered that trans migrants are coming to the state for hormones, breast implants, and ‘bottom surgeries’—all on the taxpayer dime.”

Rufo knows his business and has been one of the most effective critics of the cultural left and its atrocities. At the same time, you have to wonder if this one surprised even him.

The story gets even more interesting, since no less than the Washington Post editorial board came out with a statement of outrage against the policy and nailed liberal California Gov. Gavin Newsom as bearing responsibility. As the editors of the Post explained, even as California was facing a massive budget deficit of $68 billion in 2024, Gov. Newsom “extended the state’s Medicaid program, called Medi-Cal, to cover hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants.”

Furthermore, the editors explained that the Medi-Cal coverage extends even to “government-funded breast implants for anyone who wants to transition from male to female, regardless of whether they’re in the country legally or not.”

Gov. Newsom’s office vociferously defended the policy. The editors of the Post then openly questioned Newsom’s political future, noting that a similar stance had been fatal to the candidacy of Kamala Harris just two years ago.

The editors called Newsom’s position a “transgender gamble,” and they went on to suggest it would lead to political death on the national stage.

It’s worth remembering that back in 2025, with a presidential race already clearly in mind, Newsom made news in a podcast with the late Charlie Kirk, in which Newsom appeared to express concern that his party had lost its way on trans issues, specifically boys playing on girls’ teams. It was clear then that he didn’t really have a coherent policy. Then comes this. And Newsom’s office refused to back down.

The main point in all this is that such insanity is spreading. The transgender ideology is marching onward unabated, at least among adults—even among illegal migrants. To the political left, it is a matter of non-negotiable policy, paid for by taxpayers. California is now a destination goal for those seeking such procedures, supported with taxpayer monies—amounting to untold millions of dollars.

For Christians in the United States, this is yet another piece of evidence pointing to the great moral conflict of our age. For Christians in California, it’s also a matter of your money. For anyone with moral sanity, it’s also an alarm of impending cultural crisis. You can’t cover that up with lipstick.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on April 20, 2026.

The post This is insane, but to California it makes sense: Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration defends the state paying for transgender surgeries for illegal aliens appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Media reports indicated that Räsänen’s conviction for a form of hate crime came only after two lower courts had exonerated her. The country’s chief prosecutor pressed the case until the Finnish Supreme Court ruled against the parliamentarian and former government minister. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) defended Räsänen throughout the trials, asserting her right to free speech and religious liberty—both supposedly protected by Finland’s law and constitution.

A report from ADF revealed that Räsänen is the mother of five children and has twelve grandchildren, and that “her Christian faith is a large part of her life, including inspiring her to hold elected office.” She is a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland.

The ADF statement also accused Finnish officials of “blatantly attacking free speech,” even as the nation claims to protect free expression and the right “to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone.”

Despite those claimed protections, the government investigated Räsänen under Finland’s War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Law, which could include offenses such as spreading “an expression of opinion or another message where a certain group is threatened, defamed or insulted on the basis of its race, skin color, birth status, national or ethnic origin, religion or belief, sexual orientation or disability or a comparable basis.”

In response, Räsänen stated: “I cannot accept that voicing my religious beliefs could mean imprisonment. I do not consider myself guilty of threatening, slandering, or insulting anyone. My statements were all based on the Bible’s teachings on marriage and sexuality. I will defend my right to confess my faith, so that no one else would be deprived of their right to freedom of religion and speech.”

Finland’s minister of justice, Leena Meri, described the nation’s law in this case as “not sufficiently precise and especially not predictable as required by the principle of legality in the criminal code.” She went on to state the obvious truth: “It is very difficult for people to know what is prohibited and what is permitted.”

Responding to Päivi Räsänen’s conviction, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Riley Barnes stated forcefully: “Holding Christian convictions isn’t a hate crime. Finland’s ‘hate speech’ conviction of MP Päivi Räsänen—for simply writing a pamphlet defending the Bible—shows the tragic state of religious freedom in the West. The United States stands opposed to these ideological attacks against the Christian faith.”

The state of religious freedom in the West is indeed tragic, and the collision between Christian conviction and LGBTQ ideology is already clear on both sides of the Atlantic. Back in 2019, in an event billed as a CNN Equality Town Hall, contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination revealed that the danger is very close. Don Lemon, then a CNN anchor, asked former Congressman Beto O’Rourke this question: “Do you think religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?”

O’Rourke responded, “yes,” and received loud applause from the audience. He went on to state: “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us.”

Years ago, back as far as 2005, a major figure like attorney Chai Feldblum, who would hold a seat on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), would state openly that religious liberty and what she called “identity liberty” would come into eventual collision, and that in such a collision, religious liberty would have to give way. Feldblum described the nature of the collision and then stated that a point would come when “an inevitable choice between liberties would come into play.” She stated her case succinctly and clearly: “In making that choice, I believe society must come down on the side of protecting the identity liberty of LGBT people.” Religious liberty just has to give way.

Dr. Päivi Räsänen has indicated that she will press her case for religious liberty to the European Court of Human Rights. It is also apparent that religious liberty is in real danger, not only in Finland and Scandinavia, but throughout Europe. I was with Dr. Räsänen last year at a meeting in Berlin. I can assure you that she is both kind and courageous in her convictions.

Christians everywhere must pay close attention to this case. There are many on the left who want the United States to adopt similar hate crime and hate speech legislation. Far too many Americans take comfort that such prosecutions can’t happen here. Christians in Finland have just been stripped of that comfort. Christians all over the world must see the danger clearly. At the same time, we have no choice but to stand on the authority of the Bible and speak the truth. It may well come with an increasing cost and even larger threats. Just ask Dr. Päivi Räsänen.

Disclosure: I am very proud to disclose that Assistant Secretary of State Riley Barnes, who responded for the U.S. State Department, is my son-in-law.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on March 27, 2026.

The post Religious liberty crashes in Finland: Christian legislator found guilty of “incitement” for teaching biblical truth appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.