THE SECOND CIVIL WAR—THIS TIME WITHOUT CANNONS

 

The Civil War didn't begin at Fort Sumter in 1861. It began in the decade before—in the 1850s—when a nation that had stopped listening to itself finally broke apart. By the time the first shot was fired, the rupture was already complete.

That war didn't "heal" us overnight. Anyone who says it did hasn't read the history of Reconstruction. But it did place us on a slow, painful, and ultimately successful path toward becoming what no nation in history has ever been: a beacon of liberty, prosperity, and self-governance.

The Founders knew that a republic couldn't survive rapid, passionate swings of the pendulum. That's why they built a system designed for deliberation—not revolution. Amendments require supermajorities. Rights are enumerated, not invented. Power is diffused, not concentrated. This wasn't obstruction; it was wisdom.

Today, we are in another rupture. No cannons. No marching armies. But make no mistake: a war is being waged for the soul of America.

This time, the battle is between those who believe in the America of the Founders—limited government, personal liberty, free markets, and a culture rooted in Judeo-Christian values—and those who want to replace it with something else. Socialism. Globalism. A secular progressivism that treats American history as an indictment rather than an inheritance.

And here is the hard truth that polite society refuses to speak not all immigration is the same.

Immigration, properly understood, is when a person from another country comes here, adopts our language, respects our laws, embraces our culture, and becomes American. That has been the glory of this nation for 250 years. Millions have done exactly that, and we are stronger for it.

But when people come not to join our culture but to replace it—when they bring the very ideologies that destroyed the countries they left and demand that we adopt them—that is not immigration. That is infestation. And when a nation is infested with ideas hostile to its founding principles, it becomes sick.

 WHERE THE BATTLE RAGES TODAY

You don't have to look to Washington to find this war. It is being fought in your neighborhood, in your community, and most alarmingly—in your children's classrooms.

The Schools

Parents in many places across this country are waking up to a horrifying reality: their children are being used as laboratory experiments. Social engineering dressed up as "education." Gender ideology presented as science. Sexual content introduced without parental knowledge or consent. History rewritten to shame rather than inspire. Patriotism treated as a pathology.  I must confess, that while there are some issues and actions for my local school I disagree with, by and large, they seem to be genuinely interested in parental involvement and input.  But my sense is that we are the exception and not the rule.

The school board in Montgomery County, Maryland, added seven LGBTO-themed storybooks to the elementary language arts curriculum in November of 2022. This is one book for each grade from Pre-K through the fifth grade. The board did, initially, allow an ‘opt-out’ for the parents who objected, but in March of 2023, they eliminated the ‘opt-out’ entirely, so that now every child had to attend this highly controversial class. Not surprisingly, the lower court sided with the school board (this is next), but SCOTUS took the case and decided 6-3 in favor of the parents. Why? Because this policy violated the long-standing Constitutional edict known as the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause.

This is not an isolated incident, many more can be found and articulated, because they are coordinated, funded, and are being pushed by school boards, administrators, and teachers' unions who have decided that they know better than parents what is good for their own children. Were I to embark further on the 'sex-ed' question, the many things that are of concern are 'parental notification of things like gender confusion, contraception, and more' are issues that confuse me. What educator thinks that the parents who brought the kids into the world, pay the bills, and love the kids unconditionally, has no right to know???

Parents are not the enemy of education. Parents are the primary educators of their children and desire the best for and from our children. The school exists to assist—not to supplant, not to indoctrinate, and certainly not to experiment. When a school board tells a parent, "We know what's best for your child," that is not partnership. That is, at best, arrogance, and at worse, tyranny wearing a smile.

The Judiciary

At the same time, we are witnessing an unprecedented overreach by the judicial branch. Federal judges, district courts, and even the Supreme Court have increasingly acted not as interpreters of the law but as makers of it.

The Founders gave us three co-equal branches for a reason. The legislature writes the law. The executive enforces it. The judiciary interprets it—nothing more, nothing less. And from reading the documents of those early days, the founders considered the Judiciary the weakest of the three branches, not the powerhouse that is perceived today.

TRUTH: We have judges who legislate from the bench. They strike down laws not because they are unconstitutional, but because they disagree with the policy. They invent rights that appear nowhere in the Constitution. They block executive actions not because they exceed statutory authority, but because they conflict with the judge's personal political preferences.

This is not jurisprudence. This is judicial activism. And it is a direct threat to the rule of law—because when the law means whatever a judge says it means, the law means nothing at all.

 The Elected Officials Who Still Fight

Thankfully, we still have men and women in office who understand this. As I write this, I still morn one of the true statesmen of our time. Lindsey Graham seemed to always see the country first. He was willing to talk with and work with anyone on either side of the aisle who wanted to better this country.  No, he wasn't perfect, but as his record would prove, he was a true statesman. In his passing, the torch was handed to others who are fighting daily—against the bureaucracy, against the media, at times against their own colleagues, and against an activist judiciary—to restore constitutional governance.

But they cannot do it alone. They need the people to stand with them. They need parents to show up at school board meetings. They need citizens to demand that their elected representatives actually represent them. They need voters to remember that the judiciary was never meant to be the final word on everything—it was meant to be the least dangerous branch, as Alexander Hamilton wrote.

 THE SOLUTION: ACCOUNTABILITY

Our system of government works well when we work our system of government. The Founders gave us the tools. We have simply forgotten how to use them.

We need to call rogue judges to account. Not through violence—never through violence—but through the constitutional mechanisms that exist for our and our country’s protection: impeachment, oversight, and the clear and unmistakable message at the ballot box that the people will not tolerate judicial tyranny.

We need to call school boards to account. Parents must become the most feared constituency in every district—not because they are angry, but because they are present. Because they vote. Because they run for office themselves. Because they will not stand by while their children are experimented upon.

 We need to call our elected officials to account. If they will not enforce the laws as written, if they will not defend the Constitution as ratified, if they will not respect the separation of powers—then they should be replaced. Peacefully. Decisively. Repeatedly. 

This is not extremism. This is citizenship.

Sadly, or so it seems, we have some elected officials whose main desire is to ‘tear down' what it has taken 250 years to build. We have some who do not believe in this great nation, The United States of America. With all our faults, flaws, and failures as a nation, this is still the greatest place on earth to live. But it’s changing and some of those changes fly in the face of the foundation that has made us great.

On August 28, 1963, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr, stood at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. and delivered his “I have a dream” speech. It is worth noting that, after all those years of prejudice, segregation, and discrimination, Dr. King didn’t want to change the system of government, but the application of governing. He believed this was the greatest land in the world and that this structure, when properly applied, would offer opportunity to all who gave the effort. Like a Biblical prophet, Dr. King ended his speech with a seven-fold call to what he envisioned America. I say this again: It is worth noting that none of his calls included nor hinted at a ‘fundamental transformation in the government of this nation’ but rather a ‘transformation in the culture of this land.’ 

He fought for this because he saw the inequity of the culture, one based on the ‘color of one skin and not the content of their character. He saw this nation was good, not perfect, but good even though it needed a little redirection.

 WHAT WE COULD HAVE AGAIN

Imagine, for a moment, an America that returned to its constitutional roots.

Imagine schools where children learned to read, write, and calculate—not to feel guilty about their skin color or their country's past, but to be equipped to build its future.

Imagine courts that actually interpreted the law instead of rewriting it. Where a judge's personal politics were irrelevant because the text of the Constitution was the only guide.

Imagine a government that stayed within its enumerated powers. Where Washington didn't try to solve every problem because the Founders wisely understood that most problems are best solved locally—by families, by churches, by communities, by states.

Imagine a culture where the American Dream was not a punchline but a promise. Where a young person could grow up believing that if they worked hard, told the truth, honored their family, and served their community, they could achieve anything.

That America is not gone. It is not lost, but has simply lost its way. It is waiting—waiting for enough of us to remember who we are, what we built, and why it matters.

My hope and prayer is that the people in the heartland—and in every corner of this country—will give their hearts to supporting that America. Not the America of cable news. Not the America of identity politics. Not the America that apologizes for its own existence.

The America we love. The America that welcomed millions and made them Americans—not hyphenated, not divided, but united. The America that defeated tyranny, landed on the moon, and lifted more people out of poverty than any nation in history.

That America is worth defending. Not necessarily with cannons or rifles, but with votes, with voices, with presence, and with prayer.

Our children are watching. Our grandchildren will inherit what we leave them. Let us leave them not a nation in decline, but a nation renewed—faithful to its founding, confident in its future, and grateful for the extraordinary gift that is the United States of America.

 ONE LAST THING that is deeply personal for me. This government was formed in the throes of being spiritually repressed They had largely been forced into their own religious belief system.  Even thought, there are modern-day revisionist historians who desire to remove God, the Bible, and the Judeo-Christian belief from the foundation of this nation, history cannot be changed. It can be rewritten, but not changed. The more we move away from our FOUNDATION, the weaker we become. Just like a house that has been blown off or has fallen off its foundation is weak, so is this nation. 

With the rise of 'non-belief' has come a decline in our 'culture.' My prayer is that people, individuals, everyone will discover or rediscover the God only found in the Bible, the Holy Spirit that helps lead and guide, and Jesus who saves us. This, alone, could change the direction of our nation. 

CLOSING CHALLENGE

So I ask you: What will you do?

Will you read the Constitution—not a summary, not a commentary, but the actual document? 

Will you hold your elected officials accountable, regardless of their party? 

Will you teach your children to love this country not because it is perfect, but because it is good—and because it is theirs to steward?

If enough of us say yes, the second Civil War—the quiet one, the cultural one, the one fought in courtrooms and classrooms—can be won. Not by changing the Government structure, but by the American people remembering who they are.

And that is a victory worth fighting for.

I Wish We Would Just Stop

 

It happens almost every day now.

I’ll be scrolling through my feed, and there it is again—another prominent Christian leader being publicly eviscerated. R.C. Sproul. Rick Warren. Billy Graham. Even John MacArthur and John Piper. Men who have spent their lives preaching the Gospel, pastoring flocks, and defending the faith are being dismissed with a casual click of the keyboard as heretics, false prophets, deceivers, and modern-day Pharisees.

Just because someone doesn’t agree with you on all points of theology does not make them a false prophet or heretic.

The Casual Cruelty of the Screen

Back in the 1960s through the 1980s, if someone wanted to attack another person’s character, they typically had to do it face-to-face—or hide behind a literal, physical mask to hide their face. People often hid behind their mask of anonymity to avoid being known.

Today, we’ve traded the physical mask for an electronic screen. And strangely, we’ve become more willing to reveal our true selves—our harshness, our arrogance, our certainty—in black and white for the entire world to see.

What Makes Someone a False Teacher?

Let’s be honest about what we’re doing. We’re taking men who love Jesus, who have devoted their lives to studying Scripture, who have led millions to Christ—and we’re calling them heretics because they see a particular passage differently than we do.

Chances are that they interpret Scripture just a little differently than you or I do. And most of these differences have little to no implication for compromising the Gospel.

There is a massive difference between a theological disagreement and actual heresy. One of the most helpful reminders in this conversation is simply this: "Discernment is different from a critical spirit". Discernment seeks truth; a critical spirit seeks to tear down.

We’ve become obsessed with hunting for false teachers online. But when we call someone a heretic who isn’t one, who exactly is in the wrong?

What Scripture Actually Says

Jesus showed remarkable grace to people who were honestly trying to walk by faith. Think of the woman caught in adultery—the religious leaders wanted to stone her, but Jesus extended grace (John 8:1-11). He didn't condemn those who were sincerely seeking but offer a way for them to see themselves. By the way, he allowed them to make the decision.

Paul—who had plenty of theological disagreements—wrote something profound to the Philippians. Even when people were preaching Christ with impure motives and selfish ambition, Paul said:

"But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice." (Philippians 1:18)

In essence: whether they're getting it all right or not, as long as Jesus is preached, rejoice.

Paul also wrote to the Romans:

"Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters... Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall." (Romans 14:1-4)

And what about our speech?

"Do not let unwholesome words ever come out of your mouth, but only such speech as is good for building up others, so that it will be a blessing to those who hear." (Ephesians 4:29)

The Arrogance of Certainty

I’m sorry to say this, but most of these harsh words tend to come from people who appear arrogant at best, or worse; people who may not be correct but who are never in doubt.

It seems there’s a kind of modern Pharisaism that has crept into the church. It says: "I have the truth, and everyone who differs from me is deceived."

Scripture warns that pride comes before a fall. Jesus warned about the “log” or ‘beam’  in our own eye before we point out the speck in our brother's (Matthew 7:1-5). And when we see someone caught in a fault, we’re not called to condemn but to restore them gently (Galatians 6:1-2).  Truth without love is not truth at all—it's just noise.

A Call for Gentleness

I’m calling for something different. A softer, gentler way of dealing with our differences.

Yes, I believe we can disagree on doctrine without using our words as deadly weapons. When we attack other believers with the venomous labels of "heretic" and "false prophet," we do more than wound them—we become a bad witness to the world.

The world is watching. And what do they see? Christians devouring Christians.

Surely, we preach the Bible and call out ‘sin’, but even them, we don’t back up from the teaching of scripture, but it seems ungodly to revel in calling a brother or sister ungodly names when, most of the time, we have only read what someone ‘said they said.’ I suggest that a great tool (which I am still learning to use) is to ask, “Does what I’m about to write build up or tear down the Kingdom of God?” Or “Does what I’m about to say contain truth that can be misunderstood and misused?” Or “Does what I am about pen have to or need to be said?”

Let’s recognize that brothers and sisters in Christ can look at the same Scripture and come to different understandings. Let's extend the same grace Jesus gave to those who were honestly trying to walk and live by faith.

So I ask: before you type that comment or post that video calling someone a heretic, take a breath. Pray. Consider whether this person is truly denying the essentials of the Gospel or simply seeing things a little differently than you.

Because chances are, they love Jesus too.

And maybe—just maybe—we can learn to disagree without destroying each other or the faith family for which Jesus died.

 

 

"God Bless America": Do We Actually Mean It?

You hear it from senators and school board members, from country singers and late-night hosts trying to seem relatable, from your neighbor's bumper sticker and your grandmother's needlepoint pillow. "God bless America" may be the one phrase left in this country that crosses every line we've drawn — political, religious, economic, regional. Progressives say it. Conservatives say it. Atheists at ballgames say it without blinking. It has become less a prayer than a punctuation mark, the verbal equivalent of standing for the anthem: something you do because it's what closes things out.

Which raises an honest question, and it's not a rhetorical one. If God actually did what that phrase asks — if He actually turned and blessed this nation — what would we be signing up for? And once we know the answer, do the people saying those three words still want it?

A Phrase Everyone Uses, and Nobody Quite Owns

The phrase has a longer and stranger history than most people who use it realize. It shows up in the *New York Times* as far back as 1885, closing a farewell speech by a touring British actor, and it turns up again in the following decades from foreign ambassadors thanking America and from evangelist William Booth shouting it at a Pennsylvania rally. Irving Berlin's 1938 song made it iconic. But as a fixture at the end of a presidential address — the ritual we now take for granted — is shockingly recent. From Franklin Roosevelt's inauguration through Jimmy Carter's presidency, across 229 major addresses, the phrase was spoken exactly once, by Richard Nixon, in the middle of Watergate. It wasn't until Ronald Reagan revived it in 1980 — visibly nervous, by his own account — that it became standard. From Reagan on, presidents closed the overwhelming majority of their major speeches this way.

That's worth sitting with and giving some ‘brain-power’. The habit of ending public speech with an appeal to God is not an old American tradition handed down from the Founders. It's a fairly modern convention, and one pair of researchers studying it concluded something pointed: used this often, by leaders of every persuasion regardless of what they actually believe, the phrase risks becoming political shorthand — a way to reassure an audience the speaker is a "real, God-fearing American" — rather than an actual request addressed to God. It functions the way a national catchphrase functions. It gets said. It rarely gets meant.

What the Blessing Actually Requires

Here's where it gets uncomfortable. If you go looking in Scripture for what it looks like when God genuinely blesses a nation — heals it, restores it, turns its fortunes — you don't find a formula of vague goodwill. You find 2 Chronicles 7:14, God's answer to Solomon after the dedication of the temple: if His people, called by His name, will humble themselves, pray, seek His face, and turn from their wicked ways, then He will hear from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land. Every commentator who takes the verse seriously notices the same thing — the healing is conditional, and the condition isn't sung at a ballgame or printed on a coin. It's humility. It's repentance. It's people who claim His name taking the action of actually turning from what they're doing wrong.

That is not a small ask. National healing, in the biblical pattern, doesn't arrive as a general mood of niceness or a return to vague "values." It arrives after people who call themselves God's people stop tolerating what they've been tolerating — in their homes, their entertainment, their business practices, their politics, their private lives — and actually turn toward God, His standards, His will, and His ways. It is disruptive. It costs something. It is the opposite of comfort, and it is aimed first at the church, not at the culture outside it.

So, picture it happening. Picture America, actually blessed, in the 2 Chronicles sense — not economically flush, not militarily dominant, but *morally realigned* toward God. What changes? Entertainment built on cruelty and appetite loses its audience. Industries that profit from addiction, exploitation, and the commodifying of sex lose their customers. Marriages that are being quietly abandoned get fought for instead. The unborn get protected as a matter of national conscience, not partisan combat. Public discourse stops rewarding contempt. Private life stops being lived for consumption and starts being lived for something outside the self. That is what "God bless America" would actually cost the people saying it, if God took the phrase seriously and answered it.

The Gap Between the Words and the Want

Now compare that to where the country actually is. Weekly religious attendance has fallen from roughly 42% to about 30% over the past two decades, and a majority of Americans now say they seldom or never attend services at all. The share saying religion is "very important" to them has slid well under half, down from over 70% a generation or two ago. These aren't fringe numbers — they describe the same population that, on cue, closes speeches, sings the anthem verse, and posts the bumper sticker.

That gap is the real question this article is trying to name. It isn't really a question about the phrase. It's a question about us. Do we want *America blessed* — comfortable, prosperous, favored, undisturbed — or do we want “America healed?” Let’s face it, according to the verse we love to quote this requires humility we haven't shown, prayer we aren't praying, and a turning from wickedness we've mostly decided isn't our department? Those are not the same request. One is a wish. The other is a repentance.

It's entirely possible to say "God bless America" a thousand times and mean, underneath it, "please don't let anything bad happen to us" — which is a request for protection, not transformation. That's a natural thing to want. It is not what 2 Chronicles 7:14 offers. The verse doesn't promise God will shield a comfortable status quo. It promises He will heal a land that has actually turned.

An Honest Answer

So — do the people who say it mean it? As they utter the words, likely they do, as long as “God’s blessings” fall within their concept. But on a Biblical level, most probably not, at least in the sense the verse requires. Most of the time it's civic reflex, a closing formality inherited from Reagan-era political speechwriter more than from the local church. That's not necessarily cynicism; a lot of it is sincere goodwill wearing borrowed religious language, because English doesn't offer many other phrases for "I hope things go well for us."

But some who say it do mean something closer to the real thing, and that's worth naming too — because the verse was never written as a national slogan in the first place. It was written to "my people, who are called by my name." It was never a blank check offered to a whole culture regardless of what that culture does with its freedom. It was, and is, an invitation to the church first — to the people who actually claim His name — to get low, get honest, and turn.

If that happened — really happened — America would look different in a hundred uncomfortable ways before it looked blessed in any way we'd recognize on a bumper sticker. The question worth asking, the next time you hear those three words close out a speech, isn't whether the speaker believes in God. It's whether you — whoever is standing there nodding along — actually want the change this blessing would bring and what the blessing would cost.

When the Court Weakens the President, It Weakens the Presidency

 

There is a troubling pattern developing in American government, and it ought to concern every citizen who still believes in constitutional order, national strength, and common sense.

The Supreme Court may not admit it, and some in the political class will certainly deny it, but recent rulings give the appearance that President Donald Trump is not simply being judged by the law, but judged through the lens of personal and political hostility. Again and again, when this President attempts to clean up what many Americans believe is a bloated, politicized, and unaccountable federal system, he finds himself restrained by courts that seem more interested in limiting Trump than in preserving the proper strength of the presidency.

That is a dangerous game.

The issue is not whether President Trump is flawless. He is not. No honest supporter has to pretend that he is. He speaks bluntly. He fights hard. He offends easily. He has a personality that often creates storms even when his policies deserve serious attention. But his greatest political offense may be this: he loves this country deeply, and he refuses to quietly manage its decline.

That is what has made him such a threat to the entrenched powers in Washington.

President Trump was elected to confront a system that many Americans believe has grown far beyond its constitutional boundaries. He was elected to secure the border, restore law and order, reduce bureaucratic arrogance, protect American workers, confront foreign threats, and resist the steady march toward socialism. Yet when he attempts to use the authority of the presidency to carry out that mandate, the courts too often appear ready to step in and tie his hands.

The tragedy is that the justices may think they are weakening Donald Trump personally, when in reality they are weakening the presidency itself.

The presidency is not strong only when the right person occupies the office. It is not legitimate only when Washington elites approve of the man sitting behind the Resolute Desk. The powers of the presidency exist because the Constitution created an executive branch with real authority. If those powers are diminished because the current President is disliked, then every future President inherits a weakened office.

That should alarm Republicans, Democrats, independents, and every citizen who still believes the nation needs decisive leadership.

America faces enemies both foreign and domestic. Abroad, our adversaries are watching. They study our divisions. They measure our resolve. They notice when our leaders are paralyzed by internal legal warfare. At home, radical voices are working to reshape this country into something our founders would not recognize. The socialist wing of American politics, including voices like the so-called “Squad” and their ideological allies, does not merely want policy adjustments. They want a different America altogether — less free, less accountable, less rooted in faith, family, personal responsibility, and constitutional liberty.

And every time the Court hands down a ruling that restrains a President who is trying to reverse that drift, it hands a victory to those who believe America itself needs to be fundamentally transformed. This is not merely a legal problem. It is a civic problem. It is a moral problem. It is a national problem.

Our country is disintegrating socially, morally, and ethically. Families are under pressure. Schools are confused. Crime is excused. Faith is mocked. Patriotism is treated as extremism. Capitalism is blamed for problems created by government overreach. Personal responsibility is replaced by grievance. The American dream is being traded for government dependency, cultural resentment, and ideological control.

In such a moment, America does not need a weakened executive. America needs a President who has the constitutional authority to act.

That does not mean the President should be above the law. No President should be. It does not mean every decision from the Oval Office should be rubber-stamped. Courts have a role. Congress has a role. The Constitution gives us checks and balances for a reason.

But checks and balances are not the same thing as obstruction. Judicial review is not the same thing as judicial sabotage. And constitutional restraint should never become political resistance dressed in black robes.

The danger before us is simple: if the Court allows dislike of one man to shape its judgment, then the Court is no longer merely interpreting law. It is influencing the direction of the country by weakening the office the people elected to lead.

President Trump’s enemies often say he is a danger to democracy. But what about unelected judges who repeatedly interfere with the agenda voters chose? What about bureaucrats who cannot be removed? What about agencies that act as though they are a fourth branch of government? What about a political establishment that trusts the people only when the people vote the “right” way?

The deeper question is not whether Donald Trump is controversial. Of course he is. The far  deeper question is whether the American people still have the right to elect a President who can actually govern.

If a President cannot remove officials who resist his agenda, then elections lose meaning. If a President cannot enforce the laws with strength, then sovereignty loses meaning. If a President cannot challenge the bureaucracy, then accountability loses meaning. If a President cannot act to repair a broken system of election, they how can we trust the process.  If a President cannot act decisively in defense of the nation, then the office itself becomes little more than ceremonial. That is not what the founders intended.

The Supreme Court must remember that it does not sit above the nation as a council of philosopher-kings. It is one branch of government and was considered by the Founder to be the ‘weakest’ branch. Its duty is to uphold the Constitution, not to protect Washington’s permanent class from a President they dislike. It would seem that the other two branches of government are more intent on controlling the Executive Branch than they are in doing their own job (I.E. Immigration Reform, Tax, Reform, Criminal Justice reform, etc)

Donald Trump will one day leave office. Every President does. But the presidency will remain. The question is: what kind of presidency will remain after years of judicial resistance, bureaucratic defiance, and political warfare?

If the Court weakens the presidency to weaken Trump, it will have done lasting damage not merely to one administration, but to the constitutional structure of the United States.

And in the end, those who cheer such rulings today may one day regret the weakened office they helped create. America does not need a President above the law. But America also does not need a Supreme Court that allows political disdain to cloud civic and legal judgment. At this hour in our nation’s history, we need courage, clarity, constitutional fidelity, and a renewed love for the country we have been blessed to inherit. President Trump has many flaws, but love for America is not one of them. If that love gets him into trouble, then perhaps the real trouble is not with him alone.

Perhaps the real trouble is with a ruling class that has forgotten what America is worth fighting for.

Without Firing a Shot

 

It has long been said that Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev once warned the West, in effect, "We'll take you without firing a shot." I was a boy when that line was circulating, but I still remember the grown-ups around me reacting to it — not with fear exactly, but with a kind of indignant disbelief. The notion that anyone could take America without an army, without a bomb, without so much as a bullet, struck them as absurd. We were the strongest nation on earth. We had just come through a world war. We were not going to allow such a thing to happen.

I have thought about that line many times since. Not because I believe Khrushchev was a prophet in any biblical sense, but because the question he raised — can a great nation be undone from the inside? — turns out to be one of the most important questions any people can ask of itself.

How We Got Strong

For most of my life, the United States led the world on nearly every front, and I don't think that was an accident. One of the monumental reasons we were able to lead is that we tended to look for people in whom creativity was married to a love for the nation, and we did our best to empower them. We let them research. We let them discover. We let them start businesses, take risks, and contribute — to the economy, yes, but also to the social and even moral culture of the country.

We had watched other nations try socialism, try communism, try a thoroughgoing secularism that pushed God out of public life. We had watched many of those experiments rise and then fall. And having watched, we stood firm. We loved our country. We held to our democratic instincts. We believed that ordered liberty — freedom inside a framework of shared moral conviction — was the soil in which human flourishing actually grows.

That last part matters. Freedom by itself is not a foundation. Freedom is a gift that has to rest on something. When it rests on virtue, on conviction, on a people who govern themselves from the inside, it produces a nation worth admiring. When it rests on nothing, it becomes something else entirely.

The Turn

About ten years after Khrushchev made his remark, things began to change in America, and they changed markedly. I say this not as an outside observer but as someone who was part of it. I was there. My generation began to tear down traditions — and I'll be honest, some of those traditions deserved to come down. But here is the trouble: we tore them down and put nothing in their place. We didn't replace a flawed tradition with a better one. We replaced it with a vacuum, because what we wanted, what we demanded, was to be "free spirits."

We mistook the absence of restraint for the presence of freedom. They are not the same thing. A river without banks is not a freer river; it is a swamp.

Here is something I have come to believe, and I'll state it plainly: a country, a culture, a community, a church — any belief system at all — will never drift on its own toward the conservative vision. The drift is always leftward, always toward what loosens and compromises the convictions that once held the thing firm. This is not a partisan observation so much as an observation about human nature. Left to itself, water runs downhill. Left to itself, a garden runs to weeds. Left to itself, a people will tend to trade hard-won conviction for easy comfort. Holding a culture firm requires constant, deliberate, uphill effort. Letting it slide requires nothing at all but neglect.

That is why every generation has to win the argument again, and candidly, it would seem that we lost the argument. Nothing good is ever inherited automatically. It is either tended or it is lost.

A Reality My Parents Wouldn't Recognize

My parents — just one or two generations back — would scarcely recognize the country we live in now. They would be appalled that New York City elected a man who professed himself a Socialist; I heard him profess it. That simply would not have happened in the America of their lifetime. And it is no longer an isolated thing — others who hold the same convictions are now being seated in our houses of government. I think too of the cultural confusion that has grown so deep that we now struggle, in our highest institutions, to agree on definitions that every previous generation took as obvious. When a court can seat a justice on SCOTUS who will not say plainly what a woman is, a society has lost more than a debate. It has lost a shared grip on reality itself — and for me that raises hard questions about what such a person has already decided before a single case is ever argued.

I don't say these things to score points against anyone. I say them because they are evidence of drift — the slow, quiet, downhill drift I described — and because drift, unlike invasion, doesn't announce itself. No shot is fired. There is no smoke, no siege, no border crossed. There is only the steady erosion of conviction, one compromise at a time, until one morning a people wakes up in a country their grandparents would not recognize and cannot quite explain how they got there.

Seen that way, the old Secretary's remark starts to feel less like Cold War bluster and more like an uncomfortable description of how nations actually fall.

What Was Actually Said

I should be fair to history here, because honesty is part of conviction too. There is real conjecture about what Khrushchev actually said. The interpreters in the room have suggested other renderings of his words: "We will bury you," or "We will outlast you," or even "We will be there at your burial." The famous "without firing a shot" version is most likely a later elaboration, an American paraphrase that grew in the retelling.

But notice something. Even the verified version carries the same chill. We will outlast you. Not defeat you in battle — outlast you. Wait you out. Let you exhaust yourselves, divide yourselves, forget yourselves, until there is nothing left to conquer. Whether or not Khrushchev ever said the famous line, the idea behind it describes our present moment with painful accuracy.

Look at the temper of our times: the hostility between neighbors, the polarization of our politics, the open desire among many to drag the whole enterprise toward an extreme it has never known. You don't need a Soviet premier to take a nation like that. A nation like that is already doing the work itself.

If My People

I pray we are not as far gone as the trend lines suggest. And I want to be clear about where I believe the answer is found, because it is not finally in an election, a policy, or a political movement, as much as those things matter.

For me, the answer is found in the Word of God and God’s only Son – Jesus. As a point of fact, it begins with three words: "If My people."

"If My people, who are called by My name, will humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (2 Chronicles 7:14)

Read that promise carefully and you'll notice God did not lay the burden of national recovery on the politicians, the pundits, or the cultural elite. He laid it on His people. The healing of a land begins not in the capitol but in the sanctuary, not in a campaign but in a heart that humbles itself. The conditions are four — humble, pray, seek, turn — and every one of them is something a believer can begin doing today, before breakfast, without anyone's permission.

To make this more personal, I point to the last promise in that verse which says, “Heal their land.” This seems to be the culmination of God’s words to Solomon, but it has a deeper and more expansive means. Start at the end of the verse and work backward.

If I want this land healed, sin must be forgiveness. For sin to be forgiven, we must hear from heaven. Here is the tricky or difficult part. To be heard in heaven requires “REPENTANCE” which is outlines in the first part of the verse and give four specific actions: humble yourself, pray, seek MY face, and turn from your wicked ways. Remember, these are God’s words, not mine but they are a roadmap to the healing of our land.

How stark a reality we face. And yet how hopeful, because the remedy is placed within reach. Burying our heads in the sand will not save us. Wringing our hands will not recover us. Despair is just another form of surrender — taking us, you might say, without firing a shot.

The drift is real, and it is always downhill. But the people of God are not called to drift. We are called to climb — to humble ourselves, to pray, to seek His face, and to turn. That is not a retreat from the culture. It is the one offensive that has ever actually healed a land.

I pray we take it up while there is still daylight.

A Word Through the SBC Storm: Fighting the Right Battle

 

Are you 'weary' yet? I am. As a life-long Southern Baptist, I am weary - (I know, "Let us not grow weary In well-doing, we shall reap if we faint not.") Today, there is a wide difference of opinion as to what "Well-Doing" might be.

The Southern Baptist Convention finds itself in a difficult and painful season. Questions about accountability, trustee oversight, entity transparency, abuse reform, theological boundaries, cultural engagement, and cooperative mission have all converged into what feels like a denominational storm.

Many Southern Baptists (like me) are weary. Others are angry, suspicious, and some are even afraid.

If we are honest, many have begun to fight one another with a level of intensity that has distracted us from the very reason Southern Baptists exist in the first place. That should be a deep concern for us.

Scripture reminds us: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this darkness, against evil…” (Ephesians 6:12)

Southern Baptists are not called to fight one another as enemies. We are called to fight lostness, evil, deception, and spiritual darkness with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

That does not mean we ignore real problems. It does not mean we sweep concerns under the rug. It does not mean we dismiss questions of accountability, transparency, or integrity in the name of “keeping peace.” Biblical peace is never built on denial. Biblical peace is built on truth, repentance, righteousness, and reconciliation.

We Must Face the Issues Honestly and there are real concerns in the SBC.

Questions about trustee effectiveness are legitimate. Concerns about financial transparency in entities deserve honest answers. Abuse prevention and survivor care cannot be treated as secondary matters. Theological convictions must be handled seriously. Cultural engagement must be guided by biblical wisdom rather than political tribalism.

And yes, many Southern Baptists are asking whether executive leadership across various entities is giving trustees full and accurate information to exercise their God-given stewardship responsibilities.

These are not trivial concerns, ignoring them will not solve them, nor will suppressing heal them. Pretending everything is fine when trust is broken only deepens the fracture. The answer is not silence. But neither is the answer civil war.

We Must Refuse the Spirit of Internal Warfare

In times like this, there is a dangerous temptation to begin seeing fellow Southern Baptists not as brothers and sisters with whom we disagree, but as enemies to be defeated. That spirit is destructive and I suggest (actually 'submit') it produces factions instead of fellowship, suspicion instead of charity, power struggles instead of servant leadership, and public humiliation instead of biblical restoration. The New Testament repeatedly warns against this kind of internal cannibalization.

Paul warned the Galatians: “If you bite and devour one another, watch out, or you will be consumed by one another.” (Galatians 5:15)

That is not merely an ancient warning—it feels painfully relevant today. The SBC cannot "Gospel the nations while gobbling up itself."

The Way Forward Requires Both Truth and Peace

Every pastor, leader, and perhaps Christ follower knows that "Peace (real peace) is not simply the absence of conflict" rather, "Peace is conflict handled in a Christlike way." Southern Baptists do not need less truth. We need truth delivered with humility. We do not need less accountability. We need accountability exercised with integrity rather than vengeance. We do not need less conviction. We need conviction governed by Christian charity.

Scripture says: “Speak the truth in love…” (Ephesians 4:15)

That means:

• If there are transparency issues, address them honestly.
• If trustees are not receiving full information, fix the process.
• If abuse reforms are incomplete, strengthen them.
• If leadership has erred, hold leadership accountable.
• If accusations are false or exaggerated, correct them truthfully.

But do it in a way that seeks righteousness—not revenge.

Remember Why We Exist

The SBC was never created merely to manage controversy, It exists to cooperate for the sake of the Great Commission.

To send missionaries, to plant churches, to train pastors, to preach Christ, to reach the lost, to make disciples, and to bring honor to the name of our High and Holy God.

Every internal fight that overshadows that mission weakens the witness of the churches that support it. However, this does not mean mission should be used as an excuse to avoid reform. But it does mean reform must serve mission—not destroy it.

Southern Baptists cannot afford to spend all their emotional, spiritual, and financial capital fighting each other while a lost world waits to hear the Gospel.

I am a 'nobody' in this massive collection churches and leaders called the "Southern Baptist Convention", but I still offer this Word to Leaders, Trustees, and Messengers:

To leaders: lead transparently.

To trustees: oversee courageously.

To messengers: engage responsibly.

To pastors: speak carefully.

To critics: pursue truth without becoming destructive.

To all Southern Baptists: remember that brothers and sisters in Christ are not the enemy.

We need less rhetoric designed to inflame, less suspicion that assumes the worst, less public posturing, less tribal score-settling, and more prayer.

We need more repentance, more honest conversation, more biblical courage, more gospel engagement, and more Gospel-centered unity.

We need the wisdom and courage to fight the Right Battle

The enemy is not the Southern Baptist sitting across the aisle in Orlando. The enemy is lostness. The enemy is deception. The enemy is evil. The enemy is anything that diminishes the glory of Christ and hinders the advance of His Gospel.

This moment for the SBC requires courage—but not merely the courage to confront problems. It requires the courage to confront problems without losing our Christian spirit in the process, conviction without cruelty, Truth without tribalism, Accountability without hatred and Peace without compromise.

And faith that Jesus Christ is still Lord of His church.

Yes, Southern Baptists must deal with the issues and the issues are many. But as we do, let us remember: We are not called to destroy one another. We are called to strengthen the church, protect the vulnerable, uphold truth, and carry the Gospel to the nations.

That is the battle worth fighting.

Orlando - What the SBC Might Expect

 

As Southern Baptists gather in Orlando in just a few weeks, the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention will likely be about far more than reports, resolutions, elections, and procedural business. On paper, the SBC annual meeting is a gathering of messengers for worship, encouragement, and denominational business. In reality, Orlando may serve as something much deeper—a moment of reflection on the direction, trust, and future integrity of the Convention itself.

Allow me a personal note: I love Southern Baptists for all kind of reasons. This has been my spiritual home for close to 70 years. The SBC has endured through the best and worst of times because they stayed true to Jesus, His word, and respected each other. This year may be a challenge for many reasons. As I shared with my small country congregation, "When you get to be a cooperative organization of this magnitude, issues will arise and have to be dealt with. The questions before Southern Baptists are not simply administrative. They touch on doctrinal fidelity, financial stewardship, institutional transparency, trustee accountability, cultural engagement, and whether the SBC will remain firmly rooted in its historic mission while navigating the challenges of a changing era. Consider these topics.

 

The Presidency Still Matters

Southern Baptists sometimes say the SBC president has limited authority, and in one sense that is true. The president cannot dictate denominational policy or govern entities directly. Yet the role carries influence in ways that matter over time. The president appoints the Committee on Committees, which influences the Committee on Nominations, which in turn helps shape trustee boards across SBC entities.

Those appointments matter because leadership affects accountability, institutional oversight, and the long-term direction of Convention entities. The annual meeting remains one of the few places where ordinary church messengers can exercise influence over institutions that otherwise may seem distant from the local church.

At issue is a larger Baptist principle: the Convention belongs to the churches—not to Nashville, not to committees, not to agency heads, but to the cooperating churches who send messengers and provide the funding that makes the work possible.

Institutional Transparency and the NAMB Question

One of the issues heading into Orlando is the growing conversation around institutional transparency and financial stewardship—particularly regarding the North American Mission Board (NAMB).

NAMB receives a substantial share of Southern Baptist mission dollars through Cooperative Program allocations, along with millions more through designated Annie Armstrong Easter Offering gifts. Southern Baptists overwhelmingly support missions, evangelism, and church planting, but many are asking a basic stewardship question: are churches receiving clear and measurable information about what those dollars are accomplishing?

Concerns have been raised that while NAMB regularly shares ministry stories, reports, and broad descriptions of success, some Southern Baptists would like to see more detailed evaluative statistics that allow churches to better assess effectiveness. Questions have surfaced regarding church planting outcomes, missionary deployment, long-term sustainability, baptisms connected to funded efforts, and measurable return on Cooperative Program investment.

This is not fundamentally a debate about support for missions. Rather, it is a stewardship conversation.

People who give sacrificially to kingdom work naturally want confidence that their gifts are being used effectively and transparently.

Southern Baptists are a voluntary cooperative body. Churches choose to give because they believe in the mission and trust the stewardship of the entities receiving those funds. That trust is strengthened by transparency. It is and should be of grave concern when an entity, any entity of the Southern Baptist Convention repeatedly refuses to release statistics of their work to the very people who fund their work.

Orlando may once again raise the question: How can Convention entities continue to provide the kind of reporting and accountability that builds confidence among the churches they serve?

 

Trustee Accountability: Are Trustees Being Given the Full Picture?

Closely connected to this conversation is the broader issue of trustee accountability. It should be said clearly that many good, godly, capable, and deeply committed Southern Baptists serve faithfully as trustees across SBC entities. These men and women often give sacrificially of their time because they genuinely love the Convention and desire to protect its mission. For many if not most, the concern is not primarily with the trustees themselves.

The question increasingly being asked is this:

Are trustees being given the full information by executive staff necessary to exercise genuine oversight?

That question is not necessarily an accusation, but it does reflect a broader principle of governance: trustee boards can only provide effective accountability if they have access to complete, candid, and timely information.  A trustee board can only govern what it fully understands. A trustee can only ask meaningful questions if he or she has been given the data, context, and operational realities necessary to evaluate decisions properly.

This is where much of the conversation lies—not necessarily in trustee intent, but in whether the flow of information from executive leadership to trustees is sufficient for oversight to be meaningful rather than merely procedural. Southern Baptists have historically relied on trustee governance as a safeguard against concentrated institutional power. Trustees are not ceremonial figures; they are meant to represent the churches in overseeing the entities. That system works best when trustee boards operate with full access to the information needed to fulfill their responsibilities.

Orlando may bring renewed conversations not simply about who serves as trustees, but about how trustee boards can function with the knowledge and transparency necessary to provide real accountability. For me, there exists a need for Southern Baptist to have a clear understanding about the 'trust' with which the 'Convention' places in the 'trustees' themselves. It is a dangerous and contradictory concept to attempt to manage the either an entity or trustees from the floor of the convention. The ethical, legal, and moral, implications for entity management are beyond the knowledge of the messengers (me included). This is the very reason for trustees. The convention  must be sure that they are receiving the unredacted information so as to represent the interests of Southern Baptist.

 

The ERLC and Institutional Trust

Though previous efforts to abolish or dramatically restructure the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission have failed, questions surrounding the ERLC have not entirely disappeared. Some Southern Baptists continue to debate whether the ERLC consistently reflects the convictions of grassroots churches and whether its public engagement best represents the Convention as a whole.

The underlying issue is larger than one entity.

It is a question of trust:

• Do SBC entities reflect the convictions of the churches?
• Are leaders accountable to the churches?
• Is there transparency in how decisions are made?
• Are institutions serving the churches, or becoming insulated from them?

My personal prayer is that the new leader be given the support and flexibility to redirect this entity to honor the will of the rank and file

Baptist (not the other way around) and our Lord in their 'much-needed' mission. To think that Southern Baptist do not need a voice at the table of civic leadership is reckless at best and madness at worst. We need the ERLC to be our voice, not to tell us what our voice should be.

These are longstanding Baptist concerns and remain part of the broader denominational conversation.

 

Abuse Reform and Baptist Polity

No Southern Baptist should dismiss the issue of abuse reform. The Convention’s efforts in this area have been painful and sobering. Churches rightly expect protection for the vulnerable and accountability where wrongdoing occurs.

At the same time, Southern Baptists continue to wrestle with this huge question:

How can abuse reform be pursued while remaining consistent with Baptist polity and local church autonomy without abusing the church and church members in other ways?  Many pastors and church leaders remain interested in understanding what reforms have been implemented, how they are funded, what measurable progress has been made, and how those efforts align with Baptist convictions about church governance. The sad truth is this: This issue has so divided us along philosophical lines that to disagree at any point is seen as untenable.

To be clear, every Christ follower should be adamantly opposed to any abuse at any time and we should stand together against it. Plus, we should be a source of healing and hope for those who have been abused (in any way - sexually, emotionally, physically, etc),

Both concerns are important:

• Abuse must be confronted decisively.
• Baptist church autonomy must be preserved.

Orlando will likely continue that conversation.

 

Resolutions and Moral Clarity

Some dismiss SBC resolutions as symbolic exercises, but many Southern Baptists see them as opportunities to speak clearly to the churches and to the culture.

Issues such as:

• sanctity of life
• religious liberty
• gender and sexuality
• moral clarity in public life
• biblical faithfulness in cultural engagement

will likely continue to be part of the Orlando conversation.

The larger question is whether Southern Baptists will speak with biblical clarity and conviction on issues facing both the church and the broader culture.

Historically, the SBC has often viewed resolutions as one way to articulate its collective convictions, even though they are non-binding.

 

The Larger Question: Trust and the Future of the Convention

Perhaps the real Orlando issue lies beneath all the motions, elections, and reports.

It is the question Southern Baptists continue to ask:

Who is shaping the Convention?

Is it still the local churches through their messengers?

Or has the SBC increasingly become influenced by boards, executive staffs, institutional structures, and denominational systems that ordinary church messengers struggle to influence?

This is not a new Baptist question.

Baptists have historically believed that institutions exist to serve the churches—not the other way around.

That is why conversations about NAMB, trustee information, entity transparency, Cooperative Program stewardship, and institutional accountability are not isolated controversies.

They all point to a deeper concern:

How can Southern Baptists maintain trust, openness, accountability, and confidence in the cooperative system that has defined the Convention for generations?

 

Final Assessment

Southern Baptists heading to Orlando should not go merely to observe.

They should go praying, informed, and engaged.

The Convention is healthiest when it remains:

• biblically faithful
• doctrinally clear
• missionally focused
• financially transparent
• trustee-accountable
• structurally answerable to the churches

The challenges facing the SBC are not simply theological or administrative. They also involve trust, transparency, governance, and the relationship between the churches and the institutions they support.

Southern Baptists gathering in Orlando will undoubtedly hear reports, elect officers, adopt resolutions, and celebrate kingdom work.

But beneath all of it may be one lingering question:

Will the Southern Baptist Convention continue to operate in a way that strengthens trust, conviction, and transparency among its churches?

That question may not be formally printed on the agenda.

But it may be one of the most important issues on the floor.