For many, apologetics is associated with arguments over rational, philosophical proofs. It’s a matter of the head instead of the heart, a debate over facts instead of feelings. But no matter what kind of apologetics you practice, you’re arguing according to a certain set of rules, in a particular language, attuned to what you expect to resonate in your time and place. In other words, it’s always cultural, never purely timeless. And it’s never purely rational. We need to recover apologetics as a matter of the heart and hands as well as the head. We need to recover apologetics as a project for the whole church and not just for those who enjoy arguing. What we call cultural apologetics isn’t a new academic discipline. It’s a means to reconnect the church to the best biblical and historical resources for presenting and defending the faith “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). That’s the vision behind a new book, The Gospel After Christendom: An Introduction to Cultural Apologetics, which I edited for Zondervan Reflective and The Keller Center for Cultural Apologetics. I was joined on Gospelbound by two of the contributors, both fellows for The Keller Center. Josh Chatraw is the Billy Graham chair for evangelism and cultural engagement at Beeson Divinity School in Birmingham, Alabama. Christopher Watkin, associate professor of French and Francophone studies at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. Thank you to Beeson Divinity School for hosting and recording this podcast in front of a lively and engaged audience. In This Episode 02:00 – Cultural apologetics: head, heart, and hands 03:00 – Biblical models for cultural apologetics 05:10 – Retrieval: learning from church history 09:16 – Augustine, Rome, and Biblical Critical Theory 13:00 – Diagonal thinking, third-way debates, and politics 16:00 – Confrontational vs. winsome apologetics 20:00 – How Jesus engaged different people 26:00 – Apologetics for the whole church and for pastors 34:00 – Retrieval models: Pascal, Montaigne, and modern idols 41:00 – Audience Q&A: outnarrating, doubt, Catholicism, facts vs. heart issues 51:46 – Closing reflections Resources Mentioned The Gospel After Christendom edited by Collin Hansen, Ivan Mesa, and Skyler Flowers Telling a Better Story by Josh Chatraw Biblical Critical Theory by Christopher Watkin City of God by Augustine The Confronting Christianity Podcast with Rebecca McLaughlin The Speak Life Podcast with Glen Scrivener Truth Unites podcast with Gavin Ortlund SIGN UP for my newsletter, Unseen Things. Help The Gospel Coalition renew and unify the contemporary church in the ancient gospel: Donate today. Don’t miss an episode of Gospelbound with Collin Hansen: Apple Podcasts Spotify YouTube TGC Updates

Nearly 30 years ago, Congress recognized that the country could not litigate its way out of an immigration crisis.As part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, bipartisan majorities created expedited removal for anyone who failed to prove two years of physical presence in the United States. Anticipating a cottage industry of defense attorneys forcing the government to prove duration of unlawful stay, Congress also stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to review expedited removal orders.At some point, the executive must defend not only its own authority but Congress’ authority to restrain the courts.Three decades passed with little enforcement. Now, after that long dormancy, federal judges have begun reviewing cases they have no statutory authority to hear and are attempting to block President Trump from using expedited removal nationwide.Over the lineOn November 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit refused the Justice Department’s request for a stay in Make the Road New York v. Noem. The case challenges Trump’s policy expanding expedited removal to illegal aliens apprehended anywhere in the country, provided they cannot prove two years of continuous presence. Administrations since the 1990s ignored the statute and limited expedited removal to aliens caught at or near the border.A district judge, despite clear statutory limits, reviewed the case and issued an injunction against most uses of expedited removal. That move set the stage for this week’s order from the D.C. Circuit — another step in a long pattern of courts seizing authority Congress explicitly withheld.A watershed momentThe Supreme Court recently upheld the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to quickly remove alien gang members. That ruling helped, but it cannot resolve the broader problem: Most illegal entrants do not fall into the “enemy combatant” category. If every non-gang-member can exhaust layer after layer of due process after invading our country, immigration enforcement collapses under its own weight.But the central issue in this dispute is not due process at all. The decisive point is that IRAIRA explicitly authorizes expedited removal anywhere in the country and explicitly bars the federal courts from issuing “declaratory, injunctive, or other equitable relief” in any action challenging an expedited removal order.The lone exception applies to aliens who can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they possess a lawful right to remain — such as a granted asylum application. Even then, Congress set a firm 60-day window to bring such a claim. The plaintiffs in this case missed that deadline.This challenge does not implicate the validity of an executive action. It represents a double violation of statute: courts ignoring the law that authorizes expedited removal and ignoring the law that strips them of jurisdiction to review it. Congress anticipated this exact scenario and barred it.What Congress must doCongress holds plenary authority over immigration and total authority over the structure and jurisdiction of federal courts. Only adjudication of a specific case lies beyond congressional reach. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in Patchak v. Zinke, “When Congress strips federal courts of jurisdiction, it exercises a valid legislative power no less than when it lays taxes, coins money, declares war, or invokes any other power that the Constitution grants it.”If judges can decide every political question, define the scope of their own power, override Congress’ limits, and bind the executive even when Congress lawfully precludes them from hearing a case, the separation of powers collapses. At some point, the executive must defend not only its own authority but Congress’ authority to restrain the courts.RELATED: The imperial judiciary strikes back Photo by ClassicStock/Getty ImagesJust say ‘no’Many of us have called for broader statutes stripping courts of jurisdiction over deportation. But that effort means nothing if judges can simply declare those statutes unconstitutional. Judicial supremacism has no end when the executive enforces judicial usurpation against itself.That dynamic played out again last week. A federal judge ruled that ICE may not arrest illegal aliens solely for being in the country unlawfully unless agents obtain a warrant or prove a specific flight risk — an order that contradicts decades of law. In another case, Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes in California certified a class granting relief to migrants who “have entered or will enter the United States without inspection” as well as those not initially detained after crossing the border.A government that treats judicial decrees as binding even when Congress denies jurisdiction invites a permanent veto from judges over immigration enforcement. It won’t stop until the president simply says no.

A 2023 astronaut photo shows three dark hills, or mesas, towering above part of the Sahara desert in southern Mauritania. The structures are remnants of a single Paleozoic era formation, and have helped to create a series of striking sand dunes.

Students listen to their teacher in a classroom on the first day of new academic year in Paris on Sept. 4, 2023. MIGUEL MEDINA/AFP via Getty ImagesA South Australian mother is taking the state government…

Democrats have made no secret of their various plans if they regain the House and Senate and seize control of the White House in the 2028 presidential election. Democrat Hakeem Jeffries, who once pushed…

Australian Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen looks on during a federal cabinet meeting in Perth, Australia, on June 3, 2025. Matt Jelonek/Getty ImagesThe Albanese government is facing…

Top O' the BriefingHappy Tuesday, dear Kruiser Morning Briefing friends. Sheyrdebrüundt was determined to make a go of snapping Polaroids of any corduroy he encountered in the wild.  Advertisement…

World War 3 is coming, and it'll be in the form of a 'full-scale nuclear war,' according to a Kremlin-backed mouthpiece Major General of Aviation Vladimir Popov06:57, 02 Dec 2025Updated 07:31, 02 Dec…

In a recent interview, Ford Motor CEO Jim Farley repeatedly warned that America no longer produces enough young people to fill available jobs. On Office Hours: Business Edition, a podcast hosted by former…

In National Review, Andrew McCarthy has once again taken to the fainting couch. Confronted with the spectacle of Senator Mark Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers releasing a coordinated video “reminding”…