President Joe Biden’s speech at the Democratic National Convention was forced out of primetime on Monday night at what was supposed to be a convention focused on his re-election campaign before his party pressured him to drop out of the race. Biden being forced out of primetime — 8 p.m. EST to 11 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday — after he gave up the nomination, despite winning all the delegates during the primary, became the top story of the night as many expressed shock at the utter disrespect that he was shown. “If Biden is pushed back past prime time, it will be treated as a) a major story of the first night and b) a serious slight to the President,” said ABC News political analyst Jeff Greenfield. Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you. Former CBS News White House corresponded Mark Knoller posted: “They took the nomination away from him and now booted him out of prime time.” “They should have gone straight from Hillary to Biden,” said TIME reporter Charlotte Alter. “Pushing Biden out of primetime is a huge mistake.” Political consultant Ron Fournier said that Democrats forcing Biden out of primetime was “malpractice.” “It’s unconscionable to have President Biden’s address occur at midnight ET,” said Democrat Christopher Hale. “We should postpone some upcoming folks and put the president up there soon.” WATCH THE TRAILER FOR ‘AM I RACIST?’ — A MATT WALSH COMEDY ON DEI One longtime Biden aide told Axios: “This is awful. He literally set up a campaign and handed it over to them—do they have to cut him out of prime time?” Political strategist John Ashbrook posted on X: “The Dem coverup of Biden’s dementia continues tonight. They’re pushing his speech past prime time in case he messes up.” Senior Trump campaign official Tim Murtaugh wrote: “The DNC is actually shoving the president of the United States into the overnight hours in a stunning display of disrespect.” Other notable responses included: Joe Biden doesn’t even know he’s been pushed off prime time. — Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) August 20, 2024 So much for a respectful sendoff: It's nearly 11pm EST and Biden hasn't taken the stage yet. What a travesty. Generation defining backstabbing going on in front of our eyes. Every word of every one of these superfluous speeches played a role. — Batya Ungar-Sargon (@bungarsargon) August 20, 2024 They actually took the sitting 81-yr-old POTUS who they know has said publicly he can’t do events past 8p and let him stew in the green room for hours and hours at the convention that was supposed to be his so a bunch of D-listers could play star. Honestly this is just mean. — Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) August 20, 2024

Disney+ has reportedly canceled the “Star Wars” series “Acolyte” created by showrunner Leslye Headland — who promised it would be infused with LGBTQ themes — after only one season amid low ratings. Lucasfilm has opted out of having a second season for the female-centric, Sith-focused series, sources told Deadline.  The eight-part series launched on June 4 after scoring numerous glowing headlines that helped it land a strong opening with 4.8 million views in its first day on the streamer with its first two episodes.  However, it struggled with luke-warm reviews and poor ratings, falling out of the top 10 by the third week, the outlet noted. The series remained there until the finale, when it finally cracked into the 10th spot, with 335 million minutes, something that is believed to be the lowest ever for a “Star Wars” series finale, the outlet noted. ‘The Acolyte’ Canceled: No Season 2 For Disney+’s ‘Star Wars’ Series https://t.co/s8duAdwV3W — Deadline Hollywood (@DEADLINE) August 19, 2024 The director previously talked about how her new series wasn’t going to be like what fans have seen in shows like “The Mandalorian” or “Andor.” Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you. Headland said her new series looked “at the Jedi as an institution, as a concept, as an entity that has amassed a lot of power. And that’s good, I’m not saying that’s wrong.” “I think you’re seeing the Jedi when they are this very, very large institution – a benevolent one – but they are closer to who they are in the ‘Phantom Menace’ than obviously in the Original Trilogy where you feel like they’re almost extinct,” the director added. “In a weird way, in the ‘Phantom Menace’ and the Prequel Trilogy, the Jedi outnumber the Sith,” Headland continued. “And then in the Original Trilogy, the Empire outnumber the Jedi, which is why a show based on the ‘bad guys’ is interesting to me. In that era, what does the underdog look like? Even if they’re the bad guy.” WATCH THE TRAILER FOR ‘AM I RACIST?’ — A MATT WALSH COMEDY ON DEI Before the series aired, Headland’s said that her “Star Wars” series would be “coded queer” like the animated children’s movie “Frozen,” as previously reported. “When I saw Frozen as a grown a** woman, I cried through the entire movie,” she said at the time. “There was just something about the relationship between the sisters, the like devillainization of the classic kind of fairy tale ‘bad guy,’ you know, the concept of true love being between two sisters and not a heterosexual relationship. It just destroyed me, completely.” She continued, “And I thought, ‘Gosh, I would love to make something like this, for lack of a better term, Disney.’ Meaning something that like my parents would have allowed me to see when I was younger as a queer person, but I would have been able to understand as a queer person. And I think I would have had a completely different life. And so I really was inspired by it and was like, ‘God, I would love to make a story like this.’” In 2021, Headland spoke to The Advocate about having representation on “The Acolyte” and fully intending “to allow her own personal experiences as a queer woman shine through in the finished product.” Related: ‘The Acolyte’ Showrunner Says She’s ‘So Into’ Series Being Called The ‘Gayest Star Wars,’ Calls R2-D2 A ‘Lesbian’

If you are in need of your daily dose of smiles, this dog has got you covered. This chihuahua enjoys his very first pup cup, and his reaction is priceless. Watch as his eyes widen as soon as he tastes this delicious whipped cream treat. This chihuahua’s first pup cup is not something you want to miss. little bro is crying he’s so happy pic.twitter.com/E55AOMkZee— Clown World (@ClownWorld_) August 19, 2024 Chihuahua’s First Pup Cup Starbucks didn’t want their furry friends to be left out of tasting all of the delicious things in life, so they decided to make a treat unique for dogs. The pup-cup is a dog-friendly serving of whipped cream given out in a small plastic cup. Many dogs love the pup-cup, and this chihuahua is no different. Clown World posted the hilarious video on X. The dog’s owner holds the pup cup out in front of them as the chihuahua goes to town. He immediately starts licking the whipped cream from the cup, barely remembering to breathe. As viewers watch, they can hear his little wheezes. However, even limited oxygen doesn’t stop this chihuahua from enjoying his treat. As the video progresses, the small dog’s eyes begin to water. The caption on the video reads, “Little bro is crying he’s so happy.” Ears back and laser-focused, nothing stops this chihuahua. Pup Cups Are A Fan Favorite This video of the chihuahua enjoying his first pup cup has gained over 230,000 views, proving that the public enjoys watching him as much as he enjoys eating his pup cup. However, this chihuahua is not the only dog to enjoy this whipped treat. Pup cups are becoming more popular. According to data, “interest in Pup Cup grew 15% over the past year, compared to the year before, putting it at a current volume of 22k searches per month.” Besides making adorable online content, it also makes your fur baby happy! So, the next time you grab yourself a cappuccino, be sure to grab a pup cup for your furry friend as well. The source of the featured image can be found here. The post Wide-Eyed Chihuahua Enjoys Pup Cup And Experiences A Dose Of Pure Joy appeared first on InspireMore.

There is nothing more exciting than holding your baby for the first time. After months of patiently waiting to meet your bundle of joy, it’s hard not to become emotional. Having an excellent care team along your journey and a doctor who is just as excited as you is the icing on this special birthday cake. A Dominican mom had just given birth to her baby. Her doctor wanted to make it a moment she would never forget. He introduced her to the infant by singing in the delivery room. It was an incredibly emotional moment for the mom and the doctor. It is one of the most endearing birthday celebrations we’ve seen in a long time. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Luis Ml De Jesus (@drdejesusrd) The Doctor Gave It His All In the original video, the doctor sings a beautiful Spanish song to his patient. She is lying on the table trembling, likely from all the emotion she experienced in the last few moments. As he places her baby in her arms, she begins to cry. It is very clear that he cares so much about her and her baby and is proud of all she’s accomplished. Pubity reshared the video on Instagram, where it quickly went viral. Many people loved the moment. Like this one, “Showing this to my doctor so he can step up his game.” And this person, “That’s how it’s supposed to be: Welcoming the baby into the world with song.” This Instagrammer predicted this song would be a big part of the family’s life, “That’s gonna be her favorite song forever.” A fellow Dominican gave a shout out to the doctor, “We Dominicans are always giving away our flavor and swing arriba mi pedacito de isla!” It was a sweet moment for the family, and may they always be this happy and blessed. You can find the source of this story’s featured image here. The post Doctor Sings As He Introduces A Mother To Her Newborn Baby appeared first on InspireMore.

No, El Roi is not the Hebrew pronunciation for the son of George and Jane Jetson. Though you do pronounce the word the same way you would Elroy Jetson. El Roi is another one of the names of God. But what does it mean, and where is it found in the Bible? Is it still an important concept for us today?

If you need joy, God promises that it is available to you. Find hope in the truth that nights don’t last forever. One day, the night will be no more, but for now, the sunrise will come. The light and fresh air offer hope and beauty that our souls need. Take heart; the morning is coming soon, my friend.

In his book The Rise of Christianity, Rodney Stark points to the clear contrast between Christian selflessness and pagan self-interest during the Plague of Cyprian in the third century. Whereas pagans retreated to their country villas to escape the plague, Christians stayed behind in the cities to provide medical care, community support, and God-centered conversation for sufferers. Pagans ran away from their neighbors. Christians moved near. Stark argues this singular disposition is the likeliest explanation for why a relatively minor religious group grew to become the Roman Empire’s dominant worldview. I’d argue our world still needs neighbors. If believers will commit to move near as they did in Cyprian’s day, if we’ll foster the same kind of caring relationships in our contemporary contexts, whole communities can be shaped for God’s glory and people’s good. We Have a Neighbor Problem For much of the latter half of the 20th century, plagues were commonly thought of as a thing of the past, something scientific discovery had all but rendered obsolete. But the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted both contemporary epidemic realities and the need for responsive community solutions. Consider, for example, the emerging epidemic of loneliness and anxiety affecting American life. Last year, the surgeon general’s office reported half of adults experience detrimental social isolation with negative effects equivalent to smoking 15 cigarettes a day. This report corroborates a recent Rutgers University study, that concluded minimal neighborly interaction leads to lower individual well-being. Americans are becoming dangerously isolated, and it’s evidenced by a real-time collapse of neighborhood life. In his book Fragile Neighborhoods, Seth Kaplan shows how communities previously marked by stability, safety, and belonging are increasingly marked by crime, school violence, family disintegration, and drug addiction. While Kaplan and others can’t pinpoint a cause, the correlation of neighborhood decline with an uptick in mental health issues is alarming. Gate codes, security guards, HOA fees, and other community policies can’t insulate our neighborhoods against loneliness and its ill effects. What neighborhoods need, Kaplan suggests, is good neighbors—the kind who greet us, know our names, and invite us over for meals. This sounds like a job for Christians. Neighborliness in Luke’s Gospel In Luke 10:25–37, a lawyer asks Jesus what he must do to live the good life. Jesus answers by inviting the man to love God and love his neighbor. The lawyer then asks, “Who is my neighbor?” What neighborhoods need is good neighbors—the kind who greet us, know our names, and invite us over for meals. In response, Jesus tells the story of the Good Samaritan: A priest and a Levite encounter a wounded man but quickly pass by him. By contrast, the Samaritan sees the wounded man but moves in closer to care for him. Jesus turns to the lawyer and asks him to pick the true neighbor out of that lineup. The lawyer knew that a neighbor (plēsion) is a “near one,” but he was operating by faulty logic: When I know who my neighbors are, I’ll be able to love them. This logic led the lawyer to delineate between the “near people” he’s obligated to love and the “far ones” he owes no such obligation. Jesus’s teaching forces him to reconsider: nearness isn’t a matter of circumstance but a matter of the heart’s disposition. A neighbor isn’t simply someone who is near. A neighbor is someone who moves near to provide care and compassion. Moving Near, Practically Speaking Social scientists have coined the term “propinquity” to measure the strength of bonds formed in interpersonal relationships. The term comes from the Latin word propinquitas, which means “nearness.” People tend to form higher-propinquity relationships through frequency of interaction and form lower-propinquity relationships through infrequent interaction. In other words, nearness is somewhat contingent on frequency of interaction. It isn’t enough that you’re near people in proximity. What improves our relationships is that we move near people with frequency. A neighbor isn’t simply someone who is near. A neighbor is someone who moves near to provide care and compassion. Propinquity reminds us that if our desire is to love our neighbors, we must move near them with both intention and frequency. Intentional practices might include writing our neighbors’ names down on a sheet of paper and praying for them in a systematic and regular way. It might include a commitment to greet them any time we see them in common spaces. We may also carve out time in our busy schedules to bring our family and a side dish to a neighborhood block party. But loving our neighbors will require frequency as well. We’ll need to be patient and present with our neighbors every time they show us updated photos of their grandkids. We may need to frequently meet up at the dog park in the hopes our superficial evening chats turn to something more serious. Or persist in inviting people over to share a meal, providing our less open neighbors time to build trust with us. Benefits of Neighboring The idea of being neighborly may seem overwhelming or unrealistic. You may ask, “Is it worth the effort to integrate these practices into my already busy life?” The answer is yes, for at least two reasons. 1. Neighboring protects us from isolation. Moving near to your neighbors doesn’t just benefit them. It also opens new avenues for community for you. The neighbor you befriend today may sit next to you at church tomorrow. She may hear the gospel and start to follow Jesus. He may become your emergency contact. They might bring a meal over when you’re bereaved. In Ecclesiastes 4:9–10, the Preacher reminds us two are better than one, because a friend can help you should you fall down. 2. Neighboring leads us to the satisfaction found only in Jesus. Often, I hear church members and students complain about extending care to the near people in their lives. “I just don’t know if I have it in me to start loving this person.” Here’s the truth: It requires enormous interpersonal strength to love another human being at any level. Often, we don’t have it. But in John 4:14, Jesus describes himself as a wellspring of life: “Whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again.” Jesus never falls victim to the law of diminishing marginal utility. The good news for Christians is that no matter how depleted our neighborliness stores are, Jesus remains a never-ending fountain of love. When we depend on him, he lavishly pours into and through us in a way we can’t possibly bottle up. Because Jesus loves us in this way, we can share his love with others without fear of burning out. This is what the Great Commission is all about. God so loved the word that he came near us. Now, we can go near those around us to care for them.

The year I turned 30, after a lifetime as a secular Jew, I experienced a crisis that led me to investigate in earnest the existence of God. As any card-carrying academic would do, I read a lot of books. I read such Christian apologetics as C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity (which was intriguing), Tim Keller’s The Reason for God (more powerful), and N. T. Wright’s majestic The Resurrection of the Son of God (most powerful of all). Ultimately, my conversion moment came overnight—literally, as I was stuck in the Amsterdam airport, with a copy of the Gospels to keep me company, on my way home from an academic conference. That moment also didn’t feel intellectual at all; it felt like an out-of-body experience—which, I suppose, it was. Considering in retrospect how thoroughly Protestant my approach was, I was surprised to read in Gavin Ortlund’s book What It Means to Be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church that “on the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox side (especially Catholic), there is a huge body of literature, social media presence, and apologetics ministries that are unmatched on the Protestant side” (xv). In this book, he sets out to balance out the field. Apology for Protestantism What about the massive number of books like those of Lewis or Keller, and so many other works of apologetics written by Protestants? Their purpose is different from the kind of apologetics Ortlund does here. Lewis and Keller wrote to skeptics—to people like me at age 30. Their invitation was to mere Christianity, as the title of Lewis’s famous apologetic book indicates. But Ortlund’s audience is different. Rather than skeptics, he addresses Protestants who feel confused and are questioning not God or Christianity but Protestantism, wondering if Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy got things right. Both traditions had been around for nearly 1,500 years by the time Luther nailed up the Ninety-five Theses. What if Luther was wrong? Ortlund addresses Protestants who feel confused and are questioning not God or Christianity but Protestantism. Considering how many prominent converts from evangelicalism to Roman Catholicism dominate the current intellectual and political scene in the U.S. (including J. D. Vance, the vice-presidential Republican candidate), it’s clear something is afoot. Is this something, though, based on truth? This question is at the heart of Ortlund’s popular YouTube ministry, and it undergirds this well-researched book. Convinced the Bible and history provide a clear case for Protestantism over both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, Ortlund has put a sort of FAQ into this readable and compact volume. This isn’t an academic book that presents an exhaustive analysis of any of the many key doctrines he discusses, on which educated people have vehemently disagreed over the past 500 to 2,000 years. Rather, the strength of this book is that it doesn’t get lost in the weeds; it recognizes that people can investigate those further for themselves. Reformed Catholicity Though Ortlund is obviously arguing for a robust Protestantism, part of his mission is to pursue Reformed catholicity. He argues the reformers weren’t trying to do anything new but instead stripped various accretions and abusive practices (e.g., the selling of indulgences) that had corrupted the medieval church. Rather than trying to split the church and attack its spirit of togetherness—the original sense of “catholicity”—Protestantism aimed to restore wholeness and truth by pointing people back to God and the gospel. Thus, Ortlund argues, “This is the single greatest contribution of Protestantism to the Christian church: its insight into the gracious heart of God revealed in the gospel, by which God offers to us as a free gift the righteousness we cannot attain through our own efforts” (68). The church’s source of authority is at the heart of the Roman Catholic/Protestant divide. Ortlund argues for the authority of sola scriptura over and against the papacy and apostolic succession. There are certainly efficiencies in that model of church government, but we must understand they’re not present in the Bible and arose in fits and spurts. He quotes Anthony Lane’s point: “Sola Scriptura is the statement that the church can err” (72)—but obviously, Scripture can’t. One of the pressing concerns of papal authority against Scripture’s primacy is the obvious development of new Roman Catholic doctrines over time. Ortlund provides two detailed case studies of Catholic doctrines that were historical accretions: the bodily assumption of Mary and the veneration of icons. The novelty of these doctrines provides a potent counterpunch to Roman Catholic accusations of Protestant innovation and to arguments that the papacy functions as a buttress against doctrinal change. Evenhanded Critique What It Means to Be Protestant is obviously making an argument that Protestant Christianity is to be preferred. However, this is no anti-Catholic screed. Even while making the case for Protestantism, Ortlund joins thoughtful evangelicals like Tim Keller and Mark Noll in the affirmation that some Roman Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ. No less important, in my view, is Ortlund’s discussion of how some contemporary Protestant churches miss the mark. He writes, Many critics of Protestantism will immediately dismiss the interpretation of the Reformation as a historical retrieval and a removal of accretions because of the general sense of historical shallowness in many contemporary Protestant churches. This brings up a point that represents a theme of this book: We must distinguish between particular contemporary expressions of Protestantism versus Protestantism as such. (147) Apologetics as a method of strengthening faith leans on facts and persuasion based on information—not feelings or vibes. This requires educating God’s people much more thoroughly in both theology and history. We need to show Protestantism’s connection with the true center of the Christian tradition. Better biblical literacy is essential too. We need to show Protestantism’s connection with the true center of the Christian tradition. And yet vibes and feelings too often carry the day for decisions in the 21st century. Anemic evangelical understanding of theology got us here, as surveys like Ligonier’s “The State of Theology” remind us. My mantra lately in response to so many contemporary crises has been this: we must all become better theologians. For any evangelicals seeking to understand Protestantism better, Ortlund provides a valuable resource.