God preserved these words in Scripture so that you and I could live confident in our standing in Christ, secure in our salvation.

In the late modern West, we’re accustomed to hearing the phrase “Speak truth to power.” It implies truth and power aren’t the same thing, that truth can come from the margins of power. But have you ever considered how peculiar that assumption is and how our society is among the first to absorb that principle as a self-evident reality? Why on earth would truth not be the same as power? In many societies, truth and power are the same. I recently visited an exhibition at the Australian Museum about the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses II. It was clear at the exhibition that the Pharaoh’s truth was the nation’s truth. He presented himself as a god. There was no speaking truth to power with Ramses, at least not if you wanted to keep your head. And yet we in the West have the odd idea that truth most often comes from those at the the margins of power, not those at the center. I suggest this is because the Bible is the water we swim in, and it has become so normal to us that we’ve forgotten it’s water at all. Need for a Standpoint of Critique For us to truly pass judgment on the way things are, or to critique it with authority, we need an external yardstick. We need some standpoint from outside the status quo from which to judge the status quo, otherwise we’ll be caught in a circular argument that magnifies our existing prejudices. We can’t authoritatively say, “This is unjust,” unless we have a sense of what justice looks like that runs deeper than “This makes me feel bad” or “Everyone around me agrees.” The stakes are high, for what hangs in the balance is the possibility of social critique—the possibility of saying with authority, “This is unjust” or “That must stop.” Rare is the person happy to say, “Things are just fine as they are.” But if there’s no voice from outside against which to judge society, society itself becomes absolute. If there’s no voice from outside against which to judge society, society itself becomes absolute. The problem is that people come up with different ideas of what’s just and unjust by taking a certain part of the natural world and using that as the yardstick for how things should be. For instance, the absolute monarchy of France before the Revolution was sometimes justified by appealing to the solar system: one sun at the center, with all the planets orbiting—just like one king at the center of society, with everything revolving around him. It’s just natural, right? You can attempt to justify almost any idea about society or freedom by appealing to nature, providing you carefully select what aspect of nature you appeal to. But the question will always haunt you: Why choose this aspect and not another that would justify a different idea? You can’t get an authoritative measure of what should be by appealing to what is. But we still need a normative voice from outside the status quo. We still need to be able to say, “This is wrong. That is unjust.” Where do we find it? Marginal Mandate In our society, we find it in voices that come from below and in voices that come from the margins. This is what I’ll refer to as the “mandate of the margins.” Those to whom we accord the right to critique society are the marginalized, the victims, and the oppressed. They have what philosopher Sandra Harding calls an “epistemic privilege.”[1] And those on the margins do have a different view of things, a different experience of the world that can provide a powerful critique of the status quo. I remember a friend of mine once telling me his wife had asked him, “Do you notice how people step out of your way in stores?” He hadn’t noticed, because it was the water in which he’d always swum. But they didn’t step out of the way for her, and she noticed it. Her relative marginality gave her an insight into the world that he lacked. Although this is a somewhat trivial example, it proves the rule: people have different experiences of the world, and the relatively marginalized can have insights those at the center don’t possess. There are both liberal and conservative versions of the mandate of the margins in our society today. This is seen clearly if you wade into a cultural debate—the climate or justice debates or the political realm, for instance—and take on the label “outsider,” bringing a voice from beyond the status quo to speak an authoritative word about the status quo. In doing so, you’re both tapping into deep mythical archetypes about how the West views authority and truth and embodying what we might call the “mystique of the margins.” Biblical Origin of the Marginal Mandate The notion that the margins have wisdom in them—that critique comes from below—is profoundly Christian. From the Bible’s beginning, it’s clear the center of a nation’s power isn’t the center of the nation’s truth and that an authoritative critique of the status quo often comes from the margins and from below—that is, from the places one would least expect. Although Israel eventually had kings like the other nations, their monarchy was a concession and not a crowning glory. In 1 Samuel 8, God only gives the people a king because they demand one, and he warns that the king will abuse his power and exploit the people. The authoritative voice came not from the potentates but from the prophets, and they were far from central. Elisha was a farmer (1 Kings 19:19). Amos was a shepherd, an occupation at the bottom of society like a street sweeper or office cleaner today (Amos 1:1). Even Moses, the greatest of all Old Testament figures, spent time as a shepherd (Ex. 3:1). The notion that the margins have wisdom in them—that critique comes from below—is profoundly Christian. Supremely, Jesus comes from the margins. God’s Son wasn’t born in a palace or in the center of power in Jerusalem but in a borrowed stable. He hails from Nazareth, a town of no notable cultural distinction. Today, if Jesus were from the United States, he wouldn’t be born in New York; he’d be from a small town in Kentucky or Ohio that most people would struggle to find on a map. People would look at his résumé and say, “Oh dear, never mind.” When Jesus chooses his disciples, he doesn’t assemble a cabinet of politicians, public speakers, and leaders in the creative arts to take forward his message. He chooses fishermen (a common and unremarkable occupation in the ancient world) and a tax collector (an occupation associated with criminality and exploitation—perhaps like a pimp today). Among his friends were tax collectors and prostitutes. Marginal characters, all. Much of the New Testament isn’t written by orators and wordsmiths but by manual laborers, causing the theologian Richard Bauckham to call it a “history from below”—history as viewed not from the position of privilege but from the perspective of ordinary life. Consider also the church’s history. Christianity most often takes root among those at the margins and the bottom of society. In the first century, it was women; in antebellum America, it was the slaves with their deep faith and spiritual songs; today, the parts of the world showing the fastest growth in Christianity aren’t the rich nations of privilege but places like China, India, Nigeria, and Indonesia. Christianity has its center of gravity, so to speak, at the margins. Evaluate the Modern Marginal Mandate There’s some insight in the secular version of the idea that wisdom comes from below and from the margins. People from the margins see what those at the center often cannot, and people from the margins can identify blind spots in the groupthink of the privileged center. Boardrooms with greater diversity have been shown to make better decisions than those filled with a narrow range of people. But there’s a difference between the biblical archetype and its secular imitations. The voices from the margins and from below in secular late modernity are ultimately caught in the same logic of choosing one aspect of what there is in order to judge the rest of what there is. If Christian influence is removed from the picture, why should the voice of the oppressed provide an authoritative critique of the status quo? What in nature dictates that the voice of the marginal should be normative? At the end of the day: nothing. Just ask Ramses. The norm historically and geographically is that might makes right and the fittest survive. Why should the victim suddenly be listened to when, for hundreds of thousands of years, the pattern has been that the victims die and the strong get to reproduce, that history is written by the winners? There are two further problems with our modern version of the voice from the margins. First, it easily leads to a fractured society of hardened and opposing identity-based interest groups, all clamoring for the right to be the critics of the status quo and to be accorded the privilege of being more oppressed than others. Second, no voice from the margins is free of its own blind spots and prejudices, and those who critique the status quo risk replacing one set of biases with another. As scholar Rita Felshi and others have noted, those in subordinate groups are just as capable of manipulating others as anyone else.[2] Why the Bible’s Voice from the Margins Is Different The Bible is the model for the modern mandate of the margins, but the biblical voice from outside is different for two reasons. First, God truly is outside the contemporary cultural status quo in a way no human voice from the margins can be. This is nowhere more vividly demonstrated than in a strange encounter in Joshua 5. Joshua is the warrior leader conquering the promised land for the Israelites. Here’s what happens to him: Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?” “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?” The commander of the LORD’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so. (vv. 13–15, NIV) What a remarkable encounter. This is clearly an authoritative voice, and it critiques Joshua’s status quo. He’s leading God’s people into the promised land: if anyone is doing God’s own work, surely Joshua is. So he reasonably sees the world in black and white—you’re either for us or for our enemies. It’s a logic not foreign to our own cultural moment. But the man’s reply pulls the rug out from under Joshua’s tidy logic: “Neither.” Or, in the original Hebrew, a blunt “No.” This is a voice genuinely from the outside. Not one more player in the game, not the winner in the race to the margins, but a position outside the entire situation—something qualitatively different from all human marginality. This unexpected answer radically reorients Joshua. He shifts from a posture of accusation to one of receptivity and worship, asking, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?” and taking off his sandals. Second, God’s voice from the margins is different is because of the extraordinary way the Bible messes with power structures. The biblical voice from outside is both a voice from the margins and a voice of power. The biblical voice from outside is both a voice from the margins and a voice of power. A voice from the margins is of little use unless it has the power to bring about change. This is what the critique of the status quo really requires: a marginal voice that’s also a powerful voice. But as a voice gains in power, it loses its marginality. What we need is the insight of the margins combined with the power of the center, and that’s the very thing we cannot have. But this is precisely what Christianity claims: Jesus Christ embodies both the insight into change that comes from the margins and the power to change that comes from the center. Listen to how Paul describes this dynamic in Philippians: In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:5–11, NIV) The first part of this passage—Christ humbling himself to death on a cross—fulfills the modern paradigm of the marginal mandate. By itself, however, it leaves Christ powerless to do anything about the injustices he can see. He died as a victim, and in so doing he lost all power. But the second half of the passage gives Christ all the power that comes from being at the center. And here’s the astonishing thing: in the Bible, Christ always retains marks of his crucifixion, even in eternity future. In Revelation 5, John sees “a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne” (v. 6). This is a paradigm-shifting reality if we’ll let it sink in. Christ in glory is the marginal center, the vindicated and victorious victim, the One from below who’s above all but in a way that doesn’t erase his marginality. This whole articulation of Christ’s story messes profoundly with the paradigm of the margin and the center. It shows the limits of that dynamic, how the very structure of margin and center is the problem and not merely who happens to be at the center in a particular cultural moment. Our instinct that truth is spoken from the margins and from below is a good one, and one shaped by the Bible. But no human individual, group, or “outsider” can deliver on the promise of providing an authoritative critique of the status quo. For that, we need a voice truly from the outside, truly from the margins. Those criteria can only be fully met by God’s voice. So if we want what the early 20th-century Frankfurt School philosopher Theodor Adorno calls a “standpoint of redemption”[3] from which to critique the status quo, what we’re crying out for is the insight that only Jesus can bring. He’s both the model of speaking truth to power and its richest fulfillment. _____ [1] Sandra Harding, The Science Question in Feminism (Cornell University Press, 1986). [2] Rita Felski, The Limits of Critique (University of Chicago Press, 2015), 78. [3] Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia: Reflections on a Damaged Life (Verso, 2005), 247.

For the past decade, we’ve been living in what many scholars and cultural observers call the “post-truth” age. The Oxford Dictionary—which named “post-truth” its word of the year in 2016—defines this term as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” While skepticism toward truth claims is nothing new, the past two decades have been distinguished by several factors that amplify the post-truth phenomenon. Social media’s rise has created echo chambers where misinformation can spread rapidly and unchecked. The decline in the influence of traditional information gatekeepers—such as established media outlets, universities, and religious institutions—has led to a fragmentation of shared narratives. And the increasing polarization of society has made many people more likely to accept information that confirms their existing beliefs, regardless of its factual basis. This post-truth age poses profound challenges for Jesus followers. How does the church proclaim the gospel in a world where all truth claims are viewed with suspicion? How do we engage in meaningful dialogue when emotional resonance often trumps logical argument? And perhaps most critically, how do we maintain the integrity of our witness when the very concept of objective truth is under assault? Truth, Lies, and the Devil Before we can answer such questions about the post-truth world, we should first answer the question Pontius Pilate asked Jesus: “What is truth?” (John 18:38). The best definition of truth, and one presupposed by Scripture, is that which corresponds to God’s reality. As philosopher J. P. Moreland explains, according to the correspondence theory of truth, “truth is a matter of a proposition (belief, thought, statement, representation) corresponding to reality.” Christians have a special relationship to truth since, as Scripture tells us, the ultimate reality—the most really real thing of all—is Jesus (John 14:6). The opposite of truth is untruth or lies. When we say something is a lie, we mean it doesn’t correspond to reality. And if it doesn’t align with reality, it doesn’t align with the ultimate reality—Jesus. If it doesn’t correspond to reality, it’s in opposition to Jesus. A lie is making an untrue statement or acting in such a way as to leave a false or misleading impression, especially with the intent to deceive someone who is deserving of the truth (and there are few situations where hearers are not deserving of truth (e.g., Josh 2:4)). A lie is in opposition to the truth, and thus in opposition to Jesus. Post-truth is the phenomenon where public opinion is shaped more by unreality than reality, by lies rather than objective truth. Post-truth is the phenomenon where public opinion is shaped more by unreality than reality, by lies rather than objective truth. John Mark Comer notes that “the problem [today] is less that we tell lies and more that we live them; we let false narratives about reality into our bodies, and they wreak havoc in our souls.” In this post-truth world, we’re in the latest stage of what Comer calls the “war on lies.” We’re both in a war on lies and with the one who started the war—the Devil. In John 8:44, Jesus says about the Devil, “He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” The Devil has many things he can do, many ways he can harm humans, such as demonic possession and affliction. But his most powerful and effective tools are often more subtle. In 1836, John Wilkinson wrote, “One of the artifices of Satan is to induce men to believe that he does not exist.” A corollary for our age is that a primary artifice of the Devil is to induce men to act as if objective truth doesn’t exist. The most effective means the Devil has of introducing evil into this world is to tell lies and encourage humans to spread them. That’s why there’s a war between truth and lies—and why everyone must choose a side. We either choose to side with reality and Jesus or we choose to side with Satan and lies. If you side with Satan, you’ll be enslaved by lies. If you side with Jesus, then as John 8:32 tells us, “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Those are our only two options. To be effective in this war on lies, we must know what we’re fighting against, have a strategy for engagement, and develop tactics to implement our strategy. Four Fronts in the War There are numerous battle lines within this war, but four are primary. 1. Emotional Untruth As a manifestation of the post-truth phenomenon, this occurs when people prioritize their feelings, intuitions, or emotional responses over objective facts or empirical evidence. At its core, emotional untruth reflects the human tendency to trust our gut feelings and personal experiences more than abstract data or expert opinions. This can be particularly powerful when the emotional response is tied to deeply held beliefs, personal identities, or traumatic experiences. Emotional responses aren’t inherently negative or irrational, as they can often serve as valuable intuitive guides, especially in individual social situations. However, problems arise when we allow our emotions to consistently override factual information, leading to decisions or beliefs disconnected from objective reality. A primary artifice of the Devil is to induce men to act as if objective truth doesn’t exist. 2. Narrative Untruth This refers to the phenomenon where people accept or believe something because it fits into a compelling storyline or explanation, regardless of its factual accuracy. This type of post-truth thinking capitalizes on the human tendency to make sense of the world through stories. We are, by nature, storytelling creatures, and we often find it easier to understand and remember information when it’s presented in a narrative format. Narrative untruth’s power lies in its ability to provide a sense of coherence and meaning to complex or chaotic events, to offer simple explanations for difficult problems, and to reinforce existing beliefs or worldviews. This can be a particularly seductive type of lie because it often contains elements of factual truth interwoven with speculation, exaggeration, or outright falsehoods. This mixture can make it challenging to distinguish between fact and fiction, especially when the narrative aligns with one’s preexisting beliefs or desires. Unsupported conspiracy theories are the most obvious type of narrative untruths. But an even more common form, especially on social media, is the oversimplified or distorted narrative of current events. These narratives take complex social, political, or religious issues and reduce them to simple, emotionally charged stories that often vilify one group while glorifying another. For example, a complex debate about how to respond to a political issue might be reduced to a meme portraying one political faction as purely evil and the other as entirely virtuous. Or a nuanced social issue might be boiled down to a viral video that presents only one perspective, ignoring important context and alternative, biblically valid viewpoints. These narratives spread rapidly through likes, shares, and comments, often reaching millions of people before fact-checkers or more balanced perspectives can catch up. The danger lies in their ability to shape public opinion and even influence real-world actions based on incomplete or distorted information. 3. Tribalistic Untruth The philosopher Richard Rorty once claimed that “truth is what your contemporaries let you get away with saying.” He was suggesting truth is a social construct influenced by the norms, beliefs, and power structures of a given time and place. A corollary to this claim is “tribal truth”—that truth becomes what your tribe lets you get away with saying. An individual’s “tribe” is the “in-group,” the group a person belongs to and feels a strong sense of identification with. In-group members tend to have positive views of each other, treat each other preferentially, and share a similar group mentality. The “out-group” is a group a person doesn’t belong to or identify with, and the in-group tends to have more negative views of its members. The vitriol the in-group has for the out-group is often increased when the distinctions are all but imperceptible to outsiders. Sigmund Freud called this the narcissism of small differences. It’s the idea that “the more a . . . community shares commonalities, the more likely the people in it are to engage in interpersonal feuds and mutual ridicule because of hypersensitivity to minor differences.” Tribalism is nothing new, of course, even among Christians. But what does seem to be different is how in-groups—even Christian ones—no longer feel a sense of shame when lying outright about the out-group. No shame though the lies are told in venues that can be observed by thousands of people, both believers and non-Christians. In-groups—even Christian ones—no longer feel a sense of shame when lying outright about the out-group. The core premise of tribalistic truth is that whatever lowers the social status or power of the out-group is allowed—as long as your tribe will let you get away with saying it. The last part is essential, for it provides a limiting factor on what types of lies are allowed by a particular in-group. For instance, tribalism allows you to lie about whether a pastor said his congregation had to take a particular position on a social issue, such as claiming he made embracing a particular view (e.g., Christian Nationalism or wokeism) a matter of orthodoxy. But lying about actual orthodoxy (such as saying he denied the Trinity) would be out of bounds. The lie has to be something in-group members think a person in the out-group would believe. Indeed, most disputes aren’t about what’s said but what’s inferred. The in-group has an uncanny ability to discern the motives and internal mental workings of the out-group. 3. Institutional Untruth Another critical battlefront in the war on lies is what we might call “institutional untruth.” This refers to the phenomenon where individuals or groups embrace, perpetuate, or defend falsehoods in order to protect the reputation, power, or interests of institutions they value or belong to. This form of untruth is particularly insidious because it often masquerades as loyalty, duty, or even righteousness. Institutional untruth can manifest in cover-ups (concerted efforts to hide the truth, often justified as “protecting the greater good” of the institution’s mission), scapegoating (blaming individuals or external factors to preserve the institution’s image), rewriting history (past events are reinterpreted or sanitized to align with a new and misleading narrative), and intimidation (those who speak out against institutional lies face retaliation or ostracism, creating a culture of silence). This type of untruth can be found in every area of society—in government agencies, corporations, schools, nonprofits, and sadly, even within churches and ministries. The Catholic Church’s handling of sexual abuse cases, for instance, provides a sobering example of how institutional untruth can lead to profound harm and erosion of trust in all institutions. For Christians, institutional untruth presents a particular challenge since much of our work is carried out through institutions, and our mission depends heavily on our reputations. The temptation to overlook or justify untruths for the sake of these institutions can too easily be justified as an attempt to protect God’s work. Our Strategy: Never Knowingly Support Lies How should we wage battle in the war on lies? As in everything, we must follow Jesus’s lead. First John 3:8 tells us, “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” Jesus came to destroy the work of the Devil, and the work of the Devil is spreading lies. Our part in this war is similar: we must labor to destroy the Devil’s work by resisting lies. That’s why our motto should be “Live not by lies.” That phrase originated from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a Russian writer and Christian who opposed the evils of the Soviet Union. On the day he was arrested by Soviet authorities in 1974, he released an essay titled “Live Not by Lies” in which he tried to rally his fellow citizens to free themselves from Soviet violence and oppression. In that essay he says, [Oppression] demands of us only a submission to lies, a daily participation in deceit—and this suffices as our fealty. And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me! . . . For when people renounce lies, lies simply cease to exist. Like parasites, they can only survive when attached to a person. [emphasis in original] Later in the essay, Solzhenitsyn includes a line that should be our primary strategy in the war on lies: “Never knowingly support lies!” To never knowingly support lies is one of the most important elements of spiritual warfare. The Devil’s primary means of attack is spreading lies. Therefore, a most effective means of opposing him is to take up the practice recommended by Solzhenitsyn: Never knowingly support lies. One Strategy, Three Tactics To implement this strategy, we should adopt three tactics. 1. Refuse to go along with the lie that we can choose our own reality. Underlying almost every debate on political and social issues in our country today is the question of whether there’s any fundamental reality that all people must acknowledge or whether reality itself is malleable and based on personal preferences. Consider, for example, the issue of gender identity. Those who accept the idea that we can ignore biological sex for the mental construct of “gender identity” are endorsing what’s called “metaphysical subjectivism.” This is the idea that “our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience.” Supporters of transgenderism aren’t only disagreeing with those of us who believe reality is created by God; they’re attempting to make this the standard all other people must use. They’re trying to make their standard of unreality the standard for determining norms and ethics. Christians cannot go along with this. As a Christian, you must stand in defense of objective reality and reject the claim that reality can be subjective. 2. Be vigilant about fact-checking and spreading accurate information. In our age of social media and rapid information sharing, it’s easy to inadvertently spread misinformation. Yet as Christ’s ambassadors (2 Cor. 5:20), we have a responsibility to be truth-tellers. This means verifying information before sharing it, especially if it seems sensational or aligns too perfectly with our preexisting beliefs; being willing to admit when we’ve shared inaccurate information and correcting it; encouraging critical thinking and fact-checking within our circles of influence; and resisting the temptation to share potentially false information just because it supports our political views. 3. Never allow a categorical exemption for lies. There’s no exemption for emotional untruth. As Christians, we must engage in disagreements with patience, kindness, and gentleness (Gal. 5:22–23). We can recognize the real emotional experiences that drive the beliefs of those we disagree with. We can also admit that simply dismissing someone’s fears or concerns because they don’t align with statistics is unlikely to be persuasive and may even be perceived as callous. Yet what we cannot do is allow emotional responses to override or replace objective truth and reality. As Christ’s followers, we’re called to a higher standard—one that balances compassion with a commitment to truth. We cannot validate falsehoods simply because they stem from genuine emotions. Nor can we allow emotional appeals to be a substitute for sound reasoning and evidence in argument and belief. To never knowingly support lies is one of the most important elements of spiritual warfare. There’s no exemption for narrative untruth. Behind almost every false narrative is the claim that a group of people is engaged in a conspiracy to prevent us from knowing what’s true. In other words, the narrative untruth is proposing to be a counter to other lies. We often make excuses for why such false accusations are tolerable. Often the people who believe the false narrative are less powerful than the group they are accusing. But the ninth commandment prohibits us from bearing false witness against our neighbor, even if the “enemy” is faceless and powerful (Ex. 20:16). There’s no exemption from tribalistic untruths. The most common form of this type of untruth holds that the biblical standard of behavior is unrealistic or unworkable in the secular realm of politics. But the Bible presents no ethical loopholes or moral exemptions for believers who enter the public square to engage in politics, either in the political arena or on social media. God’s Word also doesn’t contain a clause stating that God allows lying when running for secular positions of power. The call to integrity, honesty, and ethical behavior remains steadfast, regardless of our role in society or government. We must always remember that God hates it when politicians lie, and we should too. The challenge for Christian politicians, then, isn’t to find exemptions from these standards but to exemplify them in the complex and often morally ambiguous world of politics. There’s no exemption for institutional untruth. As Christians, we must recognize the temptation to overlook or justify falsehoods for the sake of institutions we value or belong to. We can acknowledge the complex loyalties and pressures that exist within organizations, whether they’re churches, ministries, or faith-based entities. We can also understand the fear that exposing wrongdoing might harm an institution’s mission or reputation. Yet what we cannot do is prioritize institutional preservation over our commitment to truth and integrity. As followers of Christ, we’re called to a higher standard—one that values transparency and accountability over institutional self-protection. We cannot engage in cover-ups or selective reporting simply because it serves our organization’s interests. Nor can we allow institutional loyalty to become a form of idolatry that supersedes our allegiance to God and his truth. We must always remember that God values integrity over institutional reputation. Don’t Be a Traitor The consistent message throughout Scripture is that God’s ethical standards apply to all believers in all circumstances. We’re called to be salt and light (Matt. 5:13–16) in the public square, demonstrating we can engage with those who have different beliefs while maintaining an unwavering commitment to Christian ethics. Non-Christians should never be able to say Christians are liars. They should never be able to say we’re deceptive people who break oaths. This should be a basic standard for all Christians, for if we’re liars, we’re traitors. When we lie, we’re siding with Satan over Jesus. But when we choose truth over falsehood, we align ourselves with Christ and resist the father of lies. When we refuse to participate in deception, we chip away at the strongholds of untruth that plague our society. When we take up Solzhenitsyn’s challenge to “live not by lies,” our lives reflect the reality of Christ’s love and the power of his truth. In following the way of Jesus, we preserve our witness and offer hope to a world drowning in deception. For in Christ, we find not just the truth that sets us free but the strength to stand firm in that truth, come what may. As bearers of light in this post-truth age, may we always remember our ultimate allegiance isn’t to tribe, narrative, emotion, or any institution but to Truth himself. We should therefore be willing to fight the wars on lies, willing to lose (in the short term) on the side of Jesus rather than win using Satan’s tactics.

Slavery in America

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s decision to embellish, exaggerate, and otherwise puff up certain aspects of his military service have rapidly turned into a raging wildfire which the Regime Media are desperately trying to contain and extinguish, lest it also consume the presidential prospects of Vice President Kamala Harris. There was desperate firefighting across the dial, perhaps none more desperate than MSNBC’s Chris Hayes: MSNBC's Chris Hayes desperately tries to firefight for Tim Walz and his embellished service pic.twitter.com/6Mg7lmHTgf — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) August 8, 2024 MSNBC ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES 8/7/24 8:33 PM CHRIS HAYES: But there's an experience that is even rarer among the tiny fraction of Americans who enlist, a much smaller share make a career of it, serving 20 years or more with multiple, multiple deployments. Only a tiny fraction of those thought to stay in the service after being disabled on the job, and one of them is Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. An enlisted soldier in the National Guard for nearly a quarter of a century, a journey that began on a Nebraska farm as soon as he was eligible to join. TIM WALZ: My father served during the Korean War and the day after I turned 17, he took me down to an Army National Guard recruiter and I raised my hand and signed up. HAYES: That was in 1981. Ronald Reagan was president. Now Walz continued to serve for the next 24 years, under four Commanders-in-Chief. He spent most of that time as an artillery soldier, and it took a toll on his hearing. In fact, in 2002 after he'd already done 20 years he qualified for retirement. A medical board considered discharging him because of his hearing impairment. Instead he convinced them to let him complete his final enlistment, which began after 9/11. Walz achieved the highest enlisted rank in the army, Command Sergeant Major, but rather than stay in and complete the schooling for the rank, Walz retired in 2005 at the rank of Master Sergeant. In part, he says, because he wanted at that point to speak freely about political injustice, specifically, the Iraq war. The following year, he was one of more than 60 anti war veterans running for Congress, the Fighting Dems, a group that included Jim Webb, Patrick Murphy and Tammy Duckworth. One has to laugh at the prospect of Acela Media elite now pretending to care about service members generally, and about the arcane details of promotions and billeting, and E-9 command splits specifically. The fact is that they don’t, but must pretend to do so in order to defend the Regime and its new prospective deputy figurehead.  Nothing in Hayes’ four minute-plus segment addressed the specific claims made against Walz, or debunked any of what is already on the record. At most, Hayes presents an alternate version of events, without evidence: that of the brave dissident sacrificing promotion in order to fight “political injustice”, as opposed to the man who ditched his unit in order to avoid deployment to Iraq. But as more details become available Walz becomes harder to spin, and the media begin to look more ridiculous and servile. From Walz’s archived website: On Thursday, March 17 the National Guard Public Affairs Office announced a possible partial mobilization of roughly 2,000 troops from the Minnesota National Guard. First District congressional candidate Tim Walz currently holds the rank of Command Sergeant Major in the 1-125th Battalion, which is based in New Ulm and largely composed of men and women from southern Minnesota. The announcement from the National Guard PAO specified that all or a portion of Walz's battalion could be mobilized to serve in Iraq within the next two years. Walz, who teaches Global Geography at Mankato West High School, has been an active member of the National Guard since 1981. He has been previously deployed during his 23 years in the National Guard, including an eight month deployment during Operation Enduring Freedom. When asked about his possible deployment to Iraq Walz said, "I do not yet know if my artillery unit will be part of this mobilization and I am unable to comment further on specifics of the deployment." Walz knew his unit might deploy well before his decision to retire. Just to put a really fine point on it, the item, dated March 20th,2005 is titled, Walz Still Planning to Run for Congress Despite Possible Call to Duty in Iraq.  It increasingly looks like Walz chose his Congressional run over his unit. That, combined with other embellishments, such as his claims of serving in Operation Enduring Freedom, and his wearing of a Special Forces ballcap despite never serving in such a unit, becomes increasingly hard to defend. Good luck with that. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned segment as aired on MSNBC’s All In With Chris Hayes on Wednesday, August 7th, 2024: CHRIS HAYES: Every year about 2 million Americans serve in the Armed Forces either full-time or one weekend a month. They come from all walks of life. All serve in different ways. Many serve as Senator JD Vance did. After high school, he signed up for a four-year enlistment in the Marines including six months in Iraq doing public affairs. He was then honorably discharged. We should say that's a bit of a rarity among politicians. Most politicians serve as officers after college. They don't enlist after high school because serving as an officer after college means better pay, better benefits, and there is a little bit of a division between officers and the enlisted Armed Forces. But there's an experience that is even rarer among the tiny fraction of Americans who enlist, a much smaller share make a career of it, serving 20 years or more with multiple, multiple deployments. Only a tiny fraction of those thought to stay in the service after being disabled on the job, and one of them is Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. An enlisted soldier in the National Guard for nearly a quarter of a century, a journey that began on a Nebraska farm as soon as he was eligible to join. TIM WALZ: My father served during the Korean War and the day after I turned 17, he took me down to an Army National Guard recruiter and I raised my hand and signed up. HAYES: That was in 1981. Ronald Reagan was president. Now Walz continued to serve for the next 24 years, under four Commanders-in-Chief. He spent most of that time as an artillery soldier, and it took a toll on his hearing. In fact, in 2002 after he'd already done 20 years he qualified for retirement. A medical board considered discharging him because of his hearing impairment. Instead he convinced them to let him complete his final enlistment, which began after 9/11. Walz achieved the highest enlisted rank in the army, Command Sergeant Major, but rather than stay in and complete the schooling for the rank, Walz retired in 2005 at the rank of Master Sergeant. In part, he says, because he wanted at that point to speak freely about political injustice, specifically, the Iraq war. The following year, he was one of more than 60 anti war veterans running for Congress, the Fighting Dems, a group that included Jim Webb, Patrick Murphy and Tammy Duckworth. WALZ: I spent 24 years in the Army National Guard. I spent the better part of two decades as a public school teacher. I'm a small business owner. I'm a father and I'm a husband. I intend to come here to Washington to provide authentic leadership and to truly represent the people of my district and the people of the United States. HAYES: After a surprise victory in a red district, Walz became the highest-ranking enlisted veteran ever to serve in Congress and worked to help end the military's anti-gay Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. WALZ: I had students that I taught in the classroom, coached on the football field, trained in my Guard unit and they went off to Iraq to fight for this nation. They went off to Afghanistan to fight for this nation. Not once, not once in my career did the question of sexual orientation ever come up. It's time to erase this mistake for our security and for Americans, and I'll be with you every step of the way. HAYES: After Donald Trump was elected president, Walz became the ranking Democrat on the House Veteran Affairs Committee. He fought the Trump White House plan for privatizing veterans’ healthcare while using his own experiences with the VA to help other veterans get their benefits. Walz's experience in the Armed Forces is an atypical one for most Americans, particularly for politicians at the national level. There really is literally no one like him. Now Walz is running with Kamala Harris against Donald Trump and JD Vance and perhaps not that surprisingly, Republicans are trying to swift boat Walz, denigrating his service the way they did with Vietnam vet John Kerry 20 years ago, saying he stole valor and left the Army to avoid going to Iraq. It’s a playbook Republicans also used against Walz when he ran for governor of Minnesota and it failed then because they're lies. It turns out when voters hear about the quarter-century Walz spent as a citizen soldier, the time he spent since then fighting for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans to get the benefits they deserve, they don't see what Republicans do. They see a rare kind of veteran in politics who can cut through the self-serving BS, rather than adding to it.  

With their running mates now in place, the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates charge ahead with just three months to Election Day. But after all the speculation over the choice for running…

Days prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, US Secretary of War Henry Stimson recorded in his diary a recollection of a meeting in the Oval Office during which President Franklin Roosevelt…

The American public must be informed, explains the Commission on the National Defense Strategy in a new report. Despite war propaganda daily flooding Washington, the CNDS complained that people “have…

Following Israel’s assassination of Hamas’s leader, Ismail Haniyeh, the Middle East is on the brink of regional war. The killing occurred in Tehran after Haniyeh attended the inauguration of Iran’s…

In a bold move that has sent ripples through the global financial community, the United States House of Representatives has passed legislation that could pave the way for the confiscation of billions…