Don’t let your mistakes discourage you. Instead, look for what God is teaching you through them and go in new directions. Be willing to learn from your shortcomings and your mistakes will mature you!

Recently, as my husband and I chatted with a newlywed couple, the wife remarked, “We need to hang out with your family soon as a form of birth control for us!” She was referring to our four kids, and despite the discomfort I felt at her words, I laughed. Looking back, I wish I’d said, “I hope hanging out with us would do quite the opposite—kids are such a blessing!” I missed the opportunity. While joking about kids may seem inconsequential in the moment, this sort of talk points to a larger cultural trend toward devaluing children by depicting them as burdensome and annoying. As Christians, we need to pause and reflect on how we speak about our children. Do our comments about parenting and our children’s struggles reflect Christ’s heart or the hot takes of our culture? Under the guise of seeking comic relief from parenting’s challenges, could we be sinning by how we talk about children and their sin? Consider Why You’re Laughing As a mom of four children under 4, I’m often targeted by my social media algorithms with parenting reels and ads. Most are jokes about how hard being a mom is, how annoying children are, and how much parents deserve a break. Do our comments about parenting and the struggles of our children reflect Christ’s heart or the hot takes of our culture? At first, I chuckled at the relatability of kids throwing fits and moms making witty jokes about the fatigue and challenges of parenting. We all need a good laugh sometimes. But laughing at the expense of another person can be a way of disguising slander, scoffing, and gossip. Consider Paul’s commands about our speech in Ephesians: Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. (4:29) Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. (5:4) Instead of speaking words that tear down, we’re to use words that build up. Instead of making crude jokes, we’re to offer thanksgiving. What a radical way to think about my speech at the end of a long, tiring day of parenting. Choosing words of gratitude instead of coping by complaining doesn’t come naturally, but by the Holy Spirit’s power, we can grow in this area. And it’s worth the effort. Consider Who’s Listening What might happen if we as Christians replaced our negative joking about how hard parenting is with words of gratitude for our children and the God who created them? Here are three groups who’d benefit from this shift in words and attitude. 1. Our Children Consider what our kids internalize by hearing our joking and complaints about them. Even when we think they don’t understand, children often pick up on more than we give them credit for. We’re wise to consider how our critical jokes influence what they believe about themselves and how they behave. Furthermore, our children begin to believe and act according to the things we say about them—and so do we. Jokes that seem harmless may plant seeds of discontent and ingratitude that take root in our hearts and influence how we view and interact with our kids. 2. People Who Don’t Have Children America is experiencing a substantial decline in the birth rate, down 20 percent since 2007. While there’s no definitive explanation, there’s a lot of speculation about why it has fallen so dramatically, including the growing idea that children hinder career or life goals, are a financial burden, and require too much sacrifice. It’s not hard to imagine why childless people have this perspective when parents circulate these very ideas in jokes about their kids. Look no further than social media videos of kids throwing tantrums with captions like “Paid 5K to come to Disney World for my kid to act like this,” or pictures of a baby who looks different from her mother captioned, “I gave up my body and my life just for my baby to look like my husband?!” We need to consider the way our jokes and posts can influence people who don’t have kids. The point isn’t to make parenting seem easy and perfect but to demonstrate it can be a great source of joy and blessing, well worth the effort and challenges. 3. Fellow Parents If we more often shared the joys of parenting with fellow parents rather than only commiserating about the frustrations, perhaps we’d all find more joy in it. It’s a simple concept: how we talk about things influences how we view them. The more we lean into—and remind one another of—the truth from the Lord that children are a blessing (Ps. 127:3–5), that children have value (Matt. 19:14; Ps. 139:13), and that children are a delight (Prov. 29:17), the more we can be joyful in parenting and thankful for our kids, even on days when tantrums are long and tempers are short. Consider What You Share and Say Our culture prioritizes ease and comfort, assuming difficulty and discomfort should be avoided whenever possible. But as believers, we know that just because something is hard doesn’t mean it’s necessarily bad. The hardship parents face in teaching, correcting, and disciplining is only part of the deeply fulfilling work of raising children. Just because something is hard doesn’t mean it’s necessarily bad. So let’s think carefully before we post that video of our child disobeying or text that meme complaining about motherhood. When we’re in a situation where parents are mocking their children, let’s pray for the Holy Spirit’s help to steer the conversation toward the blessings and joys our children bring. May our words be less focused on getting a laugh and more focused on giving grace to those who hear (Eph. 4:29).

In The Fall of Roe: The Rise of a New America, Elizabeth Dias and Lisa Lerer explore the unique political and legal circumstances that resulted in the Supreme Court overruling Roe v. Wade. They detail the political twists and turns leading to that decision and are surprisingly sympathetic to the motivations and work of pregnancy centers and their volunteers. Ultimately, however, the book’s authors make the same error as did Roe: they assume that Dobbs must be wrong because access to abortion is necessary for women to flourish. Dias and Lerer, both correspondents for The New York Times, begin their book in a surprising place. They define abortion not according to the revisionist trope of the day—a sterile health care procedure devoid of moral implications—but by its Latin root, abortire. Far from aseptic, abortire is pregnant with meaning. Its definition: “to disappear, to be lost, to miscarry” (preface). Abortire brings into stark relief what happens when a child is aborted—she disappears, she’s lost. She’ll never have a chance to take her first step, to dissolve into giggles, or to find joy in small things. And her mom will never have a chance to delight in her God-given uniqueness. Abortire might also describe an ideology that has lost its way. It’s a creed that sold out to the idea that a woman’s worth can be ascertained from her W-2 or the initials beside her name. The post-Dobbs world offers America a chance to do better. Roe Was Wrong There’s little debate that Roe was wrongly decided as a matter of constitutional law. Countless pro-abortion scholars have criticized the decision. For example, in 1973 (the year Roe was decided), Yale Law professor John Hart Ely said the case was “not constitutional law” at all and that it hardly gave any “sense of an obligation to try to be.” Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe referred to Roe’s reasoning as a “verbal smokescreen.” In his dissent in the case, justice Byron White described the majority decision as an “exercise in raw judicial power.” Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized Roe for interrupting the democratic process. Given that a right to abortion is found nowhere in the Constitution, why the staying power? Why did Roe endure for nearly 50 years? Dias and Lerer argue abortion was “bound up with the story of the advancement of women for the past century” (13). They noted that Roe was “hailed as the crowning achievement of liberal feminism, instantly reshaping decades of law and life to follow” and that the decision “changed how millions of women and girls imagined their lives, offering the ability to control their reproductive futures” (13). The post-Dobbs world offers America a chance to do better. They’re not the only ones to think this way. Roe’s seven male authors agreed. They worried that motherhood “forced” on women “a distressful life and future.” The plurality in Planned Parenthood v. Casey upheld Roe’s fundamental right to abortion because they viewed abortion as necessary for women to achieve social and economic equality. Even today, when contraception is widely available with consumer cost and failure rate approaching zero, the three dissenters in Dobbs argued that Roe must be preserved because abortion is necessary for women to flourish. Roe Was Based on an Impoverished View of Womanhood These views buy into the false narrative that women need abortion to obtain equality. But as 240 women scholars and professionals explained in an amicus brief filed in Dobbs, women are fully capable of being mothers and having fulfilling lives. There’s evidence that abortion forces women to become more like men. At a recent White Dudes for Harris event, the U.S. secretary of transportation, Pete Buttigieg, pushed Kamala Harris for president because “men are more free” when abortion is easily accessible. He said the quiet part out loud, acknowledging that maybe, just maybe, abortion isn’t all about a woman’s choice. Indeed, most women who have an abortion don’t do so from a position of empowerment. One survey performed by the Human Coalition showed the vast majority of women who obtained an abortion said they’d have chosen to parent if circumstances were different. In another survey, two-thirds of women were ambivalent about their abortion. Nearly a quarter said their abortion was either coerced or unwanted. In addition, an astounding 60 percent of women said they’d have preferred to give birth if they’d had greater emotional support or financial security. The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute confirms these numbers. It recently published a study showing that 73 percent of women said they chose abortion for economic reasons, at least in part. Yet another study showed that more than half of women who had an abortion said they’re unsure they made the right choice and that many suffer mental and physical consequences. A mere 4 percent said they felt more in control of their lives post-abortion. These statistics are heartbreaking because they suggest many women have an abortion because they believe they have no other option. Paternalistic Solutions Abortion makes pregnancy a woman’s problem, as Buttigieg’s comments reinforce. Ryan Anderson argues in Tearing Us Apart that having abortion as an inexpensive option allows for a culture that blames women for having children. The accessibility of abortion on demand undermines the motivation to meet the emotional and financial needs of pregnant mothers. They could have sought an abortion, after all. Take one example. The elite law firms where I once worked rushed to provide abortion to their employees when Dobbs was decided. They offered to fly women to states where abortion is legal, promising employees the freedom to end an unborn life. There was nary a word about free diapers, paid time off, or affordable childcare. The message was clear: Women attorneys are most profitable to the firm when they’re free from other responsibilities. Yet Dias and Lerer identify the fundamental issue involved in the debate over abortion. It isn’t just about access to abortion but about “what it means to be a woman in America” (preface). There’s no question the world women faced in the 1970s needed to change. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor graduated third in her class from Stanford Law School (behind chief justice William Rehnquist, her once-suitor). Her job prospects: legal secretary. The answer to this—which Dias and Lerer say became part of America’s identity—was given by seven men (many of them elderly) on the Supreme Court. Those justices viewed abortion as necessary to prevent the distressing life of motherhood. That view is as impoverished as it is paternalistic. Dobbs Is Born The political twists and turns that Dias and Lerer painstakingly detail show an unusual convergence of events. Donald Trump was an unexpected nominee and then an unexpected president. He published a list of potential Supreme Court nominees. And he used that list. He appointed three justices committed to the original meaning of the Constitution. Meanwhile, single mom turned nurse turned legislator Becky Currie sponsored and passed a Mississippi law that prohibited abortion (with exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the mother’s life) after 15 weeks. The only abortion clinic in the state challenged that law in federal court. Mississippi elected pro-life Lynn Fitch as attorney general, who then hired Scott Stewart, an experienced appellate lawyer and former clerk to justice Clarence Thomas, as her solicitor general. Fitch and her team courageously asked the Supreme Court to not only limit but overrule Roe. And then the Supreme Court actually did away with Roe. Dias and Lerer blame the downfall of Roe on a conservative conspiracy. Others might call this remarkable series of events divine intervention. Dias and Lerer suggest it was somehow wrong for pro-life advocates to urge their elected officials to nominate and confirm originalist jurists to the Supreme Court. But the political power to nominate and confirm is the only meaningful check on justices who are appointed for life. Roe wrongly constitutionalized abortion. Dobbs returned the issue to the people. That’s called democracy. Challenge for the Church Tragically, the number of abortions has increased after the Dobbs decision. According to a survey by Care Net (an organization of 1,100 pregnancy centers), 4 in 10 women who have an abortion attend church at least somewhat regularly. These women paint a disappointing picture of their church experience. Only 7 percent said they discussed their decision with anyone at church. Three-fourths said the church had “no influence” on their decision to abort. Only 41 percent of churchgoing women believed churches were prepared to help them with an unplanned pregnancy. And nearly two-thirds believed the church would react judgmentally toward a single mother. If women don’t feel supported by the church, they’ll often go to abortion facilities. If women don’t feel supported by the church, they’ll often go to abortion facilities. Christians should lament the rise in abortion after the fall of Roe. We can (rightly) blame the Biden-Harris administration for promoting easy access to high-risk abortion drugs by mail. But the Care Net survey tells us this story is incomplete. We must do more. We must tell women they matter more than their mistakes. That’s the gospel message, after all. And we must assure them the church will stand beside them as they choose life, affirm their bravery, and promise to provide the village it takes to raise their children. The good news is that the church is well positioned. Most women choose abortion because they don’t see any other way, and many of these women attend church at least monthly. Dias and Lerer end where they begin, with the conclusion that the post-Dobbs reality “will define American women . . . for years to come” (preface). One can only hope they’re right, but not in the negative way they mean. That reality should be one where every woman is valued for her inherent worth and where every woman has the support and resources she needs to choose life. The Fall of Roe is a reminder that if the church operates out of the truth of the gospel, the hope of Christ, and the joy of community, the new reality can empower women.

Don Carson teaches on the complexities of interpreting 1 Timothy 2:12, emphasizing the need for a thoughtful, context-driven approach to gender roles in the church. He looks to other passages to challenge narrow Scripture interpretations, urging believers to consider the broader biblical and linguistic context to faithfully understand God’s design and Scripture’s meaning. He teaches the following: Applying biblical interpretation principles to understand gender roles Using biblical language and meaning to avoid narrow interpretations The use of synonyms in John’s Gospel Biblical examples of the meaning of “love” Biblical metaphors and their cultural context The balance between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility

The easiest prediction to make in light of the last couple of days of Regime Media expectation setting and Harris talking point-echoing was that, after proclaiming Minnesota Governor and Democrat vice presidential nominee Tim Walz would virtually soil himself on the debate stage, they’d turn around and proclaim him the winner. This prediction was made tongue-in-cheek, but we turned out to be right.  After spending two days assuring the American public that Tim Walz would soil his britches on stage, the media will proclaim him the overwhelming winner of tonight's debate — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 2, 2024 MSNBC, the most Harris-sycophantic cable news outlet, came through. Here is MSNBC anchor and Russia Hoax disseminator Rachel Maddow doing her Regime Media best to prop Walz up: SHOCK: MSNBC's Rachel Maddow calls the debate for Tim Walz pic.twitter.com/RkKJRGmDqU — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 2, 2024 RACHEL MADDOW: The vice presidential candidates’ debate wraps up at CBS News headquarters in New York City. You see the candidates there being joined by their wives. Usha Vance and Gwen Walz. A cordial debate between these two men. I wouldn't describe them as evenly matched because they are so different. So different in style and so different on substance. Very interested to hear from the spin room, to hear from all of my colleagues here to get to all of the analysis we are going to get to. I think the big picture takeaway from this is that one of these candidates is much slicker than the other, is a much more practiced, kind of professional debate style speaker and the other candidate won. There was one bad moment for Tim Walz in this debate where he got mixed up and embarrassed in answering a question about exactly what month he had been in China in relation to the Tiananmen Square protest. But then on guns, on January 6, on Obamacare, on the economy, on blaming everything on the border, back again on healthcare, on abortion, on every issue on substance, JD Vance was very polished and very slick and Tim Walz beat him on all the substantive points. At least that was my take on it. There are multiple versions of this take flowing throughout the evening: of Vance, the slick, seasoned communicator, and Walz as the “folksy” teacher. Never mind, as Ace of Spades points out, that Walz spent 12 years in Congress and is on his second term as the governor of Minnesota. Of course, Maddow minimizes the damage Walz self-inflicted upon himself with his response to the China question. “I’m a knucklehead” doesn’t factor into Maddow’s calculus. Then there is Nicolle Wallace, who praised the moderators’ silencing of Vance as he defended himself on the CBP One app, and on the controversial CHNV parole program, which provides a paper-thin factual basis with which the media can affirm that beneficiaries are in the country legally: MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace and Rachel Maddow praise debate moderators, their cutting of Vance's mic pic.twitter.com/J8xyNbjT1J — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 2, 2024 NICOLLE WALLACE: Can I say something about the moderators? We spent a lot of time on it before the debate and they defied whatever- I mean- they did… CHRIS HAYES: They did great.  WALLACE: They did a great job. And they also used their mic muting power, and I actually think if you’re a woman, that might be the worst moment JD Vance had because he was gonna mansplain right over that mute button.  He was…and, again, I don't pretend to know how everyone will react to this. I think that a lot of women in positions of authority that should command respect just by virtue of that dynamic will see themselves and some do, the disrespect of them and talked over. I mean there was a moment like that with then-vice presidential, in the Harris/Pence debate where she said "I'm speaking". And there was this real belief that what he had to say was more important than the debate rules and the moderator.  MADDOW: And to Joy’s point: the substance of that moment was when he was lying about immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, again. And Tim Walz had called him out on it. And then he was trying to say, “no, no, no, I am not lying, let me tell you why I am calling them illegal immigrants”, even though they are not illegal immigrants. “Let me mansplain the law to you.” And the moderators at that point not only muted his mic but said, “thank you for explaining the law, it’s not what we’re asking you about.”  This silencing turned out to be the low point of the debate. The moderators simply couldn’t resist interjecting themselves into the debate- in this case, by cutting it off. More specifically, by cutting Vance off as he attempted to correct the record. Such Regime Media spin and bootlicking so quickly after the debate betrays the extent to which they believe that Vance won. If it weren’t for Regime Media, we’d have none at all.  

Iran launched around 200 missiles into Israel on Tuesday, the latest in a series of escalating attacks in a yearslong conflict between Israel and Iran. We talk to Alex Vatanka, the founding director of…

They say that when you need something to work most, it doesn’t. So when I awoke to hear that Hurricane Helene had knocked out our power and we had limited cell reception on the day I was set to interview…

As the presidential campaign enters its final full month before Election Day, speculation is rife about an October surprise. That’s the idea of a late-breaking news event, especially in the form of…

After hardly speaking to the media since becoming Democrats’ Vice Presidential nominee, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz stumbled and gaffed through his highly anticipated debate against Senator JD Vance.Vance…

Much like his running mate, Vice President Kamala Harris, Minnesota’s Democrat Gov. Tim Walz used his time on the 2024 vice presidential debate stage in New York City to lie about pro-life laws and…