Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley slammed presidents at some of America’s most prestigious universities for failing to condemn calls for the genocide of Jews on their college campuses. Haley made her remarks during the fourth Republican Party presidential primary debate hosted by NewsNation in Alabama. “These leaders‚ including the president of Harvard‚ were asked whether calling for the genocide of the Jews would violate school policies against harassment and intimidation‚” said co-moderator Eliana Johnson. “All of them said it would depend on the context‚ including whether that speech veers into conduct.” “How do you think these schools and the rest of society should balance the imperative of free speech against the need to prevent radical activists from harassing and intimidating others?” Johnson asked. “It was disgusting to see what happened‚” Haley responded. “You know‚ if this had been the KKK that was doing protests on those campuses‚ every one of those college presidents would have been up in arms. This is just as bad. The idea that they would go and allow that kind of pro Hamas protest‚ or agree with the genocide of Jews‚ and try and say that they needed context on that — there is no context to that. This is what we need to do to deal with it. First of all‚ we have got to get foreign money out of our universities. You’ve got Arab money‚ you’ve got Chinese money‚ you’ve got others; we need to go to every university and say‚ you either take foreign money or you take American money‚ but the days of taking both are over.” “The second thing we need to do is we need — Biden made a mistake not including anti-Zionism in the definition of anti-Semitism‚” she continued. “If you don’t think that Israel has a right to exist‚ that is anti-Semitic‚ we will change the definition so that every government‚ every school has to acknowledge the definition for what it is.” “The third thing is‚ we really do need to ban TikTok once and for all — and let me tell you why‚” she concluded. “For every 30 minutes that someone watches TikTok‚ every day‚ they become 17% more anti-Semitic‚ more pro-Hamas based on doing that. We now know that 50% of adults 18 to 25 think that Hamas was warranted in what they did with Israel. That’s a problem. When campuses also don’t go and protect — when they have these rallies‚ and you’ve got students that are scared‚ we need to go to these universities and say‚ if you’re not going to protect these students‚ if you’re not going to acknowledge anti-Semitism‚ we’ll take your tax exempt status away. That’ll fix it and that’ll take care of it.” WATCH: Tackling antisemitism at colleges‚ Nikki Haley ripped into college presidents turning a blind eye to the hate on campus. pic.twitter.com/CYTOwObCtV — Jason Rantz on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) December 7‚ 2023

Withstanding the weight of ministry can occur through a variety pack of ways. For a moment‚ I want to share a few specific and revitalizing ways of how to "hold up" in this type of season.

I’m a pastor from the old school. Specifically‚ the old Sunday school. Back in my day‚ Sunday school lessons for children too often followed a distinct pattern: introduce a biblical character‚ discern his or her moral compass‚ and draw out practical life lessons we can emulate. Take Noah‚ for instance: a paragon of obedience‚ whose ark-building venture was an exercise in radical trust in God’s command. The moral for us: be like Noah by trusting and obeying. A shift occurred as the evangelical world embraced a Christ-centered reading of the Old Testament. It’s unclear when it began‚ but it started to be fully felt in the early 2000s when resources like The Jesus Storybook Bible transformed how we engaged with Bible stories. Who’s the Hero? Instead of seeing ourselves as the heroes of these narratives‚ we began seeing Christ as the ultimate fulfillment of every figure. We no longer saw ourselves as David slaying our Goliaths. Instead‚ we recognized that‚ as Tim Keller famously said‚ “Jesus is the true and better David whose victory becomes his people’s victory‚ though they never lifted a stone to accomplish it themselves.” Such christological reading remains a welcome corrective to the do-better moralism that frequently plagued the old approach. Yet as Mitch Chase observes‚ seeing Jesus on every page of Scripture doesn’t preclude us from learning moral and practical wisdom from these accounts. Seeing Jesus on every page of Scripture doesn’t preclude us from learning moral and practical wisdom from these accounts. The New Testament authors themselves use the Old Testament not just to point to Christ but to instruct and edify believers in their walk of faith. We see this most clearly in Hebrews 11—the “heroes of the faith” chapter—which recalls the faith and actions of biblical figures to encourage and challenge believers to live in ways that please God. Five Principles to Save This Biblical Approach This is the fundamental reason we shouldn’t discard the old approach—the Bible itself invites readers to learn from the lives of its characters. But to avoid the mistakes of the past‚ especially in how this was modeled in Sunday school curricula‚ we need to follow certain principles. 1. Present the characters as they’re portrayed in the Bible. A common problem with the old-school approach was presenting biblical characters as one-dimensional paragons of righteousness rather than as complex figures who often struggled with sin and failure. Accurate portrayal resonates more with the human condition‚ providing relatable examples that can inspire believers. The flaws of biblical characters don’t disqualify them as moral examples. Instead‚ they offer a realistic depiction of God’s grace at work in imperfect people. 2. Trust that God knew what details to share. Biblical narratives are rich with human experiences and characters who exhibit both virtue and vice. By examining the lives of these individuals‚ believers can gain insights into the nature of good and evil‚ wisdom and folly. Paul provides us with an explicit model of using Old Testament narrative for moral teaching in 1 Corinthians 10:1-5. He retells the exodus narrative and gives‚ point-by-point‚ the moral lessons we should learn from the (mis)behavior of the Israelites. And to make sure we don’t miss his point‚ he directly states in verse 6 that “these things took place as examples for us‚ that we might not desire evil as they did.” This demonstrates there was an intended pedagogical purpose behind the recording of these lives‚ and that we can learn from the flaws and sin of these “heroes” about what not to do. 3. Include a whole-Bible approach to character analysis. Biblical characters in the Old Testament are often embedded in narratives that include divine commentary and consequences for their actions‚ which provide clear moral evaluations. But sometimes we need to draw on other parts of Scripture‚ such as the wisdom literature of Proverbs‚ that more explicitly outline the outcomes of righteous and wicked behaviors. The revelation of the New Testament can also shed greater light on how we’re to understand the people in the Old Testament. By applying the basic and fundamental rule of biblical interpretation—the clear interprets the obscure—we can bring other passages to bear on the actions of biblical figures. For example‚ Proverbs warns against the seduction of the adulterous woman and the perils of lust (Prov. 5:3–20; 7:25–27). This helps us understand the failings of Samson‚ who despite his great strength failed to guard his heart and was ultimately led to ruin by Delilah. 4. Use this method to reinforce the truth that the righteous obeyed in the power of God. One of the pitfalls of the moral approach to be avoided is to act as if Noah‚ David‚ and other heroes of the faith were obedient in their own strength. But the Bible makes clear that what set them apart was they responded to God in faith. It was because “Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD” (Gen. 6:8) that he was able to obey in the face of wicknessness‚ and because God called Abram and Moses (Gen. 12:1–3; Ex. 3:1–6) that they were holy. Just like us‚ none of the Old Testament saints could be holy apart from the sovereign work of God in their hearts. They needed God’s power just like we do. 5. Use the moral example method to read the Old Testament in a more Christ-centered way. Many of the main characters in the Old Testament serve as types that show us what Christ would be and do. That’s why the formula of “Jesus is the better and greater [insert biblical figure]” is a helpful typological shortcut—their lives are signposts pointing toward the ultimate moral example found in Jesus. Yet before we attempt to “read” these biblical figures typologically‚ we need to see them as humans. They aren’t fictional characters or abstractions of human characteristics; they were real flesh-and-blood men and women. By fully understanding them as moral agents‚ we gain a better understanding of and appreciation for Jesus‚ the “better and greater” moral agent they point us to. From Paragons of Virtue to Models of Grace Consistently applying these four principles will help us avoid the temptation to employ biblical characters as paragons of virtue to be imitated uncritically. They’ll serve as guardrails to help us acknowledge that these lives‚ as recorded under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit‚ provide a framework for understanding the complexities of walking in faith and obedience to God. Before we attempt to ‘read’ these biblical figures typologically‚ we need to see them as humans. When applied thoughtfully‚ this practice helps Sunday school students—whether children or adults—to see we’re not presenting flawless models of behavior. We’re showing examples of the transformative power of God’s grace in human lives and drawing from the experiences of biblical figures who can guide contemporary believers in living out our faith with integrity and authenticity. These biblical figures serve as mirrors‚ mentors‚ and warnings‚ equipping the faithful with wisdom gleaned from the past‚ applicable to the moral and spiritual challenges of the present.

The two books under consideration in this review are symptomatic of the struggle for cultural leadership in the changing Western world. As such‚ they’re important signposts for Christians in our engagement with the world. It’s usually the symptoms of a malady that drive us to the doctor. The work of the doctor goes beyond treating the symptoms to diagnosing the disease that gives rise to the symptoms. From that diagnosis comes the doctor’s prognosis of the outcome of the disease if untreated and the prescription of medicine or surgery that could cure or arrest the disease. But if the diagnosis is wrong‚ the prognosis will also be wrong‚ and‚ worse still‚ the prescriptions may well do more damage than the disease itself. Diagnosing physical ailments requires a highly trained physician because of our physiological complexity. However‚ diagnosing social ailments is considerably more difficult. Society and culture are so complex that no amount of research and analysis can be definitive. The Enlightenment dream of decision making on the basis of scientifically demonstrable facts and a utilitarian maximization of happiness has often failed to materialize‚ especially over the long term. (Easing symptoms in the short term is quite different from curing a disease.) Moreover‚ as history painfully demonstrates‚ top-down social change usually results in collateral damage. Bottom-up social change‚ on the other hand‚ normally happens more incrementally and because of innumerable factors and causes. But even then‚ pinpointing a few major components of the resulting shift is difficult. General observations are easily dismissed as failing to consider or weigh accurately some factor that has helped to produce social change. Dual Revolutions Two related areas of massive social change occurred last century‚ and the effects of both continue to be felt today: the sexual revolution of the 1960s and the feminist revolution in the 1970s. Both movements appeared to be addressing problems in Western culture with an alternative way of life that would lead to social improvement. Both were grassroots movements that have now garnered a high degree of institutional and even governmental support. Both have now been running long enough to evaluate their success. Louise Perry’s The Case Against the Sexual Revolution and Mary Harrington’s Feminism Against Progress attempt to weigh the results of these revolutions. Given the scope of their concerns‚ the authors both speak in broad generalizations that pedants and opponents can always challenge at the level of detail. But their arguments open up valuable debates and their general theses have much to commend them. Neither book is written from outside the movement it critiques. The authors are women of the second generation of these revolutions‚ who have been raised to accept the (supposed) goods these social changes promised. Both have weighed these changes and found them wanting. In different ways‚ they argue that instead of improving the human condition‚ the changes wrought by these revolutions have further damaged it—especially for women. Instead of improving the human condition‚ the changes wrought by these revolutions have further damaged it—especially for women. Both Perry and Harrington highlight the significance of the technological developments that lie behind so much of what they’re seeking to evaluate‚ especially the advent of the contraceptive pill. The ability of women to control their fertility through the pill was‚ in their analyses‚ a significant game changer. The pill gave women the right and power to control their sexual and relational lives. It encouraged women to engage in casual sex in the same way as many men. It separated gender from biology‚ removing considerations of sex differences from social policy or lifestyle decisions. Largely‚ both books have grown out of the authors’ life experiences of motherhood. The birth of their firstborn children not only led them to reevaluate life’s purpose and the importance of biological reality but freed them from many of the lies they’d inherited from the feminist and sexual revolutions. Neither book is Christian‚ however‚ and (notwithstanding Perry’s admission that she’s deeply drawn to Christianity) neither author would claim to be Christian. Although Harrington occasionally uses theological language‚ neither book appeals to Christian understanding to make its case. They’re utilitarian evaluations of the failure of the sexual revolution and the feminist movement. Nevertheless‚ they accurately recount negative consequences of the false prescriptions that flowed out of the false diagnoses—negative consequences especially suffered by women. Part of their critiques of the lives they inherited are based on their criticisms of the shift from Enlightenment modernism to deconstructed postmodernism. Consequently‚ both authors are advocates of the modernist worldview that‚ despite having spawned postmodernism‚ now wants to call society back to the Enlightenment. This struggle between the rationality of modernism and the a-rationality‚ if not irrationality‚ of postmodernism is a familiar feature of today’s culture wars. Perry and Harrington are on the side of the struggle that supports noncensored rational debate‚ scientific methodology‚ and settled Enlightenment morality. The sad irony is that many traditional feminists‚ having spent half a century trying to get rid of any connection between gender roles and biological sex‚ are now appalled by the rise of gender self-determination and in some instances have been canceled (or worse) for insisting on the reality of sex differences. Surprising Solution Both books conclude monogamous marriage‚ which the authors acknowledge comes from Christianity‚ is far and away the best thing for women. Neither feminism nor the sexual revolution has protected and cared for women as much as monogamous marriage has. Considering the feminist and sexual revolutions’ critique‚ restructuring‚ and‚ in many cases‚ demonizing of marriage‚ these chapters on the value of marriage may come as a surprise to many readers. Neither feminism nor the sexual revolution has protected and cared for women as much as monogamous marriage has. The Bible’s teaching on the right conduct of relationships between men and women—which simultaneously reveals the goodness of our creation‚ the damage caused by sin‚ the reality of God’s judgment‚ and our desperate need for redemption—gives us a diagnosis that makes infinitely more sense than even the best analysis of the failed dreams of the 1960s and ’70s. Still‚ it’s refreshing that some non-Christians can see this‚ and books like The Case Against the Sexual Revolution and Feminism Against Progress are now documenting the great cost of false diagnosis. While these books will teach Christians little at one level‚ they’ll confirm what we already know to be true from Scripture. More than that‚ they provide empirical arguments that will assist those of us who have felt browbeaten into the silence of self-censorship to reengage in public debate. They’re useful for sharing with non-Christian friends to show them the world’s answers are manifestly failing. They’re evidence that we shouldn’t weaken our opposition to either feminism or the sexual revolution but rather teach God’s standards as the right ones for the 21st century. Failed Revolutions Christians should never have fallen for the false diagnoses of these revolutions. Our premodern diagnosis comes from the Scriptures and teaches the value of both men and women‚ who were created with the relational potential for marriage and the reproductive potential to produce godly offspring. Many Christians have tried to accommodate the Bible’s teaching to the sexual revolution in the serialized polygamy of divorce and remarriage. Others have tried to adapt the Bible to a feminist reading that pathologizes all power and patriarchy—forgetting our God is the all-powerful Father from whom all fatherhood is named. Such accommodations were never right and are now seen‚ even by non-Christian authors like Perry and Harrington‚ to be failures. The Bible’s diagnosis of our plight mustn’t be ignored or compromised. Its prognosis of the outcome of human autonomy makes perfect sense of the state of our present society. The Bible’s prescription of repentance‚ forgiveness‚ and holiness—made possible by God’s redeeming work in Jesus’s death‚ resurrection‚ ascension‚ and pouring out of his Spirit—is our only hope. We must keep living it and proclaiming it.

'Nikki‚ I don’t have a woman problem‚ you have a corruption problem'

'Being raised by liberal parents is a much larger risk factor for mental health problems'

'Anything less is obstruction'

GOP Challengers Finally Produce Fireworks As Clock Ticks To Run Down Trump

The Yankees Are Back

When you’re hunting in Avatar Frontiers of Pandora‚ you’ll need to learn how to get a clean kill. This will allow you to harvest and gather animal materials properly. Sometimes‚ if you kill a beast improperly‚ you won’t even be able to harvest from them. To avoid ruining the quality of the animal materials‚ here’s how you can achieve a clean kill. Avatar Frontiers of Pandora: How to achieve a clean kill When you first start out hunting in this open-world Avatar RPG‚ you’ll soon realize you can’t always gather materials from animals you’ve killed. You can get a clean and merciful kill in Avatar Frontiers of Pandora by using a heavy bow and aiming for animals’ weak points. A few hours into the main story‚ you’ll get the chance to learn how to properly get a clean kill‚ but before then‚ you won’t understand how. Once you unlock the main quest “Eywa’s Blessing‚” you’ll ...